Next Article in Journal
Bayesian Meta-Analysis: Impacts of Eating Habits and Habitats on Omega-3 Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Composition and Growth in Cultured Fish
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of High-Tannin and -Polyphenol Plant Material Supplement on Rumen Fermentation, Nitrogen Partitioning and Nutrient Utilization in Beef Cattle
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Movements between Freshwater and Saltwater by Brown Trout (Salmo trutta L.) Based on Otolith Microchemistry
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Zilpaterol Hydrochloride with a Combination of Vitamin D3 on Feedlot Lambs: Growth Performance, Dietary Energetics, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/ani14142117
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy and Protein Requirements of Growing Lambs in Colombian Highlands

by
Yesid Avellaneda
1,
Edgar Mancipe
1,
Juan Vargas
2 and
Diego Manriquez
2,*
1
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA), C.I. Tibaitatá, Km 14 Vía Mosquera, Mosquera 250047, Cundinamarca, Colombia
2
AgNext, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(14), 2117; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142117
Submission received: 5 June 2024 / Revised: 12 July 2024 / Accepted: 18 July 2024 / Published: 20 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Nutrition, Management and Health of Feedlot Cattle and Lambs)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Determination of nutrient requirements in sheep is essential to generate appropriate recommendations for dietary formulation, promoting sustainable systems. However, there is limited information regarding the energy and protein requirements of growing lambs in the Colombian highlands. Twenty-two growing lambs were enrolled in this experiment. Four lambs were slaughtered at the beginning of the experiment to determine the lambs’ energy and protein baseline concentration. The remaining lambs received different amounts of feed and were slaughtered to determine the energy and protein accumulation during the evaluation period. The maintenance energy was 82.3 kcal/kg BW0.75, while maintenance and gain energy efficiencies were 0.72 and 0.29, respectively. In addition, the crude protein requirement for maintenance was 1.78 g/kg BW0.75, and the nitrogen efficiency for maintenance and gain protein was 0.41 and 0.27, respectively. The maintenance requirement of energy was greater, while protein was similar to values reported in the literature; however, the efficiency of energy and protein use was lower in growing lambs. These results suggested that estimating energy and nitrogen requirements for growing lambs must be adjusted in Colombian highland conditions.

Abstract

Determining the nutritional requirements of lambs is necessary to formulate balanced rations and contribute to sustainable sheep production systems. However, limited information is available regarding the nutritional requirements of growing lambs in the Colombian highlands. Twenty-two Romney Marsh males were used. Initially, four lambs were slaughtered at 20 kg body weight (BW). The remaining 18 lambs were distributed into two groups, according to BW (light: 20 BW and heavy: 30 kg BW). Lambs were randomly allocated into one of three different nutritional schemes, according to voluntary intake (no restriction, and 25 and 50% restriction). All the animals received a totally mixed ration. When a voluntary-fed lamb gained 10 kg BW, the two other lambs restricted to 25 and 50% were slaughtered and dissected into components to determine protein and gross energy concentration. Energy and protein accumulation were analyzed through regression analysis. The net energy for maintenance was 82.3 kcal/kg BW0.75, while the energy efficiencies for maintenance and gain were 0.72 and 0.29, respectively. Crude protein for maintenance was 1.78 g/kg BW0.75, and the nitrogen efficiencies for maintenance and gain were 0.41 and 0.27, respectively. The maintenance requirement of energy was greater, while protein was similarly related to values reported in the literature; however, the efficiency of energy and protein use was lower in growing lambs. These results suggested that estimating energy and nitrogen requirements for growing lambs must be adjusted in Colombian highland conditions.

1. Introduction

In Colombia, sheep production has increased due to the intensification of ovine systems, but productivity and profitability are aspects that require further improvement. There are around 1,449,705 sheep distributed mainly in the regions of La Guajira (45.3%), Boyacá (12.8%), Cesar (12.7%), and Magdalena (9.1%) [1]. In the Colombian highlands (i.e., above 2600 m above sea level), sheep production systems employ wool-type animals that produce both meat and wool under grazing conditions. However, these systems employ traditional practices with low-intensity levels and profitability [2]. Feeding is a critical component in the production costs of the production systems [3]. In this regard, efficient feed management is a strategy to increase animal performance and business profitability, decrease environmental impact, and improve food security [4,5]. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the nutritional balance of sheep’s diets to ensure the sustainability of sheep production systems and improve the quality of life of sheep farmers in the Colombian highlands.
The Agricultural and Food Research Council [6], the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization [7], and the National Research Council [8] are well-recognized committees that define nutritional models for domestic animals, such as ovine. These models allow for the estimation of the dry matter intake and nutritional requirements of sheep. In addition, these models recognize that nutrient requirements and efficiencies vary according to the physiological state, sex, and breed of the ovine and the management and environmental conditions [7]. In this regard, the definition of the nutrient requirements of growing lambs requires the determination of the chemical composition of deposited tissues under local management and environmental conditions [9]. However, no published data regarding the nutritional requirements for lambs in the Colombian highlands exist. The lack of local information could affect the estimation of nutrient requirements and the diet formulation, resulting in poor animal performance and low economic efficiencies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to define the energy and protein requirements of growing lambs adapted to the Colombian highland regions. The experimental hypothesis was that the requirements and efficiencies of energy and protein of adapted-growing sheep in the highland regions of Colombia are different from previous studies due to the variation in the genetic potential of adapted breeds.

2. Materials and Methods

The Bioethics Committee of the Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research (Agrosavia) approved the animal management and procedures employed in this experiment (045-2022).

2.1. Experimental Site and Treatments

The experiment was conducted in the Nutritional and Feeding Unit at the Tibaitatá Research Center (Agrosavia), located in the municipality of Mosquera, Colombia, at 2516 m above sea level. The mean temperature was 16 °C, and the relative humidity was 75%.
A total of 22 Romney Marsh growing intact male lambs were purchased from a local sheep production system. The 20 kg lambs were recently weaned, while the 30 kg lambs were weaned approximately 2 months early. Heavy lambs were grazing Kikuyu grass (Cenchrus clandestinus) and supplemented with a commercial concentrate (Italovinos, Italcol, Colombia). Previous to the experiment, all lambs were dewormed (Fenbendazol, Vecol, Colombia). Four lambs with 20 ± 0.5 kg of body weight (BW) were initially slaughtered to establish the reference concentration of protein and energy in the different tissues. The remaining lambs were distributed by BW into two different groups. Nine lambs with 20 ± 0.7 kg of BW were in the light group, while nine lambs with 30 ± 1.3 kg of BW were in the heavy group. Three lambs from each group were randomly allocated to one of the three different nutritional schemes according to voluntary intake: no restriction, 25% restriction, and 50% restriction. Lambs were allocated in individual concrete pens (approximately 3 m2) that were bedded with rice husk and had an automatic drinking source and container feeder.

2.2. Feeding Treatments and Animal Management

The diet was formulated to supply the maintenance requirement and 240 g/d of BW gain for a 25 kg lamb in the no-restriction feed intake treatment (half the initial weight of the two groups) [8]. The chemical composition of ingredients was evaluated at the Chemical Analytical Laboratory of Agrosavia. The Angleton grass (Dichanthium aristatum) hay was chopped (less than 2 cm) and mixed with other ingredients to obtain a total mixed ration (Table 1). The digestible energy of each feed resource was estimated as the product of the in vitro digestibility and 4.4 kcal/g [10]. Metabolizable energy was estimated as the digestible energy of each resource multiplied by either 0.81 for forages (corn silage and Angleton grass) or 0.85 for concentrate feed resources (Table 1; [7]). Intake of ME was calculated as the product between the ME value of the ration and the average dry matter consumption recorded during the evaluation period, which was scaled to the average metabolic body weight of each animal during the study.
The feed offer and the refusal of each feeder were measured daily to calculate the feed intake of the animals in the voluntary intake group, with which information the offer for the next day to the other individuals was restricted at 25 and 50%. The diet was supplied daily at 8:00 h. Once a voluntary-fed lamb achieved 10 kg of BW gain (i.e., light group: 30 kg of BW or heavy group: 40 kg of BW), the two other lambs restricted to 25 and 50% in the group were slaughtered. Before they were slaughtered, lambs did not receive food or drinking water for 18 h. Then, lambs were weighed on a digital scale (CPW-Plus 75, Adam brand, UK) to determine the final BW.
The lambs were slaughtered following the protocols of Title 7 of the Health Code for Terrestrial Animals of the World Organization for Animal Health [11]. The procedure consisted of stunning the lambs with a captive bolt pistol, causing a concussion. Subsequently, they were killed by exsanguination. The blood was weighed, and a sample was subsequently taken for conservation and analysis. The gastrointestinal tract was washed to remove the nutritional contents and weighed after the washing water was drained. The skin with wool was removed and subsequently, from different representative areas of the body, the wool was separated from the skin. Each animal was dissected into the following components: head and hooves, wool and skin, white viscera (rumen, reticulum, omasum, abomasum, and intestines), red viscera (heart, kidneys, trachea and lungs, vessel, liver and gallbladder, and spleen and pancreas), reproductive organs, mesenteric fat, and carcass. Each component was weighted, and representative samples were collected for grinding with a meat grinder (4 mm; P-22, Braher, Spain). Then, two subsamples of each component were homogenized and lyophilized for further analysis. The samples were sent to the Agrosavia analytical chemistry laboratory, where they were lyophilized and subsequently processed to determine fat, protein, ash, and gross energy in accordance with the AOAC procedures [12].

2.3. Energy and Protein Partition

The energy and protein partitions were estimated using the equations reported in the literature (Table 2; [9,13]). Heat production was calculated as the difference between the metabolizable energy intake and the retained energy, adjusted by the metabolic weight of each animal.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Energy and protein partitions were analyzed through regression analysis using the REG procedure of SAS 9.4 [14]. Each animal was considered an experimental unit. Homoscedasticity, independence, and normality of the residuals were evaluated for each analysis by plotting residuals against predicted values.

3. Results

The results of the productive performance of the lambs according to initial BW and feeding schemes are presented in Table 3. As expected, the animals that were not restricted achieved a greater daily weight gain and final weight, but those that experienced the greatest restriction presented a better gain/feed intake ratio. Furthermore, feed efficiency was greater in animals in the lighter group.
Predictions of the EBW and EADG were described as the following equations: EBW = 0.080 (0.900) + 0.795 (0.027) × BW, R2: 0.594, and EADG = −3.59 (2.01) + 0.826 (0.014) × ADG, R2: 0.644. In addition, there was a linear relationship between the metabolized energy intake (MEi, kcal/kg EBW0.75) and the natural logarithm of the heat production (NLHP, Figure 1), and it was described as NLHP = 0.004 (0.0002) × MEi + 4.41 (0.061), (R2 = 0.92). In the analysis of homogeneity of slopes, it was found that the interaction between weight group and metabolizable energy consumption was not significant (p = 0.52), which confirms a single equation for all animals.
The estimation of the net energy for maintenance (NEm) was 82.3 kcal/kg BW0.75 or 97.6 kcal/kg EBW0.75. Also, the retained energy (RE) and the MEi showed a linear relationship (Figure 2), which was described as the following equation: RE = 0.29 (0.043) × MEi—33.73 (10.470), (R2 = 0.82). Like heat production, the slopes for energy retention were homogeneous (p = 0.50) for the heavy and light BW groups.
The metabolizable energy requirement for maintenance was 116.3 kcal/kg BW0.75 or 138.3 kcal/kg EBW0.75. Thus, the partial energy efficiency for maintenance (kEm) was 71.7%. The energy efficiency of gain (kEg) was 29.4%. The solution to the requirement of net energy for gain (kcal/kg BW0.75/d) was RENg = 10−0.73 (0.56) × EADG1.0976 (0.94) (R2 = 0.46) In this regard, the energy requirements to gain 100, 200, or 300 g/d of ADG were calculated as 181, 398, and 626 kcal/d for lambs of 20 kg, and 245, 538, and 847 kcal/d for lambs of 30 kg, respectively.
The retained nitrogen (RN) and the nitrogen intake (Ni) showed a linear relationship (Figure 3), which was statistically similar between the heavy and light BW groups. This relationship was described in the following equation: RN = 0.331 (0.033) × Ni—285.9 (65.4), (R2 = 0.85). In this case, the nitrogen requirement for maintenance (Nm) was 285.9 mg/kg BW0.75 or 1.78 g CP/kg BW0.75, and the nitrogen retention efficiency was 33.1%.
The retained nitrogen and metabolizable nitrogen intake (MNi) showed a linear relationship (Figure 4) described in the following equation: RN = 0.461 (0.039) × MNi—321.9 (65.4), (R2 = 0.83). In this regard, the metabolizable nitrogen for maintenance was 698.2 mg/kg BW0.75, while the nitrogen maintenance efficiency was 40.9%. Lastly, the relationship between the RN, EBWG, and RE was described with the following equation: RN (mg N/kg BW0.75) = 144.5 (70.4) + 1.323 (0.358) × EADG + 1.259 (0.654) RE, R2 = 0.68. Therefore, the nitrogen requirements for a 20 kg lamb with 100, 200, or 300 g/d of ADG were 2623, 3975, and 5,44, and for a 30 kg lamb were 3555, 5388, and 7244 mg N/d, respectively.

