The advantages of using new feed resources for ruminant production in Myanmar

Locally available new feed resources were identified and evaluated in the laboratory. Protein content (g/kg DM) of the feeds was between 79 and 312. These feeds were evaluated in on-farm and field trials using nine indigenous female calves (Pya-Zein), aged between 12 and 15 months. The three diets given as a percentage of body weight (BW) were GHRSC (groundnut hay 2%, concentrate 1% and rice straw ad libitum), LBRSC (Lebbek 0.5%, concentrate 1% and rice straw ad libitum) and RSC (concentrate 1.5% and rice straw ad libitum). The highest daily live-weight gain (11.4 ± 0.49% of body weight, BW) and lowest live-weight gain (3.8 ± 0.41% of BW) were observed in the GHRSC and LBRSC groups respectively. In the second trial, eight Friesian cross-bred cows were divided into two groups by age, parity, body condition score, stage of lactation and milk yield. Group I was fed ad libitum with sugar cane tops (SCT) and group II received ad libitum rice straw (RS). Concentrates were allocated according to milk yield. Dry matter intakes of groups I and II were similar. A slight decline in milk yield was observed in group II. In the third trial, 12 dairy cows (Friesian cross-breds) were divided into two groups and offered either a diet expressed as a % of BW containing 2% of pea hay, 1% of concentrate and rice straw ad libitum (PRSC) or 1% concentrate and rice straw ad libitum (RSC). Daily milk yields for PRSC and RSC were 9.9 ± 4.63 and 9.5 ± 1.88 L/head/d respectively. The cost : benefit ratio of PRSC and RSC were 1 : 2.85 and 1 : 1.98 respectively. Eighteen calves of 5 to 10 months were randomly divided into three groups of six and received one of the three diets. Dry matter intake (as a percentage of BW) of treatment A (Leucaena 0.5% + concentrate 0.5% and rice straw ad libitum), B (Leucaena 0.25% + concentrate 0.75% and rice straw ad libitum) and C (Concentrate 1% + rice straw ad libitum) were 2.0, 2 and 1.9 kg/d/calf respectively. Metabolic feed intakes for treatments A, B and C were 1.97, 1.96 and 1.95 kg/head/d respectively. Body weight changes were higher in treatment A and B than treatment C; 32 ± 3.35, 21.84 ± 5.86 and 18.5 ± 5.2 kg, (P >0.05) respectively. Daily live-weight gains for treatments A, B and C were 0.53, 0.36 and 0.31 kg/d respectively and the feed conversion ratios (FCR, kg DM/kg gain) were 4.6, 6.8 and 7.9 respectively. Cost : benefit ratios for three treatments were 1 : 12.1, 1 : 6.0 and 1 : 3.8 (author)