Abstract

Abstract Ethiopia has a huge livestock population that includes sheep, which can be considered as a significant potential for the advancement of the country’s economy. However, due to a shortage of appropriate supplementary feed and its escalating price, the production and productivity of sheep fattening in Ethiopian smallholder farmers are below its potential. Moreover, the use of Dried-Atella as an affordable supplementary feed resource for a better sheep production is not investigated and well documented. The aim of this study was to assess the comparative supplementation effects of Dried-Atella and Niger seed cakes (NSCs) on total dry matter and nutrient intake, body weight change, and carcass characteristics of Washera lambs. The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design with three treatments replicated five times. The treatments are described as follows: Treatment 1 = Natural pasture hay (NPH) (800 g/d) + Wheat bran (WB) (160 g/d) + salt and water (ad libitum); Treatment 2 = NPH (800 g/d) + WB (160 g/d) + NSC (163 g/d) + salt and water (ad libitum); and Treatment 3 = NPH (800 g/d) + WB (160 g/d) + Dried-Atella (330 g/d) + salt and water (ad libitum). The finding elucidated that the crude protein (CP) content of Dried Atella, WB, NPH, and NSC were about 25.07%, 16.57%, 4.48%, and 38.04%, respectively. The result also indicated that the average mean value of the feed and CP intake of the sheep fed Dried-Atella was significantly higher than the other treatments (P-value = 0.000). With regard to the CP digestibility and dry matter digestibility, animals supplemented with Dried-Atella were significantly higher than the control group with P-value = 0.000 and P-value = 0.028, respectively. The body weight gain of the sheep is significantly higher (P-value = 0.008) for feeds supplemented with Dried-Atella than feeds without any supplement. In terms of economic profitability, a slightly better benefit was recorded in feed supplements with Dried-Atella than supplements with NSC, animal feed without any supplement exhibited loss. Considering its effect on feed intake, CP intake, and its digestibility, body weight gain, and carcass characteristics of lambs, Dried-Atella is a promising affordable supplementary feed resource for better sheep production in Ethiopia. INTRODUCTION Ethiopia has diversified agro-ecological conditions with various species of domestic and wild animals that significantly contribute to the national economy. The country is endowed with a huge livestock population including sheep. Among the total livestock production, sheep production is a major component of the livestock sector in Ethiopia (Tadesse et al., 2020). In Ethiopia, the estimated sheep population is more than 30 million (FAO, 2019). About 40% of the total livestock populations of the country are found in the Amhara region. The estimated sheep and goat population of the Amhara region is about 8.4 million, and most of the producers in the region prefer sheep fattening over goat fattening (Mekuria et al., 2018). In the Amhara region, Washera breeds are predominantly used because of their fast growth rate, including weight gain than other breeds (Getachew et al., 2017). The lower risks, short generation interval, and relatively smaller requirement of initial investment inspire most of the rural farmers as well as peri-urban and urban dwellers to get involved in the sheep fattening activities (Selamawit and Matiwos, 2015). However, feed shortage and its escalating price are limiting the sheep productivity in all parts of the country (Hizkel et al., 2008; Yenesew et al., 2013; Matawork and Mitiku, 2017). Therefore, to avoid this problem and help the sheep fattening business of the rural poor farmers, it is important to look for alternative feed supplements that can be available in the vicinity at an affordable price. Niger seed cake (NSC) is one of the oilseed cakes commonly used as a protein supplement in the diet of farm animals in Ethiopia. It is mostly cultivated in different regions of Ethiopia and India and comprises around 50% and 3% oilseed production of the countries, respectively (Bhagya and Shamanthaka, 2003). Another potential byproduct called Atella is a clear, traditional alcoholic beverage which is distilled from a fermentation product called Tella. However, since NSC is relatively becoming less accessible due to low seed yield and high price of the case, it was vital to seek alternative supplement for growing lambs in the country. Hence, the use of the relatively cheap and accessible supplement, Atella was included in the current study. Atella is the major cheap non-conventional feed supplement resource in Ethiopia in general and in the Amhara region in particular (Mekuria et al., 2018; Gizaw et al., 2017). NSC and Attela have relatively high crude protein (CP) and are supposed to provide the required nutrients for growing lambs and because of this reason we want to assess in vivo effects using local animals. Our hypothesis was that Atella and NSC have a similar supplementary effect on nutrient utilization, body weight change, and carcass characteristics of growing Washera lambs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative supplementation effects of Dried-Atella and NSCs on nutrient intake, body weight change, carcass characteristics, and socioeconomic feasibility of Washera lambs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Description of the Study Area The study was conducted on the Zenzelma Campus of Bahir Dar University farm. Zenzelma is one of the kebeles (Kebele is lower-level administrative unit in Ethiopia) in Bahir Dar Zuria Woreda, West Gojjam Zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia. According to Zenzelma kebele agricultural office (2017), the area is geographically located between 11°35ʹN and 11°40ʹN latitude 37°24ʹE and 37°29ʹ E longitude with a latitudinal range of 1917 above mean sea level. Experimental Animals and Their Management Fifteen male Washera sheep with an average age of less than 1 yr (from 9 mo to 1 yr) but greater than 6 mo and with an average initial body weight of 21.02 ± 1.42 kg was purchased from the local market of Adet town. And then, the sheep was quarantined for 21 d. During this quarantine period, each animal was treated against internal parasites by Albendazole and external parasites by Ivermectin. Animals were continuously observed for the incidence of any disease during the observational period. The animal’s management was conducted according to Bahir Dar University Research and Community service protocol, ethical review board. Treatments and Experimental Design In the treatment supplement formulation, the basal diet hay, salt, and water were offered as adlib. The supplements were given considering the requirements of a 20 kg of tropical growing sheep should receive approximately 69 g to 145 g of CP per day for maintenance (Ranjhan, 1980). Based on these, the treatment combinations were the following: The treatments were T1 = NPH(adlib) + WB (160 g); T2 = NPH (Adlib) + WB (160 g) + NSC (163 g); T3 = NPH(Adlib) + WB (160 g) + Atella (330 g). In the current experiment, a completely randomized design with five replications has been applied to set apart the different treatments for the sheep. In this experiment, three different supplements/diets were tested on three treatment groups consisting five replications per treatment for 3 mo. The basal diet and supplements were offered separately for each lamb during the experimental period, and refusals were also measured for each individual lamb in treatments. The experiment consisted 90 d of growth and 11 d of digestibility trials, including 15 d of initial feeding trial and 3 d of fecal bag adaptation periods. Data Collection Feed intake Natural pasture hay (NPH) that has been used as a basal diet was chopped into 5 to 10 cm of height to improve its palatability. The feed offered and refused was measured daily using a sensitive balance, and the difference between the daily total feed offered, and the daily feed refused by each sheep was considered as daily feed intake on DM basis. At the end of the experiment, representative samples of offered and refused basal diet as well as feces pooled samples were taken to the laboratory for the chemical analysis of each treatment. Digestibility After 90 d of adaptation and feeding trial, by using similar dietary treatments, a digestibility trial was followed by using feces collecting bag fitted to each experimental sheep. The sheep had been allowed to a 3-d adaptation period for fecal bags. Feces were collected daily for seven consecutive days from each experimental sheep and pooled over treatments. The feces were then mixed thoroughly, and 20% of daily feces output of each sheep were taken and bulked per treatment and taken to the laboratory for the chemical analysis of each fecal samples. Based on that, the apparent digestibility coefficient of DM, Organic Matter (OM), CP, Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), and Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) was determined by McDonald et al. (2010). Chemical composition analysis Representative samples of feeds offered, refused, and feces were analyzed for their dry matter and nutrient contents. The samples were dried in an oven and milled using a laboratory miller to pass through a 1-mm sieve screen and then analyzed for DM and ash content according to the procedure of AOAC (2005). Then, the two-stage method indicated by (Tilley and Terry, 1963) was followed to determine IVOMD and then metabolizable energy (ME) content was estimated using the equation: ME (MJ/kg DM) = 0.16 × IVOMD (McDonald et al., 2010). Nitrogen content was determined using Kjeldahl procedure, and CP was determined as N × 6.25. NDF, ADF, and Acid Detergent Lignin (ADL) were analyzed following the recommendation of Van Soest and Robertson (1985). Body weight change and feed conversion efficiency The body weight of the lamb was measured in 9 d of intervals after overnight fasting. Body weight gain (BWG) was determined as a difference between the final and initial body weight. The feed conversion efficiency was calculated as a proportion of daily BWG to daily feed intake. FCE = ADG in kg/dry matter intake (DMI) in kg and BWG = final body weight – initial BWG Partial Budget Analysis The partial budget analysis was employed using the procedure of Upton (1979). All costs related to feed preparation were added to the total variable cost. At the end of the experiment, experienced lamb dealers estimated the selling price of the sheep. The difference between the purchasing and selling price of the sheep in each treatment was considered as total return (TR). The net income (NI) was calculated by subtracting the total variable cost (TVC) from the TR. The change in net income (ΔNI) was calculated as the difference between the change in TR (ΔTR) and the change in total variable cost (ΔTVC). The marginal rate of return (MRR) measures the increase in net income (ΔNI) associated with each additional unit of expenditure (total variable cost) (ΔTVC). MRR (%) =ΔNI/ΔTVC × 100. Carcass evaluation To determine the carcass characteristics of experimental lambs, all the experimental lambs from each treatment were deprived of feed and water overnight and weighed before slaughter, and this weight was considered as slaughter weight (SW). According to the local people's meat consumption tradition, offals from lambs were classified as non-edible, edible offals, and main carcass components. The non-edible offal components are the head without tongue, skin, feet, penis, spleen, lung with trachea, gall bladder, esophagus, pancreas, bladder, and gut content. On the other hand, the edible offal components comprise blood, heart, liver, kidney, tongue, reticulo-rumen, omaso-abomasum, hind gut, kidney fat, pelvic fat, omental, and mesenteric fat, and testis, and the main-carcass components contain forequarters, neck region, sternum brisket, thoracic and lumbar region, rib-eye muscle, abdominal muscle, hind quarters, pelvic (rump) region, tail fat weight, and ribs. All components were weighed, recorded, and documented separately. Empty body weight (EBW), hot carcass weight (HCW), rib-eye muscle area, and dressing percentage (DP) were determined individually for each lamb. Whereas calculation of rib-eye muscle area was accomplished by tracing the cross-sectional areas of the 12th and 13th ribs after cutting perpendicular to the backbone. Fat thickness over rib-eye muscle area per each experimental sheep was measured by using a ruler, and the mean of the two sides was considered as fat thickness. The dressing percentage was calculated as proportions of HCW to SW and EBW. The selling price of the sheep was estimated by the consumers before the slaughter of the sheep, which was used to compare the profitability of sheep fattening with different feed supplements. Statistical Analysis In this study, the statistical package for social sciences version 26 was used to analyze the data collected. Before analysis, the normality test was conducted using Shapiro-Wilk test. Data on feed intake, digestibility, weight gain, and carcass parameters were analyzed by compare means and analysis of variance. Multiple comparisons (least significance difference) were used to summarize the significant difference between each treatment means. P-values ≤ 0.05 and P-values ≤ 0.001 were considered as highly significant and significant. The model employed for this experiment was: Yij = μ+ τj + εij where Yi is the response variable, µ is the population mean, τi is the treatment effect, and εij is the random error. RESULTS Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds The finding revealed that NSC had higher DM, Ash, and CP content than the rest of the treatments, while NPH had a greater NDF, ADF, and ADL content but lower CP content than the rest of the treatments (Tables 1 and 2). On the other hand, the CP content of the offered feed was higher than that of the refusal diet. Table 1. Chemical composition of NPH and supplements intakes Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . WB . NSC . Atella . DM 914 913.5 939 933.6 OM 884 954.7 859.6 886.7 Ash 117 45.3 140.4 113.3 CP 44.8 165.7 380.4 250.7 NDF 742.1 420.5 423.1 317.5 ADF 508.1 226.4 269.5 83.1 ADL 86.6 40.4 69 81.4 Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . WB . NSC . Atella . DM 914 913.5 939 933.6 OM 884 954.7 859.6 886.7 Ash 117 45.3 140.4 113.3 CP 44.8 165.7 380.4 250.7 NDF 742.1 420.5 423.1 317.5 ADF 508.1 226.4 269.5 83.1 ADL 86.6 40.4 69 81.4 Open in new tab Table 1. Chemical composition of NPH and supplements intakes Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . WB . NSC . Atella . DM 914 913.5 939 933.6 OM 884 954.7 859.6 886.7 Ash 117 45.3 140.4 113.3 CP 44.8 165.7 380.4 250.7 NDF 742.1 420.5 423.1 317.5 ADF 508.1 226.4 269.5 83.1 ADL 86.6 40.4 69 81.4 Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . WB . NSC . Atella . DM 914 913.5 939 933.6 OM 884 954.7 859.6 886.7 Ash 117 45.3 140.4 113.3 CP 44.8 165.7 380.4 250.7 NDF 742.1 420.5 423.1 317.5 ADF 508.1 226.4 269.5 83.1 ADL 86.6 40.4 69 81.4 Open in new tab Table 2. Chemical composition of NPH and supplements refusals Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . NPH . NPH . DM 915 912 919 OM 893 904 896 Ash 107 96.5 104.2 CP 39.7 39.4 37 NDF 757 737.5 767.6 ADF 502.1 511 508 ADL 91 92.4 92.1 Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . NPH . NPH . DM 915 912 919 OM 893 904 896 Ash 107 96.5 104.2 CP 39.7 39.4 37 NDF 757 737.5 767.6 ADF 502.1 511 508 ADL 91 92.4 92.1 Open in new tab Table 2. Chemical composition of NPH and supplements refusals Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . NPH . NPH . DM 915 912 919 OM 893 904 896 Ash 107 96.5 104.2 CP 39.7 39.4 37 NDF 757 737.5 767.6 ADF 502.1 511 508 ADL 91 92.4 92.1 Chemical composition (g/kg for DM and g/kg DM for others) . Parameters . NPH . NPH . NPH . DM 915 912 919 OM 893 904 896 Ash 107 96.5 104.2 CP 39.7 39.4 37 NDF 757 737.5 767.6 ADF 502.1 511 508 ADL 91 92.4 92.1 Open in new tab Feed and Nutrient Intake The result indicated that no significant difference (P-value = 0.075) was observed in basal DMI among the three treatments (Table 3). In contrast, there was a significant difference (P-value = 0.000) across the three treatments for total DMI, organic matter intake, and crude protein intake (CPI). Table 3. Feed intake of Washera lambs fed NPH as a basal diet and supplements Parameters . Treatments . . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . Basal DMI, g/d 474.51a 429.40a 456.93a 17.88 0.075 WB DMI, g/d 146.16 146.16 146.16 0.00 NSC DMI, g/d 0 153.06 0 0.00 Atella DMI, g/d 0 0 308.09 0.00 Total DMI, g/d 620.67a 728.61b 911.17c 17.88 0.000 Total DMI, %BW 2.8a 3.0ab 3.5c 0.001 0.000 TOMI, g/d 559a 650.69b 816.64c 15.81 0.000 TCPI, g/d 41.91a 90.18b 109.70c 0.71 0.000 TNDFI, g/d 369.96a 396.03ab 445.16bc 11.73 0.000 TADFI, g/d 244.72a 259.92a 259.53a 8.03 0.140 TADLI, g/d 41.96a 47.59ab 62.85c 1.37 0.000 TashI 61.66a 77.92b 94.53c 2.08 0.000 MEI, MJ/kg DM 6.61a 9.37ab 12.28c 0.71 0.000 Parameters . Treatments . . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . Basal DMI, g/d 474.51a 429.40a 456.93a 17.88 0.075 WB DMI, g/d 146.16 146.16 146.16 0.00 NSC DMI, g/d 0 153.06 0 0.00 Atella DMI, g/d 0 0 308.09 0.00 Total DMI, g/d 620.67a 728.61b 911.17c 17.88 0.000 Total DMI, %BW 2.8a 3.0ab 3.5c 0.001 0.000 TOMI, g/d 559a 650.69b 816.64c 15.81 0.000 TCPI, g/d 41.91a 90.18b 109.70c 0.71 0.000 TNDFI, g/d 369.96a 396.03ab 445.16bc 11.73 0.000 TADFI, g/d 244.72a 259.92a 259.53a 8.03 0.140 TADLI, g/d 41.96a 47.59ab 62.85c 1.37 0.000 TashI 61.66a 77.92b 94.53c 2.08 0.000 MEI, MJ/kg DM 6.61a 9.37ab 12.28c 0.71 0.000 a b c letters in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001; in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001 and P < 0.05. Estimated ME (MJ/kg DM) = 0.16*IVOMD. ADFI = Acid detergent intake; ADLI = Acid detergent intake; NDFI = Neutral detergent intake; OMI = organic matter intake; WB = Wheat bran; were T1 (Treatment number 1) = NPH(adlib) + WB (160 g); T2 (Treatment number 2) = NPH (Adlib) + WB (160 g) + NSC (163 g); T3 (Treatment number 3) = NPH(Adlib) + WB(160 g) + Atella (330 g). Open in new tab Table 3. Feed intake of Washera lambs fed NPH as a basal diet and supplements Parameters . Treatments . . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . Basal DMI, g/d 474.51a 429.40a 456.93a 17.88 0.075 WB DMI, g/d 146.16 146.16 146.16 0.00 NSC DMI, g/d 0 153.06 0 0.00 Atella DMI, g/d 0 0 308.09 0.00 Total DMI, g/d 620.67a 728.61b 911.17c 17.88 0.000 Total DMI, %BW 2.8a 3.0ab 3.5c 0.001 0.000 TOMI, g/d 559a 650.69b 816.64c 15.81 0.000 TCPI, g/d 41.91a 90.18b 109.70c 0.71 0.000 TNDFI, g/d 369.96a 396.03ab 445.16bc 11.73 0.000 TADFI, g/d 244.72a 259.92a 259.53a 8.03 0.140 TADLI, g/d 41.96a 47.59ab 62.85c 1.37 0.000 TashI 61.66a 77.92b 94.53c 2.08 0.000 MEI, MJ/kg DM 6.61a 9.37ab 12.28c 0.71 0.000 Parameters . Treatments . . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . Basal DMI, g/d 474.51a 429.40a 456.93a 17.88 0.075 WB DMI, g/d 146.16 146.16 146.16 0.00 NSC DMI, g/d 0 153.06 0 0.00 Atella DMI, g/d 0 0 308.09 0.00 Total DMI, g/d 620.67a 728.61b 911.17c 17.88 0.000 Total DMI, %BW 2.8a 3.0ab 3.5c 0.001 0.000 TOMI, g/d 559a 650.69b 816.64c 15.81 0.000 TCPI, g/d 41.91a 90.18b 109.70c 0.71 0.000 TNDFI, g/d 369.96a 396.03ab 445.16bc 11.73 0.000 TADFI, g/d 244.72a 259.92a 259.53a 8.03 0.140 TADLI, g/d 41.96a 47.59ab 62.85c 1.37 0.000 TashI 61.66a 77.92b 94.53c 2.08 0.000 MEI, MJ/kg DM 6.61a 9.37ab 12.28c 0.71 0.000 a b c letters in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001; in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001 and P < 0.05. Estimated ME (MJ/kg DM) = 0.16*IVOMD. ADFI = Acid detergent intake; ADLI = Acid detergent intake; NDFI = Neutral detergent intake; OMI = organic matter intake; WB = Wheat bran; were T1 (Treatment number 1) = NPH(adlib) + WB (160 g); T2 (Treatment number 2) = NPH (Adlib) + WB (160 g) + NSC (163 g); T3 (Treatment number 3) = NPH(Adlib) + WB(160 g) + Atella (330 g). Open in new tab Dry Matter and Nutrient Digestibility According to this investigation, a significantly higher (P-value = 0.000) crude protein digestibility coefficient (CPDC) was retrieved from Dried-Atella-supplemented groups (Table 4). On the contrary, significantly lower (P-value = 0.000) CPDC was recorded from the non-supplemented groups. Table 4. Apparent digestibility coefficient of nutrients in sheep fed NPH a basal diet and supplements intakes Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . SL . P-value . DMDC 0.6509a 0.6984a 0.7249a 0.02955 - 0.076 OMDC 0.6658a 0.7101a 0.7414a 0.02837 - 0.060 CPDC 0.6262a 0.7870b 0.8331bc 0.02737 *** 0.000 NDFDC 0.6798a 0.6373a 0.6873a 0.03096 - 0.259 ADFDC 0.6582a 0.6203a 0.6295a 0.03364 - 0.521 ADLDC 0.5121a 0.5631a 0.6281a 0.04107 * 0.046 Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . SL . P-value . DMDC 0.6509a 0.6984a 0.7249a 0.02955 - 0.076 OMDC 0.6658a 0.7101a 0.7414a 0.02837 - 0.060 CPDC 0.6262a 0.7870b 0.8331bc 0.02737 *** 0.000 NDFDC 0.6798a 0.6373a 0.6873a 0.03096 - 0.259 ADFDC 0.6582a 0.6203a 0.6295a 0.03364 - 0.521 ADLDC 0.5121a 0.5631a 0.6281a 0.04107 * 0.046 a b c letters in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001; in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. ADFDC = acid detergent fiber digestibility coefficient; CPDC = crude protein digestibility coefficient; DMDC = dry matter digestibility coefficient; NDFDC = neutral detergent fiber digestibility coefficient; OMDC = organic matter digestibility coefficient. * indicates significant difference between treatments; *** indicates a strong significant difference between the treatments; SE = Standard error, SL = significance level, Atella, T1 = NPH + 160 g WB; T2 = NPH + 160 g WB + 163 g NSC; T3 = NPH + 160 g WB + 330g Atella. Open in new tab Table 4. Apparent digestibility coefficient of nutrients in sheep fed NPH a basal diet and supplements intakes Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . SL . P-value . DMDC 0.6509a 0.6984a 0.7249a 0.02955 - 0.076 OMDC 0.6658a 0.7101a 0.7414a 0.02837 - 0.060 CPDC 0.6262a 0.7870b 0.8331bc 0.02737 *** 0.000 NDFDC 0.6798a 0.6373a 0.6873a 0.03096 - 0.259 ADFDC 0.6582a 0.6203a 0.6295a 0.03364 - 0.521 ADLDC 0.5121a 0.5631a 0.6281a 0.04107 * 0.046 Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . SL . P-value . DMDC 0.6509a 0.6984a 0.7249a 0.02955 - 0.076 OMDC 0.6658a 0.7101a 0.7414a 0.02837 - 0.060 CPDC 0.6262a 0.7870b 0.8331bc 0.02737 *** 0.000 NDFDC 0.6798a 0.6373a 0.6873a 0.03096 - 0.259 ADFDC 0.6582a 0.6203a 0.6295a 0.03364 - 0.521 ADLDC 0.5121a 0.5631a 0.6281a 0.04107 * 0.046 a b c letters in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.001; in the same row having different superscripts are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. ADFDC = acid detergent fiber digestibility coefficient; CPDC = crude protein digestibility coefficient; DMDC = dry matter digestibility coefficient; NDFDC = neutral detergent fiber digestibility coefficient; OMDC = organic matter digestibility coefficient. * indicates significant difference between treatments; *** indicates a strong significant difference between the treatments; SE = Standard error, SL = significance level, Atella, T1 = NPH + 160 g WB; T2 = NPH + 160 g WB + 163 g NSC; T3 = NPH + 160 g WB + 330g Atella. Open in new tab Body Weight Change and Feed Conversion Efficiency According to this finding, although the lambs had almost the same initial average body weight, at the end of the feeding trial, the final average body weight of T3 groups became significantly heavier than T2 (P-value = 0.025; Table 5). The feed conversion efficiency documented from T3 was also significantly higher than T1 and T2 (P-value = 0.025). Table 5. Live weight parameters and feed conversion efficiency of Washera sheep fed grass hay basal diet, NSC and Atella Body weight changes . Treatments . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Initial body weight, kg 21.02a ± 2.331 21.04a ± 1.152 21.02a ± 0.531 1.000 Final body weight, kg 22.20a ± 2.248 24.2ab ± 1.288 25.80bc ± 1.703 0.025 Body weight change, kg 1.18a 3.16b 4.78c 0.000 Average body weight gain, g/d 15.7a 42.1b 63.7c 0.000 Feed conversion efficiency, kg ADG/kg DMI 0.026a 0.061b 0.070bc 0.000 Body weight changes . Treatments . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Initial body weight, kg 21.02a ± 2.331 21.04a ± 1.152 21.02a ± 0.531 1.000 Final body weight, kg 22.20a ± 2.248 24.2ab ± 1.288 25.80bc ± 1.703 0.025 Body weight change, kg 1.18a 3.16b 4.78c 0.000 Average body weight gain, g/d 15.7a 42.1b 63.7c 0.000 Feed conversion efficiency, kg ADG/kg DMI 0.026a 0.061b 0.070bc 0.000 Open in new tab Table 5. Live weight parameters and feed conversion efficiency of Washera sheep fed grass hay basal diet, NSC and Atella Body weight changes . Treatments . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Initial body weight, kg 21.02a ± 2.331 21.04a ± 1.152 21.02a ± 0.531 1.000 Final body weight, kg 22.20a ± 2.248 24.2ab ± 1.288 25.80bc ± 1.703 0.025 Body weight change, kg 1.18a 3.16b 4.78c 0.000 Average body weight gain, g/d 15.7a 42.1b 63.7c 0.000 Feed conversion efficiency, kg ADG/kg DMI 0.026a 0.061b 0.070bc 0.000 Body weight changes . Treatments . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Initial body weight, kg 21.02a ± 2.331 21.04a ± 1.152 21.02a ± 0.531 1.000 Final body weight, kg 22.20a ± 2.248 24.2ab ± 1.288 25.80bc ± 1.703 0.025 Body weight change, kg 1.18a 3.16b 4.78c 0.000 Average body weight gain, g/d 15.7a 42.1b 63.7c 0.000 Feed conversion efficiency, kg ADG/kg DMI 0.026a 0.061b 0.070bc 0.000 Open in new tab Carcass Component According to this result, significantly higher SW (P-value = 0.039), EBW (P-value = 0.001), and HCW (P-value = 0.045) were achieved by T3 than T1 groups (Table 6). Regarding the rib-eye muscle area, no significant difference was found between T1 and T2 as well as in fat thickness across the treatments. The highest dressing percentage (% SW) was recorded for T3 compared to T1 and T3. Table 6. Live weight parameters of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal dietand, supplemented with NSC and Atella Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . SW, kg 22.37a ± 2.51 24.82ab ± 1.66 26.12bc ± 1.57 1.241 0.045 EBW, kg 16.73a ± 1.37 18.86b ± 1.41 19.84bc ± 0.91 0.791 0.043 HC, kg 8.86a ± 0.72 10.15ab ± 1.39 10.80bc ± 0.68 0.624 0.038 Dressing percentage, % SW 39.4 40.9 41.4 Dressing percentage, % EBW 53 53.8 54.4 Fat thickness, cm2 0.32a ± 0.13 0.30a ± 0.07 0.50a ± 0.32 0.13 0.520 Rib eye area, cm2 7.9a ± 0.67 8.87ba ± 1.52 10.62c ± 0.65 0.652 0.020 Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . SW, kg 22.37a ± 2.51 24.82ab ± 1.66 26.12bc ± 1.57 1.241 0.045 EBW, kg 16.73a ± 1.37 18.86b ± 1.41 19.84bc ± 0.91 0.791 0.043 HC, kg 8.86a ± 0.72 10.15ab ± 1.39 10.80bc ± 0.68 0.624 0.038 Dressing percentage, % SW 39.4 40.9 41.4 Dressing percentage, % EBW 53 53.8 54.4 Fat thickness, cm2 0.32a ± 0.13 0.30a ± 0.07 0.50a ± 0.32 0.13 0.520 Rib eye area, cm2 7.9a ± 0.67 8.87ba ± 1.52 10.62c ± 0.65 0.652 0.020 a b c letters in the same row having different superscript are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05; in the same row having different superscript are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Table 6. Live weight parameters of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal dietand, supplemented with NSC and Atella Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . SW, kg 22.37a ± 2.51 24.82ab ± 1.66 26.12bc ± 1.57 1.241 0.045 EBW, kg 16.73a ± 1.37 18.86b ± 1.41 19.84bc ± 0.91 0.791 0.043 HC, kg 8.86a ± 0.72 10.15ab ± 1.39 10.80bc ± 0.68 0.624 0.038 Dressing percentage, % SW 39.4 40.9 41.4 Dressing percentage, % EBW 53 53.8 54.4 Fat thickness, cm2 0.32a ± 0.13 0.30a ± 0.07 0.50a ± 0.32 0.13 0.520 Rib eye area, cm2 7.9a ± 0.67 8.87ba ± 1.52 10.62c ± 0.65 0.652 0.020 Parameters . Treatments . . T1 . T2 . T3 . SE . P-value . SW, kg 22.37a ± 2.51 24.82ab ± 1.66 26.12bc ± 1.57 1.241 0.045 EBW, kg 16.73a ± 1.37 18.86b ± 1.41 19.84bc ± 0.91 0.791 0.043 HC, kg 8.86a ± 0.72 10.15ab ± 1.39 10.80bc ± 0.68 0.624 0.038 Dressing percentage, % SW 39.4 40.9 41.4 Dressing percentage, % EBW 53 53.8 54.4 Fat thickness, cm2 0.32a ± 0.13 0.30a ± 0.07 0.50a ± 0.32 0.13 0.520 Rib eye area, cm2 7.9a ± 0.67 8.87ba ± 1.52 10.62c ± 0.65 0.652 0.020 a b c letters in the same row having different superscript are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05; in the same row having different superscript are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Edible Carcass Component Based on this finding, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the average mean of blood, heart, kidney, tongue, omasum abomasum, hind gut, kidney fat, omental mesenteric fat, and testicle across the three treatments (Table 7). Table 7. Edible offal components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Blood 0.873a ± 0.071 0.844a ± 0.071 0.964a ± 0.256 0.056 Heart 0.091a ± 0.014 0.101a ± 0.007 0.105a ± 0.010 0.066 Liver 0.245a ± 0.021 0.295b ± 0.011 0.308bc ± 0.024 0.044 Kidney 0.057a ± 0.006 0.063a ± 0.007 0.063a ± 0.005 0.061 Tongue 0.115a ± 0.015 0.112a ± 0.012 0.102a ± 0.019 0.053 Reticulorumen 0.535a ± 0.075 0.624b ± 0.056 0.547abc ± 0.025 0.065 Omasum abomasum 0.277a ± 0.0216 0.264a± 0.012 0.307a ± 0.074 0.058 Hind gut 0.808a ± 0.168 0.808a ± 0.053 0.951a ± 0.055 0.067 Kidney fat 0.023a ± 0.006 0.034a ± 0.019 0.026a ± 0.017 0.065 Pelvic fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.029a ± 0.013 0.053c ± 0.013 0.041 Omental mesenteric fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.041a ± 0.021 0.046a ± 0.024 0.053 Testicle 0.207a ± 0.050 0.248a± 0.064 0.258a ± 0.054 0.054 Edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Blood 0.873a ± 0.071 0.844a ± 0.071 0.964a ± 0.256 0.056 Heart 0.091a ± 0.014 0.101a ± 0.007 0.105a ± 0.010 0.066 Liver 0.245a ± 0.021 0.295b ± 0.011 0.308bc ± 0.024 0.044 Kidney 0.057a ± 0.006 0.063a ± 0.007 0.063a ± 0.005 0.061 Tongue 0.115a ± 0.015 0.112a ± 0.012 0.102a ± 0.019 0.053 Reticulorumen 0.535a ± 0.075 0.624b ± 0.056 0.547abc ± 0.025 0.065 Omasum abomasum 0.277a ± 0.0216 0.264a± 0.012 0.307a ± 0.074 0.058 Hind gut 0.808a ± 0.168 0.808a ± 0.053 0.951a ± 0.055 0.067 Kidney fat 0.023a ± 0.006 0.034a ± 0.019 0.026a ± 0.017 0.065 Pelvic fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.029a ± 0.013 0.053c ± 0.013 0.041 Omental mesenteric fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.041a ± 0.021 0.046a ± 0.024 0.053 Testicle 0.207a ± 0.050 0.248a± 0.064 0.258a ± 0.054 0.054 SD = Standard Deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Table 7. Edible offal components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Blood 0.873a ± 0.071 0.844a ± 0.071 0.964a ± 0.256 0.056 Heart 0.091a ± 0.014 0.101a ± 0.007 0.105a ± 0.010 0.066 Liver 0.245a ± 0.021 0.295b ± 0.011 0.308bc ± 0.024 0.044 Kidney 0.057a ± 0.006 0.063a ± 0.007 0.063a ± 0.005 0.061 Tongue 0.115a ± 0.015 0.112a ± 0.012 0.102a ± 0.019 0.053 Reticulorumen 0.535a ± 0.075 0.624b ± 0.056 0.547abc ± 0.025 0.065 Omasum abomasum 0.277a ± 0.0216 0.264a± 0.012 0.307a ± 0.074 0.058 Hind gut 0.808a ± 0.168 0.808a ± 0.053 0.951a ± 0.055 0.067 Kidney fat 0.023a ± 0.006 0.034a ± 0.019 0.026a ± 0.017 0.065 Pelvic fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.029a ± 0.013 0.053c ± 0.013 0.041 Omental mesenteric fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.041a ± 0.021 0.046a ± 0.024 0.053 Testicle 0.207a ± 0.050 0.248a± 0.064 0.258a ± 0.054 0.054 Edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Blood 0.873a ± 0.071 0.844a ± 0.071 0.964a ± 0.256 0.056 Heart 0.091a ± 0.014 0.101a ± 0.007 0.105a ± 0.010 0.066 Liver 0.245a ± 0.021 0.295b ± 0.011 0.308bc ± 0.024 0.044 Kidney 0.057a ± 0.006 0.063a ± 0.007 0.063a ± 0.005 0.061 Tongue 0.115a ± 0.015 0.112a ± 0.012 0.102a ± 0.019 0.053 Reticulorumen 0.535a ± 0.075 0.624b ± 0.056 0.547abc ± 0.025 0.065 Omasum abomasum 0.277a ± 0.0216 0.264a± 0.012 0.307a ± 0.074 0.058 Hind gut 0.808a ± 0.168 0.808a ± 0.053 0.951a ± 0.055 0.067 Kidney fat 0.023a ± 0.006 0.034a ± 0.019 0.026a ± 0.017 0.065 Pelvic fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.029a ± 0.013 0.053c ± 0.013 0.041 Omental mesenteric fat 0.028a ± 0.007 0.041a ± 0.021 0.046a ± 0.024 0.053 Testicle 0.207a ± 0.050 0.248a± 0.064 0.258a ± 0.054 0.054 SD = Standard Deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Non-edible Carcass Component As this finding showed, a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) was recorded for penis, lung with trachea, and feet across the three treatments (Table 8). Table 8. Non-edible offal components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Non edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Head without tongue 1.214a ± 0.152 1.208a ± 0.102 1.277a ± 0.101 0.065 Skin 2.271a ± 0.185 2.960b ± 0.089 2.880bc ± 0.120 0.024 Penis 0.059a± 0.008 0.067b ± 0.018 0.064c ± 0.004 0.022 Feet 0.575a ± 0.035 0.550b ± 0.039 0.573c ± 0.028 0.004 Lung with trachea 0.322a ± 0.032 0.316b ±  0.061 0.354c ± 0.052 0.026 Spleen 0.027a ± 0.003 0.036b ± 0.008 0.040bc ± 0.007 0.041 Gall bladder with bile 0.015a ± 0.004 0.015a ± 0.003 0.015a ± 0.004 0.067 Esophagus 0.058a ± 0.030 0.040a ± 0.013 0.041a ±  0.010 0.065 Gut content 5.640a± 1.169 5.960a ± 1.212 6.280a ± 0.954 0.063 Bladder 0.014a ± 0.003 0.023ab ± 0.007 0.035bc ± 0.025 0.030 Pancreas 0.030a ± 0.004 0.031a ± 0.004 0.033a ± 0.010 0.066 Non edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Head without tongue 1.214a ± 0.152 1.208a ± 0.102 1.277a ± 0.101 0.065 Skin 2.271a ± 0.185 2.960b ± 0.089 2.880bc ± 0.120 0.024 Penis 0.059a± 0.008 0.067b ± 0.018 0.064c ± 0.004 0.022 Feet 0.575a ± 0.035 0.550b ± 0.039 0.573c ± 0.028 0.004 Lung with trachea 0.322a ± 0.032 0.316b ±  0.061 0.354c ± 0.052 0.026 Spleen 0.027a ± 0.003 0.036b ± 0.008 0.040bc ± 0.007 0.041 Gall bladder with bile 0.015a ± 0.004 0.015a ± 0.003 0.015a ± 0.004 0.067 Esophagus 0.058a ± 0.030 0.040a ± 0.013 0.041a ±  0.010 0.065 Gut content 5.640a± 1.169 5.960a ± 1.212 6.280a ± 0.954 0.063 Bladder 0.014a ± 0.003 0.023ab ± 0.007 0.035bc ± 0.025 0.030 Pancreas 0.030a ± 0.004 0.031a ± 0.004 0.033a ± 0.010 0.066 SD = Standard deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Table 8. Non-edible offal components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Non edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Head without tongue 1.214a ± 0.152 1.208a ± 0.102 1.277a ± 0.101 0.065 Skin 2.271a ± 0.185 2.960b ± 0.089 2.880bc ± 0.120 0.024 Penis 0.059a± 0.008 0.067b ± 0.018 0.064c ± 0.004 0.022 Feet 0.575a ± 0.035 0.550b ± 0.039 0.573c ± 0.028 0.004 Lung with trachea 0.322a ± 0.032 0.316b ±  0.061 0.354c ± 0.052 0.026 Spleen 0.027a ± 0.003 0.036b ± 0.008 0.040bc ± 0.007 0.041 Gall bladder with bile 0.015a ± 0.004 0.015a ± 0.003 0.015a ± 0.004 0.067 Esophagus 0.058a ± 0.030 0.040a ± 0.013 0.041a ±  0.010 0.065 Gut content 5.640a± 1.169 5.960a ± 1.212 6.280a ± 0.954 0.063 Bladder 0.014a ± 0.003 0.023ab ± 0.007 0.035bc ± 0.025 0.030 Pancreas 0.030a ± 0.004 0.031a ± 0.004 0.033a ± 0.010 0.066 Non edible offal . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Head without tongue 1.214a ± 0.152 1.208a ± 0.102 1.277a ± 0.101 0.065 Skin 2.271a ± 0.185 2.960b ± 0.089 2.880bc ± 0.120 0.024 Penis 0.059a± 0.008 0.067b ± 0.018 0.064c ± 0.004 0.022 Feet 0.575a ± 0.035 0.550b ± 0.039 0.573c ± 0.028 0.004 Lung with trachea 0.322a ± 0.032 0.316b ±  0.061 0.354c ± 0.052 0.026 Spleen 0.027a ± 0.003 0.036b ± 0.008 0.040bc ± 0.007 0.041 Gall bladder with bile 0.015a ± 0.004 0.015a ± 0.003 0.015a ± 0.004 0.067 Esophagus 0.058a ± 0.030 0.040a ± 0.013 0.041a ±  0.010 0.065 Gut content 5.640a± 1.169 5.960a ± 1.212 6.280a ± 0.954 0.063 Bladder 0.014a ± 0.003 0.023ab ± 0.007 0.035bc ± 0.025 0.030 Pancreas 0.030a ± 0.004 0.031a ± 0.004 0.033a ± 0.010 0.066 SD = Standard deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Main Carcass Component The average mean of the neck region, sternum, thoracic and lumbar, rib-eye region, abdominal muscle, hind quarters, pelvic, fat tail, and ribs were higher for T3, while a lower average mean weight was recorded for T1 (Table 9). Table 9. Main carcass components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Main carcass component . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Forequarter 2.281a ± 0.238 2.610b ± 0.230 2.520ab ± 0.217 0.044 Neck region 0.603a ± 0.076 0.667ab ± 0.071 0.698bc ± 0.050 0.025 Sternum 0.323a ± 0.054 0.337a ± 0.071 0.454c ± 0.056 0.034 Thoracic and lumbar 0.542a ± 0.015 0.587a ± 0.060 0. 663c ± 0.051 0.038 Rib-eye region 0.523a ± 0.086 0.649ab ± 0.074 0.670bc ± 0.113 0.056 Abdominal muscle 0.360 a ± 0.076 0.418ab ± 0.054 0.448bc ± 0.041 0.009 Hind quarter 2.540a ± 0.219 2.670ab± 0.228 2.900bc ± 0.141 0.007 Pelvic 0.704a ± 0.084 0.752a ± 0.061 0.760a ± 0.061 0.015 Fat tail 0.475 a ± 0.112 0.830b ± 0.229 1.105c ± 0.192 0.044 Ribs 0.523 a ± 0.048 0. 565a ± 0.067 0.579a ± 0.060 0.063 Main carcass component . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Forequarter 2.281a ± 0.238 2.610b ± 0.230 2.520ab ± 0.217 0.044 Neck region 0.603a ± 0.076 0.667ab ± 0.071 0.698bc ± 0.050 0.025 Sternum 0.323a ± 0.054 0.337a ± 0.071 0.454c ± 0.056 0.034 Thoracic and lumbar 0.542a ± 0.015 0.587a ± 0.060 0. 663c ± 0.051 0.038 Rib-eye region 0.523a ± 0.086 0.649ab ± 0.074 0.670bc ± 0.113 0.056 Abdominal muscle 0.360 a ± 0.076 0.418ab ± 0.054 0.448bc ± 0.041 0.009 Hind quarter 2.540a ± 0.219 2.670ab± 0.228 2.900bc ± 0.141 0.007 Pelvic 0.704a ± 0.084 0.752a ± 0.061 0.760a ± 0.061 0.015 Fat tail 0.475 a ± 0.112 0.830b ± 0.229 1.105c ± 0.192 0.044 Ribs 0.523 a ± 0.048 0. 565a ± 0.067 0.579a ± 0.060 0.063 SD = Standard deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Table 9. Main carcass components of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Main carcass component . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Forequarter 2.281a ± 0.238 2.610b ± 0.230 2.520ab ± 0.217 0.044 Neck region 0.603a ± 0.076 0.667ab ± 0.071 0.698bc ± 0.050 0.025 Sternum 0.323a ± 0.054 0.337a ± 0.071 0.454c ± 0.056 0.034 Thoracic and lumbar 0.542a ± 0.015 0.587a ± 0.060 0. 663c ± 0.051 0.038 Rib-eye region 0.523a ± 0.086 0.649ab ± 0.074 0.670bc ± 0.113 0.056 Abdominal muscle 0.360 a ± 0.076 0.418ab ± 0.054 0.448bc ± 0.041 0.009 Hind quarter 2.540a ± 0.219 2.670ab± 0.228 2.900bc ± 0.141 0.007 Pelvic 0.704a ± 0.084 0.752a ± 0.061 0.760a ± 0.061 0.015 Fat tail 0.475 a ± 0.112 0.830b ± 0.229 1.105c ± 0.192 0.044 Ribs 0.523 a ± 0.048 0. 565a ± 0.067 0.579a ± 0.060 0.063 Main carcass component . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . P-value . . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . Mean ± SD . . Forequarter 2.281a ± 0.238 2.610b ± 0.230 2.520ab ± 0.217 0.044 Neck region 0.603a ± 0.076 0.667ab ± 0.071 0.698bc ± 0.050 0.025 Sternum 0.323a ± 0.054 0.337a ± 0.071 0.454c ± 0.056 0.034 Thoracic and lumbar 0.542a ± 0.015 0.587a ± 0.060 0. 663c ± 0.051 0.038 Rib-eye region 0.523a ± 0.086 0.649ab ± 0.074 0.670bc ± 0.113 0.056 Abdominal muscle 0.360 a ± 0.076 0.418ab ± 0.054 0.448bc ± 0.041 0.009 Hind quarter 2.540a ± 0.219 2.670ab± 0.228 2.900bc ± 0.141 0.007 Pelvic 0.704a ± 0.084 0.752a ± 0.061 0.760a ± 0.061 0.015 Fat tail 0.475 a ± 0.112 0.830b ± 0.229 1.105c ± 0.192 0.044 Ribs 0.523 a ± 0.048 0. 565a ± 0.067 0.579a ± 0.060 0.063 SD = Standard deviation. Means followed with different superscripts in a column are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05). * indicates significant difference between treatments; ** depicts a strong significant difference between the treatments. Open in new tab Partial Budget Analysis Table 10 illustrates the net profit obtained from this investigation. According to this finding, there was loss of money recorded in T1, while the largest net profit was obtained in T3 followed by T2. Similarly, the higher benefit-cost ratio was recorded for T3, whereas the lowered benefit cost was recorded for T1. Table 10. Partial budget analysis of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Variables . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . Number of animals 5 5 5 Benefits Gross income (selling price of the sheep) (USD) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Total benefit (A) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Costs that vary Total purchasing price of sheep (USD) (C) 57.17 57.49 58.75 Total basal diet cost (USD) (D) 6.54 5.82 6.59 Total supplement cost (USD) (E) 4.07 8.5 7.07 Total transportation cost (Sheep and Feed) (F) 5.27 5.27 3.16 Total medication cost (G) 3.16 3.16 3.16 Total labor cost(USD) (H) 10.87 10.87 10.87 Total cost (USD) (B) = (C + D + E + F + G + H) 87.08 91.11 89.6 Net benefit (A-B) -1.8 6.49 8.63 Benefit cost ratio(A/B) 0.98 1.07 1.1 Variables . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . Number of animals 5 5 5 Benefits Gross income (selling price of the sheep) (USD) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Total benefit (A) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Costs that vary Total purchasing price of sheep (USD) (C) 57.17 57.49 58.75 Total basal diet cost (USD) (D) 6.54 5.82 6.59 Total supplement cost (USD) (E) 4.07 8.5 7.07 Total transportation cost (Sheep and Feed) (F) 5.27 5.27 3.16 Total medication cost (G) 3.16 3.16 3.16 Total labor cost(USD) (H) 10.87 10.87 10.87 Total cost (USD) (B) = (C + D + E + F + G + H) 87.08 91.11 89.6 Net benefit (A-B) -1.8 6.49 8.63 Benefit cost ratio(A/B) 0.98 1.07 1.1 Open in new tab Table 10. Partial budget analysis of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC Variables . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . Number of animals 5 5 5 Benefits Gross income (selling price of the sheep) (USD) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Total benefit (A) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Costs that vary Total purchasing price of sheep (USD) (C) 57.17 57.49 58.75 Total basal diet cost (USD) (D) 6.54 5.82 6.59 Total supplement cost (USD) (E) 4.07 8.5 7.07 Total transportation cost (Sheep and Feed) (F) 5.27 5.27 3.16 Total medication cost (G) 3.16 3.16 3.16 Total labor cost(USD) (H) 10.87 10.87 10.87 Total cost (USD) (B) = (C + D + E + F + G + H) 87.08 91.11 89.6 Net benefit (A-B) -1.8 6.49 8.63 Benefit cost ratio(A/B) 0.98 1.07 1.1 Variables . Treatments . . . T1 . T2 . T3 . Number of animals 5 5 5 Benefits Gross income (selling price of the sheep) (USD) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Total benefit (A) 85.28 97.60 98.23 Costs that vary Total purchasing price of sheep (USD) (C) 57.17 57.49 58.75 Total basal diet cost (USD) (D) 6.54 5.82 6.59 Total supplement cost (USD) (E) 4.07 8.5 7.07 Total transportation cost (Sheep and Feed) (F) 5.27 5.27 3.16 Total medication cost (G) 3.16 3.16 3.16 Total labor cost(USD) (H) 10.87 10.87 10.87 Total cost (USD) (B) = (C + D + E + F + G + H) 87.08 91.11 89.6 Net benefit (A-B) -1.8 6.49 8.63 Benefit cost ratio(A/B) 0.98 1.07 1.1 Open in new tab DISCUSSION Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds The DM, OM, and CP contents of NPH offered in this study were lower than the findings of Feyissa et al. (2015 and Mekuria et al. (2018). The CP content found from this study was also lower than the CP (8%) requirement of ruminants recommended for meeting the maintenance requirement and the optimum microbial activity (6% to 8%; Tadesse et al., 2014; Matawork and Mitiku, 2017). The basal diet (NPH) CP alone in the current study did not fulfill the maintenance requirements of lambs even at the initial stage of growth of lambs, the late stage of growth, otherwise demand more CP for maintenance. Hence, it is possible to declare that the current basal diet must have been supplemented with protein sources to fulfill maintenance and growth requirements of lambs. The variation in the chemical composition of NPH might be due to the different stages of maturity at the time of harvesting, storage condition, plant species of parent crops, and moisture content of the hay. Besides this, the CP, NDF, ADF, and ADL contents of the offered feed were higher than the refused. This could be associated with the better nutritious part of the plants selected and eaten by the experimental lambs. The value of DM and OM of WB obtained from this study agrees with the finding of Mekuriaw and Asmare (2018) who performed the experiment in the same study area. The ash content recorded in this study was lower than the report of Gatenby (1986), but it was comparable with the result of Gebrehiwot et al. (2017). The CP content of WB obtained from this study was approximately similar to the findings of Tadesse et al. (2014) and Gebrehiwot et al. (2017). In contrast to the result of this study, a lower CP was obtained by Mekuriaw and Asmare (2018) and Tulu et al. (2018). The deviation in the nutrient content of WB is possibly because of processing and the quality of the original grain used in the milling industries. The CP (38.04%) content of NSC found from this research was higher than the discovery of Tadesse et al. (2014), Ayele et al. (2017), and Duguma et al. (2019). The fluctuation in the chemical composition of NSC reported by different sources could be due to the difference in the processing method used by producers to produce NSC and environmental variation where the nouge seed was produced. The DM content of Atella recorded in this study was comparable with the finding of different authors (McDonald et al., 2010; Tulu et al., 2018). Though, the ADL and ash content of the present analysis was higher than the report of (McDonald et al., 2010). In contrast, higher CP than the following authors (Van Soest and Robertson, 1985; Tulu et al., 2018) was registered in the current work. The nutrient content variation could be due to divergences in the methods and ingredients used for the preparation of Atella (a brew made locally). Feed and Nutrient Intake In this study, significantly lower total DMI was recorded in T1 groups of animals than the rest of the treatment groups. This might be due to the additional DM obtained from the supplemented feed and the higher digestibility of supplemented feed which fermented quickly and gave a space for forage intake. On the other hand, markedly enhanced total DMI was achieved in the T3 group than in the T2 group of animals. This might be associated with the discrepancy in the amount of a supplement provided and the inconsistent quantity of basal diet ingested by the animal. The CPI of the supplemented group of animals had a significantly higher CPI than the control (non-supplemented) group. The outcome of the current study matches with many previous studies, such as Tekliye et al. (2018), Duguma et al. (2019), and Znabu et al. (2019), which demonstrated that supplementation boosts the CPI of the sheep. This could be tied to the superior CP content of supplemented feeds and the total DMI of the supplemented group of animals. The supplemented group of animals had significantly greater MEI than the non-supplemented group of animals. Even so, in the comparison between the supplemented groups of animals, T3 had significantly higher MEI than T2. The maintenance and growth (50 to 200 g gain) ME requirement for 20 kg lamb is about 4.5 to 7.9 MJ/d (ARC, 1980). Hence, the predicted MEI of the sheep obtained from this study (6.61 MJ/d to 12.28 MJ/d) was within the range of the above-mentioned energy demand of the animals used for maintenance and growth. Generally, supplementation of NPH with 330 g DM of Atella resulted in a better total DMI and nutrient intake. Dry Matter and Nutrient Digestibility In this study, a higher nutrient digestibility was indicated in the supplemented group of animals than non-supplemented animals. In the same manner, Teklehaymanot (2019) and Ayenew et al. (2012) also stated enhanced nutrient digestibility among supplemented animals than non-supplemented animals. In the present study, a significant difference in CPDC between supplemented and non-supplemented treatment groups was spotted. The reason could be in ruminant nutrition, the CP from supplement diets might have improved microbial efficiency to enhance fermentative digestion as the microbes' efficiency usually improved through supplementation, as stated by McDonald et al. (2010). This finding was similar to the earlier studies of Tulu et al. (2018) and Znabu et al. (2019). Perhaps, this is associated with the increased nutrient supply, especially nitrogen to rumen microbes. On the other hand, the digestibility of nutrients in T3 was better than in T2 animals. This is probably associated with the higher CPI of T3 of animals, which leads to better CPDC. Live Weight Change and Feed Conversion Efficiency In line with the current study, the finding of Gatenby (1986), Rodriguez et al. (2014), and Teklehaymanot (2019) documented a greater final body weight and daily weight gain in the supplemented animals than the non-supplemented animals. This could be due to the essential nutrients provided to rumen microorganisms by supplementary feeds to improve the microbial activity in the rumen. The final BWG recorded in the present study was superior to the findings of different studies (Worku et al., 2015; Mekuriaw and Asmare, 2018; Mekcha et al., 2019). In contrary to this, the higher body weight gain than the current work was recorded by Shigdaf et al. (2013) and Mengistie et al. (2009), who reported 28.77 kg and 31.04 kg, respectively. In the present analysis, higher ADG (63.7 g/d) was attained as compared to the ADG (45 g/d) of Washera sheep fed grass hay and supplemented with 330 g of sun-dried Atella reported by (Abreham et al., 2019). Moreover, in this study, an increase in BWG of 0.70 kg was obtained as compared to the research of Worku et al. (2020). Carcass Component Similar to the current finding, in the previous studies of Assefa et al. (2015), Abebe and Tamir (2016), and Worku et al. (2020), an increased SW, EBW, HCW, DP, and rib eye area were reported. In this study, better SW was performed by the T3 group as compared to T2. This is possibly associated with the higher Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE) and BWG performed by supplemented animals. In the present investigation, the dressing percentage based on EBW was higher than the dressing percentage based on SW. This shows the influence of digesta (gut full) on dressing percentage. The