4. Discussion

The response to energy and nitrogen use was statistically similar between the two bodyweight categories evaluated in this study, indicating that in the evaluated weight range (i.e., 20 to 40 kg), the requirements are similar per unit of metabolic weight. On the other hand, the net energy for maintenance accounts for the energy to support basal metabolism and heat production to maintain vital metabolic functions [15,16]. In this experiment, the net energy for maintenance was 82.3 kcal/kgBW0.75, which is higher than values that have been reported for crossbred sheep (54.5 kcal/kg BW0.75 [17]), Mora nova breed (52.4 kcal/kg BW0.75 [18]), meat-type lambs (52.4 kcal/kg BW0.75 [19]), and the NRC model (56 kcal/kgBW0.75 [8]). Also, it is higher than other studies that report maintenance values of 66 kcal/kgBW0.75 [7] and 68.5 kcal/kgBW0.75 [20]. Although there are no studies evaluating the energy requirements of growing lambs in the Colombian highlands, the high energy requirement could be associated with the altitude and cold conditions where this experiment was conducted. Although sheep have developed different mechanisms to adapt to different altitudes [21], it is recognized that this environmental factor affects animal performance [22]. In this regard, exposure to hypoxic conditions and low temperatures results in lower reproductive performance and weight gain in lambs [23,24,25]. In addition, the metabolizable energy for maintenance was 116.3 kcal/kgBW0.75, which is higher than the values reported for Baluchi lambs (81.7 kcal/ kg BW0.75 [26]) and crossbred lambs (82.3 kcal/kg BW0.75 [27]), but similar to British breed lambs (109.9 kcal/kg BW0.75 [28]). In this experiment, the partial energy efficiency for maintenance was 0.72, greater than 0.67 [17,27] or 0.64 [8] but similar to 0.70 [6,29].
The energy requirement for gain is associated with the physiological condition of the lambs. For example, the energy requirements for non-castrated and castrated male and female lambs with 20 kg of BW and 100 g of daily body gain were 191, 198, and 276 kcal/kg BW0.75, respectively [9]. Females have more energy requirements due to a higher fat deposition [30]. In the current study, the estimated requirement for a male lamb with 20 kg of body weight and 100 g of daily weight gain was 181 kcal/kg BW0.75, similar to the 191 kcal/kg BW0.75 [9] but higher than the 122 kcal/kg BW0.75 [8]. The gain efficiency in this study was 0.29, and it was superior to 0.21 [18]. However, several studies report that the efficiency for energy gain varies between 0.36 and 0.58 [6,17,28,31,32], higher than the value observed in the current study. Variations in energy efficiency could be explained due to differences in the energetic concentration of the diet, nutrient digestion and absorption, and composition of the body gain [33]. In addition, further work should consider the mature BW to correct the estimation of the energy requirements for gain.
In the current work, the net protein requirement was 286 mg/kgBW0.75, similar to the 277, 293, and 303 mg/kgBW0.75 reported in Brazilian ovine systems [18,34,35]. Galvani et al. [31] reported that the net protein requirement was 287 g/kg BW0.75, and it was not affected by the dietary characteristics. The metabolizable nitrogen efficiency for maintenance was 0.41, lower than 0.67 [8] and 1 [6] but similar to 0.41 [35]. Nevertheless, Galvani et al. [31] reported that nitrogen efficiency varies between 0.45 and 0.56, and it is affected by the quality of the diet. Also, the nitrogen efficiency for weight gain in this work was 0.27, similar to 0.28 [21], but lower than 0.59 [6], 0.7 [7,8], or 0.75 [22]. Methodological aspects may explain differences in nitrogen efficiency. In this regard, restricted animal diets may limit animal growth potential due to energetic limitations [36] associated with changes in rumen microbial populations, fermentation products, and the microstructure of the gastrointestinal tract [37,38]. The maximum efficiency has been suggested to be achieved when the protein is the first limiting nutrient, and not the energy [7]. For this reason, it is necessary to incorporate the evaluation of different diet compositions, rumen fermentation dynamics, and protein fractions to improve the nutrient efficiency evaluation.