Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-qjfxt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-15T06:39:55.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Voluntary feed intake, apparent digestibilities and nutritive values in ponies given ad libitum access to complete pelleted diets made from wheat straw and unmolassed sugar beet pulp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

J. J. Hyslop*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Dept Vet Clinical Studies, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
Get access

Extract

Although overall intake figures were high, critical levels (~400 g/kg DM) of unmolassed sugar beet pulp (USBP) inclusion suppressed dry matter intake (DMI) in ponies by up to 35% when included in complete pelleted diets made with dried grass (Hyslop, 2002). Dulphy et al (1997) have concluded that horses consume straw-based forages at lower levels than grass or legume-based forages. Given this observation with straw based diets, the objective of this study was to examine DMI, in vivo apparent digestibilities and nutritive values in ponies offered pelleted complete diets made from ground wheat straw and containing USBP at inclusion levels between 400 – 800 g/kg DM.

Information

Type
Feed Characterisation
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2003

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Hyslop, J. J. 2002. Voluntary feed intake, apparent digestibilities and nutritive values in ponies given ad libitum access to complete pelleted diets containing different levels of unmolassed sugar beet pulp. Proceedings BSAS Winter Meeting, BSAS, PO Box 3, Penicuick, Midlothian EH26 0RZ, UK. p32.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Martin-Rossett, W., Dubroeucq, H. and Jailler, M. 1997. Evaluations of voluntary intake of forage trough-fed to light horses. Comparison with sheep. Factors of variation and prediction. Livest. Prod. Sci., 52: 97104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar