Abstract

Currently, considerable interest is caused by the study of the effect of various feed additives on the productive performance of animals. The ban on the use of antibiotics to stimulate poultry growth in many European countries has increased the interest of researchers and practitioners in the use of probiotics. It is important to study the use of non-traditional feed in animal husbandry. Thus, waste processing of rapeseed (presscake, meal) is the most important sources of essential amino acids (lysine, methionine, tryptophan, etc.), essential fatty acids (linoleic, linolenic, arachidonic, oleic, etc.). The importance of rapeseed seeds and products of its processing has increased after the breeding of varieties with a low content of erucic acid and glucosinolates. The purpose of the research was to study the use of non-traditional feed and probiotics in the rearing of goslings to obtain full-fl edged products when they are grown up to 4 months of age. The possibility of replacing sunflower presscake with rapeseed presscake of Siberian selection and partial replacement of full-fat soy with rapeseed oil has been carried out. It has been found that the treatment of goslings after birth with probiotics “Prolam” and “Monosporin” and their use in feeding the goslings had a positive effect on their growth and development. With an increase in production costs and an increase in the cost of feed, the prime cost of 1 kg of live weight gain has decreased when processing and feeding probiotic “Prolam” by 17,9 %, “Monosporin” by 15,4 %. It has been obtained profits on 1 head more from the use of probiotics by 29,8 and 35 Rubles, respectively, in comparison with the control group. The level of profitability when using probiotics in the 1st experimental group has increased by 29,7 %, in the 2nd group by 24,7 %. The weight of the semi-eviscerated carcass was higher in the experimental groups receiving rapeseed presscake and rapeseed presscake in combination with rapeseed oil, and exceeded the weight of the carcasses of the control group by 286,13 and 388,48 g, respectively. The mass of eviscerated carcasses was also higher in the experimental groups.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.