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, net energy for maintenance (82.3 kcal/kg BW0.75) was higher than previous reports and may be associated with the altitude conditions of this study, while energy efficiency for maintenance (0.72) and nitrogen requirement (285.9 mg/kg BW0.75) were similar to the previous results reported in the literature. However, the energy efficiency for gain (0.29) and the protein efficiencies for maintenance and weight gain (0.41 and 0.27, respectively) were lower than the recommendations in the literature. These results suggest that the energetic models may predict the energy efficiency and the nitrogen requirements for maintenance, but the current models may not explain the energy requirements for maintenance and the efficiency of nitrogen for maintenance and gain. Thus, further research is needed to properly determine the energy and nitrogen requirements of other physiological conditions (e.g., pregnancy or lactation) in sheep in the Colombian highlands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M., J.V. and Y.A.; methodology and investigation, E.M, and Y.A.; data curation, E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.V.; writing—review and editing, E.M., J.V., Y.A. and D.M.; project administration and funding acquisition Y.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Colombia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research (045-2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that are presented in this paper are available on request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research staff for their technical support in carrying out this study.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Yesid Avellaneda and Edgar Mancipe were employed by the company AGROSAVIA, Bogotá, Colombia. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). En Línea. 2018. Available online: https://www.ica.gov.co/areas/pecuaria/servicios/epidemiologia-veterinaria/censos-2016/censo-2018 (accessed on 24 May 2024).
  2. Moreno, D.C.; Grajales, H.A. Caracterización de los sistemas de producción ovinos de trópico alto en Colombia: Manejo e indicadores productivos y reproductivos. Rev. Med. Vet. Zoot. 2017, 64, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bosa, R.; Faturi, C.; Rodrigues-Vascocelos, H.G.; Moraes-Cardoso, A.; Oliveira-Ramos, A.F. Intake and apparent digestibility with different inclusion levels of coconut meal for sheep feeding. Acta Sci. 2012, 34, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Garg, M.R.; Sherasia, P.L.; Bhanderi, B.M.; Phondba, B.T.; Shelke, S.K.; Makkar, H.P.S. Effects of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 179, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Makkar, H.P.S. Smart livestock feeding strategies for harvesting triple gain—The desires outcomes in planet, people and profit dimensions: A developing country perspective. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 519–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC). Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  7. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Nutrient Requirements of Domesticated Ruminants. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  8. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pereira, E.S.; Pereira, M.W.F.; Marcondes, M.I.; de Medeiros, A.N.; de Oliveira, R.L.; da Silva, L.P.; Mizubuti, I.Y.; Campos, A.C.N.; Heinzen, E.L.; Veras, A.S.C.; et al. Maintenance and growth requirements in male and female hair lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 159, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Weiss, W.P. Energy prediction equations for ruminant feeds. In Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, Rochester, NY, USA, October 19–21 1999; Cornell Nutrition Conference Committee. Volume 61, pp. 176–185. [Google Scholar]
  11. OIE. Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres, 19th ed.; Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal: Paris, France, 2010; 497p. [Google Scholar]
