Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T00:26:17.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fish-protein hydrolysate as a substitute for milk protein in calf feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. L. Dodsworth ,
J. B. Owen ,
I. M. Mackie ,
A. Ritchie  and
E. R. Ørskov
T. L. Dodsworth
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Aberdeen
J. B. Owen
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Aberdeen
I. M. Mackie
Affiliation:
Torry Research Station, Aberdeen
A. Ritchie
Affiliation:
Torry Research Station, Aberdeen
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

Two milk replacers identical in composition except for the protein source, which was either fish-protein hydrolysate (FPH) or dried skim milk, were offered either twice or four times daily to castrated British Friesian male calves in four ratios: 100 FPH 0 Milk; 67 FPH 33 Milk; 33 FPH 67 Milk and 0 FPH 100 Milk. Concentrates and hay were offered ad libitum, and the calves were weaned at 42 days of age. Feed intake and calf live weight were recorded to 100 days of age.

There were no differences in growth rate up to weaning due to frequency of feeding. Up to 67% FPH there were no differences in growth rate but calves on the 100% FPH diet showed a 40% depression in growth compared with the other three levels. Up to 100 days there was no apparent effect of treatment on live-weight gain, but only differences of 12 to 13% would be significant.

The results indicate that at least two-thirds of the milk protein could be replaced by FPH. The need for further work using dried material and FPH from other species is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , August 1977 , pp. 19 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauersfeld, P. E. and Soares, J. H. 1972. Fish solubles as a partial substitute for milk and milk by-products in liquid rations for neonatal animals. Fishery Bull. Fish Wildl. Serv. U.S. 70: 1275–1279.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E. 1972. Processing damage to protein food. J. Fd Technol. 7: 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodsworth, T. L. 1976. Development of artificial rearing systems for calves. N. Scotl. Coll. Agric. Res. Invest. Field Trials 1974–75, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar
Duthie, I. F., Owen, E., Miller, E. L., Laws, B. M. and Owers, M. J. 1976. A preparation of field bean (Viciafaba L.) cotyledons as a substitute for dried skim milk in calf feeding. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 114–115A.Google Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. L., Nicholson, J. W. G., Larmond, E. and Power, H. E. 1975. Comparison of fish protein sources and milk by-products in milk replacers for calves. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 55: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T. 1975. Fish protein concentrate and fish meal in calf milk replacers. J. Dairy Sci. 58: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKie, I. M. 1974. Proteolytic enzymes in recovery of proteins from fish waste. Process Biochem. 9(10): 12–14.Google Scholar
Rowett Research Institute. 1974. Milk replacers. Rep. Rowett Inst. 30: 63.Google Scholar
Soliman, H. S., Orskov, E. R., MacKie, I. M. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1976. Utilization of fish-protein hydrolysate by artificial rearing of lambs. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 91A–92A.Google Scholar
Toullec, R., Patureau-Mirand, P., Paruelle, J. L. and Guilhermet, R. 1972. [Utilization of protein by the preruminant fattening calf.] Aliment. Vie 61: 57–92.Google Scholar