supplemented treatment groups of this study achieved a higher rib-eye muscle area than the non-supplemented groups. Similarly, the previous study of Ayele et al. (2018), Duguma et al. (2019), and Worku et al. (2020) depicted a positive effect of supplementation on the rib-eye muscle area. However, in the current study among the supplemented group of animals, the greater rib-eye muscle area was achieved by T3 followed by the T2 animals. This variation might be associated with the higher live weight gain of the T3 group of animals. The greater fat thickness obtained from the T3 group of animals might be associated with the higher total DMI, MEI, and digestibility of nutrients. Edible Carcass Component The current study revealed that there was no significant difference in terms of weight of kidney fat and omental mesenteric fat except for pelvic fat among the three treatments. This could be associated with the MEI and energy content of the feed provided. However, the kidney fat and Omental mesenteric fat obtained from this result were higher than the finding of Mekcha et al. (2019), but according to the current finding, but smaller than reports of Tekliye et al. (2018). Non-edible Carcass Component Based on this study, the gut content was higher in the supplemented groups than non-supplemented groups. Similarly, ARC (1980) reported an increase in the gut content through supplementation. This might be involved with the higher total DMI of the supplemented group of lambs. Main Carcass Component In the present finding, the supplemented sheep had significantly higher fat tail weight than the non-supplemented groups. This might be linked with the lowered total MEI of the control group of animals. This statement agreed with the report of Tesfaye et al. (2011) and Fitwi and Tadesse (2013) who reported a higher weight of tail fat among the supplemented experimental animals. Partial Budget Analysis Considering the benefit-cost ratio of these inquiries, a higher benefit-cost ratio was recorded from T3 followed by T2. This means that for every 1 USD investment for the fattening of Washera sheep fed grass hay as a basal diet supplemented with Atella and NSC, there was a gain of about 1.1 USD (T3) and 1.07 USD (T2), respectively. This implies the net benefits of T3 are 30% higher than the net benefits of T2. To conclude, supplementation of NPH with 330 g DM of Atella resulted in a better net profit than supplementation of NPH with 163 g DM of NSC. Hence, supplementation of NPH with 330 g DM of Atella was found to be potentially more practicable and economically more feasible for smallholder farmers engaged in sheep fattening. Conclusion Supplementation of NPH with 330 g DM of Atella resulted in a better total DMI, nutrient intake, and a higher net profit than supplementation of NPH with 163 g DM of NSC. Hence, supplementation of NPH with 330 g DM of Atella was found to be potentially more practicable, affordable, and economically more feasible for smallholder farmers engaged in sheep fattening. However, further work is required to look into the effect of supplementation of NPH with NSC and NPH with Atella on fatty acid profile analysis, the physicochemical composition of meat, and meat composition. In addition to this, a higher digestibility of ADL was recorded in T3 than T2. Hence, the authors suggest that further study would be important to investigate the reason behind the higher digestibility of ADL, which might be associated with the breed or the capability of anaerobic fungi. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first author acknowledges the following persons. Her words fail short to express the contributions, genuine support, and encouragement that she obtained from Mrs. Ingrid Coninx, Dr. Judith Klostermann, Dr. Adebabay Kebede, Ms. Lutte Thys, and Mrs. Dieuwertje Lont. They are unforgettable and supportive people for her. She would also like to extend her gratitude to her ideal family; Dr. Shiferaw W/Tsadik, Mrs. Tiruwork Tadele, Ar. Million Shiferaw, Dr. Markos Chekol, and Mr. Hailegebreal Tamrat for their loving, kind gesture, care, and encouragement. They are a very wonderful treasure and a unique loving family. She owes a special gratitude to Dr. Remko Vonk, Dr. Amlaz Gizew, Dr. Tewodros Tefera, and other REALISE project members for their support during this thesis work. She is really indebted to Mr. Moges Asmare, Mrs. Mantegebosh Abebe, Mr. Marye Sinishaw, and Mrs. Getaneh Takele, who helped her in the management of experimental sheep. The author would also like to acknowledge BENEFIT-REALISE projector for funding this research. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS All authors contributed in research conceptualization, experimental design, data collection and analysis, and final draft manuscript writing. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the publication of this paper. ETHICS APPROVAL Not applicable. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Not applicable CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION All authors agreed on the publication of this paper and assigned corresponding author responsible in charge for correspondence during manuscript publishing. DATA AVAILABILITY Data is available with the corresponding author upon request. CODE AVAILABILITY Not applicable. LITERATURE CITED Abreham , H. , G. Animut, A. Hailemichael, D. Tedla, and F. Baragabr. 2019 . Effect of commercial and non-conventional feeds, leaves of indigenous and improved multipurpose tree supplementation on feed intake, digestibility and growth performance of sheep. Open Agric. J . 13 ( 1 ): 207 – 214 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat AOAC . 2005 . Official methods of analysis . 18th ed. Arlington (VA) : Association of Official Analytical Chemists . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Agricultural Research Council (ARC) . 1980 . The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock . Farnham Royal (UK) : Common Wealth Agricultural Bureaux ; p. 351 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Assefa , F. , M. Urge, and G. Animut. 2015 . Weight gain and carcass characteristics of Adilo sheep fed urea treated wheat straw supplemented with enset (EnseteVentricosum), Atella and their mixtures. J. Biol., Agric. Healthcare . 5 ( 11 ): 186 – 195 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ayele , S. , M. Urge, G. Animut, and M. Yusuf. 2017 . Feed intake, digestibility, growth performance and blood profiles of three Ethiopian fat tail hair sheep fed hay supplemented with two levels of concentrate supplement . Open J. Anim. Sci . 7 : 149 – 167 . doi:10.4236/ojas.2017.72013 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ayele , S. , M. Urge, G. Animut, and M. Yusuf. 2018 . Comparative slaughter performance and carcass quality of three fat tailed hair sheep supplemented two level of concentrate . Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 51 : 187 – 198 . doi:10.1007/s11250-018-1675-7 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Ayenew , A. , T. Berhan, and M. Solomon. 2012 . Feed intake, digestibility and live weight change of lambs fed finger millet (Eleusinecoracana) straw supplemented with Atella, Noug seed (Guizotiaabyssinica) cake and their mixtures. Agric. Trop. Subtrop . 45 ( 3 ): 105 – 111 . doi:10.2478/v10295-012-0018-3 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Bhagya , S. , and S. Shamanthaka. 2003 . The Reference in Scientific Document Supply 2003, 36, 703. Cited by Matiwes, S. and Bhagwan, S. 2015. Nutrient composition of NSC (GuizotiaAbyssinica (l. f.) cass.) cultivated in different parts of Ethiopia. Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop . 29 ( 3 ): 341 – 355 . doi:10.4314/bcse.v29i3.2 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Duguma , C. , M. Urge, and U. Galmessa. 2019 . Effect of replacement of concentrate with Lablab purpureus hay on feed intake, digestibility, live weight gain and carcass characteristics of Horro sheep fed natural pasture hay as basal diet. Glob. Sci. J . 7 ( 11 ): 597 – 614 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2019 . The future of livestock in Ethiopia. Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty . Rome: FAO . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Feyissa , F. , G. Kitaw, and G. Assefa. 2015 . Nutritional qualities of agro-industrial by-products and local supplementary feeds for dairy cattle feeding. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci . 26 ( 1 ): 13 – 26 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Fitwi , M. , and G. Tadesse. 2013 . Effect of sesame cake supplementation on feed intake, bodyweight gain, feed conversion efficiency and carcass parameters in the ration of sheep fed on wheat bran and teff (Eragrostisteff) straw. Momona Ethiop. J. Sci . 5 ( 1 ): 89 – 106 . doi:10.4314/mejs.v5i1.85333 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gatenby , R. 1986 . Sheep production in the tropics and sub-tropics . London and New York : Longman . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Gebrehiwot , G. , T. Negesse, and A. Abebe. 2017 . Effect of feeding Leucaenaleucocephala leaves and Pods on feed intake, digestibility, body weight change and carcass characteristic of Central-Highland sheep fed basal diet Wheat Bran and Natural Pasture Hay in Tigray, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech . 10 ( 3 ): 367 – 376 . doi:10.5958/2230-732X.2017.00045.6 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Getachew , M. , T. Firew, and M. Yeshambel. 2017 . Sheep fattening practices in Fogera District, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare . 7 ( 15 ): 24 – 50 . ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online). Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Gizaw , S. , A. Ebro, Y. Tesfaye, Z. Mekuriaw, Y. Mekasha, D. Hoekstra, B. Gebremedhin, and A. Tegegne. 2017 . Feed resources in the highlands of Ethiopia: A value chain assessment and intervention options . LIVES Working Paper 27. Nairobi, Kenya : International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hizkel , K. , M. Yoseph, and T. Yosef. 2008 . A study on sheep farming practices in relation to future production strategies in Bensa district of Southern Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod . 50 : 865 – 874 . doi:10.1007/s11250-017-1509-z Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Matawork , M. , and G. Mitiku. 2017 . Sheep production system, marketing and constraints in Ethiopia. J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare . 7 ( 19 ): 34 – 42 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat McDonald , P. , R. Edwards, J. Greanhalgh, C. Morgan, L. Sinclair, and R. Wilkinson. 2010 . Animal nutrition , 7th ed. London : Prentice Hall ; p. 1 – 665 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Mekcha , E. , B. Alemu, and S. Ayele. 2019 . Effect of Atella, Brint and their mixture supplementation on feed intake, digestibility and body weight change of Washera Sheep fed oat (Avena sativa) straw basal diet, in Machackel District East GojjamZone. J. Agric. Econ. Rural Develop . 5 ( 1 ): 55 – 562 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Mekuria , S. , A. Teshager, and A. Endeshaw. 2018 . Small ruminant fattening practices in Amhara region, Ethiopia . Agric. Food Secur. 7 : 1 – 9 . doi:10.1186/s400 66-018-0218-9 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Mekuriaw , Y. , and B. Asmare. 2018 . Nutrient intake, digestibility and growth performance of Washera lambs fed natural pasture hay supplemented with graded levels of Ficusthonningii(Chibha) leaves as replacement for concentrate mixture. Agric. Food Secur. 7 ( 32 ): 1 – 8 . doi:10.1186/s40066-018-0184-2 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Mengistie , T. , A. Girma, G. Solomon, L. Sisay, M. Abebe, and T. Markos. 2009 . Growth performance of Washera. J. Trop. Anim. Health Prod . 42 ( 4 ): 659 – 667 . doi:10.1007/s11250-009-9473-x Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ranjhan , S. K. , 1980 . Animal nutrition and feeding practice in india . Vikas Publishing House , New Delhi , 350 p. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rodriguez , A. , E. González, and P. Randel. 2014 . Performance and meat carcass characteristics of locally slaughtered sheep and goats raised by grazing native tropical grasses with or without supplementation. J. Agric. Univ. P. R . 98 ( 2 ): 129 – 146 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Selamawit , D. , and H. Matiwos. 2015 . Sheep and goat production practice in agroforestry systems of Gedio zone, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ . 4 ( 2 ): 296 – 307 . doi:10.3126/ije.v4i2.12658 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Shigdaf , M. , T. Mengistie, M. Zeleke, M. Getinet, M. Hailu, and H. Aynalem. 2013 . Evaluation of reproductive performances and survival rate of Washera sheep under farm and station management systems in Amhara region, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ . 2 ( 7 ): 206 – 215 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tadesse , A. , G. Gebeyehu, and T. Berhan. 2020 . Body weight gain and carcass yield characteristics of Wollo highland sheep and their F1 crossbreeds [Online First] . Intech Open . 1 – 20. doi:10.5772/intechopen.92340 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tadesse , E. , T. Negesse, and G. Abebe. 2014 . Supplemental feeding options for fattening sheep on-farmin southern Ethiopia. Agric. Sci. Res. J . 4 ( 11 ): 193 – 200 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Teklehaymanot , A. 2019 . Feed intake, digestibility and growth performance of Begait sheep fed hay basal diet and supplemented with Tsara (Pterocarpuslucens), Pigeon pea (Cajanuscajan) leaves and concentrate mixture. Int. J. Livest. Prod . 10 ( 9 ): 204 – 212 . doi:10.5897/IJLP2018.0563 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tekliye , L. , Y. Mekuriaw, B. Asmare, and F. Mehret. 2018 . Nutrient intake, digestibility, growth performance and carcass characteristics of Farta sheep fed urea-treated rice straw supplemented with graded levels of dried Sesbaniasesban leaves. Agric. Food Secur. 7 ( 77 ): 1 – 10 . doi:10.1186/s40066-018-0226-9 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tesfaye , G. , G. Solomon, L. Sisay, and T. Mengistie. 2011 . Breeding practices, growth, and carcass potential of fat-tailed Washera sheep breed in Ethiopia. J. Trop. Anim. Health Prod . 43 ( 7 ): 1443 – 1448 . doi:10.1007/s1125 0-011-9874-5 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Tilley , J. , and R. Terry. 1963 . A two stage method for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc . 18 : 104 – 111 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Tulu , A. , Y. Khushi, and D. Challi. 2018 . Supplementary value of two Lablab purpureus cultivars and concentrate mixture to natural grass hay basal diet based on feed intake, digestibility, growth performance and net return of Horrosheep. Int. J. Livest. Prod . 9 ( 6 ): 140 – 150 . doi:10.5897/IJLP2017.0444 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Upton , M. 1979 . Farm management in Africa: the principle of production and planning. Oxford : Oxford University Press ; p. 282 – 298 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Van Soest , P. , and J. Robertson. 1985 . Analysis of forages and fibrous foods a laboratory manual for animal science . Ithaca (NY) : Cornell University . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Worku , A. , G. Animut, M. Urge, and K. Gebeyew. 2015 . Effect of different levels of dried Sugar Cane tops inclusion on the performance of Washera sheep fed basal diet of Grass Hay, Ethiopia . J. Adv. Dairy Res. 3 : 133 . doi:10.4172/2329-888X.1000133 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Worku , A. , M. Urge, G. Animut, and G. Asefa. 2020 . Comparative slaughter performance and meat quality of Rutana, Gumuz and Washera sheep of Ethiopia supplemented with different levels of concentrate. Open J. Anim. Sci . 10 : 48 – 63 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Yenesew , A. , T. Firew, and T. Azage. 2013 . Assessment of sheep production system in Burie District, North Western Ethiopia. Glob. J. Agric. Res . 1 ( 2 ): 29 – 47 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Zenzelmakebele Agricultural Office . 2017 . Zenzelmakebele location data. Zenzelma Kebele . Znabu , H. , T. Negesse, A. Sisay, and M. Ftiwi. 2019 . Effect of supplementing graded levels of wet brewery grain by-product to natural pasture hay and wheat bran based diet on the performance of Tigray highland sheep, Northern Ethiopia. J Dairy Vet. Anim. Res . 8 ( 5 ): 205 – 214 . doi:10.15406/jdvar.2019.08.00268 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com