  12. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, A.C.; Yáñez, E.A.; de Medeiros, A.N.; de Resende, K.T.; Pereira Filho, J.M.; Fernandes, M.H.M.R.; Almeida, A.K.; Teixeira, I.A.M.A. Protein and energy requirements of castrated male Saanen goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 123, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. SAS Institute 9.4. SAS Users Guide; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 8th ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  16. Emmans, G.C. Effective energy: A concept of energy utilization across species. Br. J. Nutr. 1994, 71, 801–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nie, H.T.; Wan, Y.J.; You, J.H.; Wang, Z.Y.; Lan, S.; Fan, Y.X.; Wang, F. Effect of age on energy requirement for maintenance and growth of Dorper and Hu crossbred F1 ewes weighing 20 to 50 kg. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 1140–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Costa, M.R.G.F.; Pereira, E.S.; Silva, A.M.A.; Paulino, P.V.R.; Mizubuti, I.Y.; Pimentel, P.G.; Pinto, A.P.; Rocha Junior, J.N. Body composition and net energy and protein requirements of Morada Nova lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2013, 114, 206–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Galvani, D.; Pires, C.; Kozloski, G.; Wommer, T. Energy requirements of Texel crossbred lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 3480–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, J.; Ma, X.; Jin, Y.; Su, R.; Liu, W.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, J. Energy requirements for the maintenance and growth of Dorper-Jinzhong crossbred ram lambs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 15, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pereira, E.S.; Lima, F.W.R.; Marcondes, M.I.; Rodrigues, J.P.P.; Campos, A.C.N.; Silva, L.P.; Bezerra, L.R.; Pereira, M.W.F.; Oliveira, R.L. Energy and protein requirements of Santa Ines lambs, a breed of hair sheep. Animal 2017, 11, 2165–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Deng, K.D.; Ma, T.; Jiang, C.G.; Tu, Y.; Zhang, N.F.; Liu, J.; Zhao, Y.G.; Xu, G.S.; Diao, Q.Y. Metabolizable protein requirements of Dorper crossbred ram lambs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 223, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, P.; Li, S.; He, Z.; Zhao, F.; Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Li, M.; Hu, J.; Zhao, Z.; Luo, Y. Physiology and Proteomic Basis of Lung Adaptation to High-Altitude Hypoxia in Tibetan Sheep. Animals 2022, 12, 2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Friedrich, J.; Wiener, P. Selection signatures for high-altitude adaptation in ruminants. Anim. Genet. 2020, 51, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Parraguez, V.H.; Urquieta, B.; Pérez, L.; Castellaro, G.; De los Reyes, M.; Torres-Rovira, L.; Aguado-Martínez, L.; Astiz, S.; González-Bulnes, A. Fertility in a high-altitude environment is compromised by luteal dysfunction: The relative roles of hypoxia and oxidative stress. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2013, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kamalzadeh, A.; Shabani, A. Maintenance and growth requirements for energy and nitrogen of Baluchi sheep. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2007, 9, 535–539. [Google Scholar]
  27. Xu, G.S.; Maa, T.; Ji, S.K.; Deng, K.D.; Tu, Y.; Jiang, C.G.; Diao, Q.Y. Energy requirements for maintenance and growth of early-weaned Dorper crossbred male lambs. Livest. Sci. 2015, 177, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dawson, L.E.R.; Steen, R.W.J. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements of beef cattle and sheep. J. Agric. Sci. 1998, 131, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ríos-Rincón, F.G.; Estrada-Angulo, A.; Plascencia, A.; López-Soto, M.A.; Castro-Pérez, B.I.; Portillo-Loera, J.J.; Robles-Estrada, J.C.; Calderón-Cortes, J.F.; Dávila-Ramos, H. Influence of protein and energy level in finishing diets for feedlot hair lambs: Growth performance, dietary energetics and carcass characteristics. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marcondes, M.I.; Paulino, P.V.R.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Gionbelli, M.P.; Silva, L.F.C.; Tedeschi, L.O. Predição da composição corporal e da carcaça de animais Nelore puros e cruzados. In Exigências Nutricionais de Zebuínos Puros e Cruzados, 2nd ed.; Valadares Filho, S.C., Marcondes, M.I., Chizzotti, M.L., Paulino, P.V.R., Eds.; Suprema Gráfica LTDA: Viçosa, Brazil, 2010; pp. 85–111. [Google Scholar]
  31. Galvani, D.B.; Pires, A.V.; Susin, I.; Gouvêa, V.N.; Berndt, A.; Abdalla, A.L.; Tedeschi, L.O. Net protein requirements and metabolizable protein use for growing ram lambs fed diets differing in concentrate level and roughage source. Small Rumin. Res. 2018, 165, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Oliveira, A.P.; Pereira, E.S.; Biffani, S.; Medeiros, A.N.; Silva, A.M.A.; Oliveira, R.L.; Marcondes, M.I. Meta-analysis of the energy and protein requirements of hair sheep raised in the tropical region of Brazil. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 102, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tedeschi, L.O.; Cannas, A.; Fox, D.G. A nutrition mathematical model to account for dietary supply and requirements of energy and other nutrients for domesticated small ruminants: The development and evaluation of the Small Ruminant Nutrition System. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 89, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Regadas Filho, J.G.L.; Pereira, E.S.; Pimentel, P.G.; Villarroel, A.B.S.; Medeiros, A.N.; Fontenele, R.M. Body composition and net energy requirements for Santa Ines lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 109, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ma, T.; Deng, K.; Tu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Si, B.; Xu, G.; Diao, Q. Net protein and metabolizable protein requirements for maintenance and growth of early-weaned Dorper crossbred male lambs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, D.; Yuan, C.; Guo, T.; Liu, J.; Lu, Z. Effects of Different Dietary Energy Levels on Development, Quality of Carcass and Meat, and Fatty Acid Profile in Male Lambs. Animals 2023, 13, 2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sha, Y.; Ren, Y.; Zhao, S.; He, Y.; Guo, X.; Pu, X.; Li, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Li, S. Response of Ruminal Microbiota–Host Gene Interaction to High-Altitude Environments in Tibetan Sheep. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 12430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cui, K.; Qi, M.; Wang, S.; Diao, Q.; Zhang, N. Dietary energy and protein levels influenced the growth performance, ruminal morphology and fermentation and microbial diversity of lambs. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 14 02117 g001
Figure 1. Relationship between metabolizable energy intake (MEi) and the natural logarithm of heat production (LnHP) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Figure 1. Relationship between metabolizable energy intake (MEi) and the natural logarithm of heat production (LnHP) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Animals 14 02117 g001
Animals 14 02117 g002
Figure 2. Relationships of metabolizable energy intake (MEi) and retained energy (RE) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Figure 2. Relationships of metabolizable energy intake (MEi) and retained energy (RE) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Animals 14 02117 g002
Animals 14 02117 g003
Figure 3. Relationships of the retained nitrogen (RN) and nitrogen intake (Ni) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Figure 3. Relationships of the retained nitrogen (RN) and nitrogen intake (Ni) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Animals 14 02117 g003
Animals 14 02117 g004
Figure 4. Relationships of the retained nitrogen (RN) and metabolizable nitrogen intake (MNi) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Figure 4. Relationships of the retained nitrogen (RN) and metabolizable nitrogen intake (MNi) of growing lambs. Light (●) and heavy (▴) growing lambs. Linear regressions for light (· · · ·) and heavy (- - -) groups.
Animals 14 02117 g004
Table 1. Inclusion, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), and chemical composition of the totally mixed ration fed to growing lambs.
Table 1. Inclusion, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), and chemical composition of the totally mixed ration fed to growing lambs.
Inclusion% of DM BasisIVDMD, %
Corn silage73.364.9
Angleton grass hay9.854.2
Soybean meal8.794.3
Wheat middlings4.784.8
Soybean (extruded)2.192.8
Fish meal0.977.6
Limestone0.1-
Salt0.3-
Calculated composition 1On DM basis
ME, Mcal/kg2.4
NEm, Mcal/kg1.4
NEg, Mcal/kg0.8
CP, %17.4
RDP, %11.3
MP, %10.9
NDFe, %27.9
TDN, %72.8
Ca, %0.54
P, %0.47
Determined compositionOn DM basis
GE, Mcal/kg4.5
CP, %15.2
NDF, %38.4
Ca, %0.49
P, %0.45
1 ME: metabolizable energy; NEm: net energy for maintenance; NEg: net energy for gain; CP: crude protein; RDP: rumen degradable protein; MP: metabolizable protein; NDFe: effective neutral detergent fiber; TDN: total digestible nutrients; GE: gross energy; NDF: neutral detergent fiber.
Table 2. Defined equations for determining energy and protein partitions of growing lambs.
Table 2. Defined equations for determining energy and protein partitions of growing lambs.
VariableEquation 1Notes
Empty body weight (EBW, kg) a + b × Body weight (BW, kg)
Empty average diary gain (EADG, g/d)a + b × Average daily gain (ADG, g/d)
Ln (heat production (kcal/kg BW0.75/d))a + b × Metabolizable energy intake (MEi, kcal/kg BW0.75)The intercept of the antilogarithm regression was used to estimate the requirement of the net energy for maintenance (NEm)
Retained energy (RE, kcal/kg BW0.75)a + b × Metabolized energy intake (MEi; kcal/kg BW0.75)The metabolizable energy for maintenance (MEm) was calculated as the regression solution without energy retention. The energetic efficiency for maintenance (kEm) was calculated using the NEm/MEm ratio. Finally, the regression slope was considered the energy efficiency of gain (kEg).
Requirement of net energy for gain (NEg, kcal/kg BW0.75/d)10a × EADGb (kg)
Retained nitrogen for weight gain (mg/kg BW0.75)a + b × Nitrogen intake (mg/kg BW0.75) The intercept corresponds to endogenous and metabolic nitrogen losses (Nm). The slope was considered the efficiency of using protein above maintenance (kNg)
Retained nitrogen for maintenance (mg/kg BW0.75) a + b × Nitrogen for metabolizable protein (mg/kg BW0.75) The metabolizable protein for maintenance (MNm) was calculated as the regression solution without protein retention. The Nm/ MNm ratio was the maintenance efficiency (kNm)
Requirement of nitrogen for gain (mg/kg BW0.75) a + b × EBWG + c × RE
1. a,b,c: Regression coefficients.
Table 3. Growth performance of growing lambs under different levels of feed restriction.
Table 3. Growth performance of growing lambs under different levels of feed restriction.
ItemFeed Restriction, %Live Weigh Class, kg
0255020–3030–40
Lambs66699
Live weight, kg
 Initial24.624.324.019.329.3
 Final39.235.933.731.840.7
Weight gain, kg/d0.160.140.120.150.13
DM intake, kg1.381.020.710.951.12
Gain to feed ratio, kg/kg0.120.120.170.160.12
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Avellaneda, Y.; Mancipe, E.; Vargas, J.; Manriquez, D. Energy and Protein Requirements of Growing Lambs in Colombian Highlands. Animals 2024, 14, 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142117

AMA Style

Avellaneda Y, Mancipe E, Vargas J, Manriquez D. Energy and Protein Requirements of Growing Lambs in Colombian Highlands. Animals. 2024; 14(14):2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Avellaneda, Yesid, Edgar Mancipe, Juan Vargas, and Diego Manriquez. 2024. "Energy and Protein Requirements of Growing Lambs in Colombian Highlands" Animals 14, no. 14: 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142117

APA Style

Avellaneda, Y., Mancipe, E., Vargas, J., & Manriquez, D. (2024). Energy and Protein Requirements of Growing Lambs in Colombian Highlands. Animals, 14(14), 2117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14142117

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop