PSXII-28 - Physiochemical and nutritional characteristics of the newly developed value-added Blended Fat Stimulated Feed Product (BFSFP) in comparison with commercial protein and energy feeds

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to determine physiochemical and nutritional characteristics of the newly developed value-added blended fat stimulated feed product (BFSFP) in comparison with commercial protein and energy feeds. The new value-added blended fat stimulated feed products with three-batch samples (BFSFP1, BFSFP2, BFSFP3) were developed. Barley grain (n=3) and canola meal samples (n=3) were obtained from Canadian Feed Research Center. Chemical composition and nutrient profiles were determined using standard feed analysis methods (eg AOAC, NRC-energy). The treatment design was a one-way structure. The experimental design was a CRD with feed treatments as a fixed effect. The data was analyzed using the Mixed model procedure of SAS. Tukey method was used for multi-treatment comparison. The results showed that compared with commercially available energy-rich and protein-rich feeds, the BFSFP had higher (P < 0.05) EE than both canola meal and barley grain (4.8 vs. 1.0, 1.6 % DM, respectively). It had lower ash content than canola meal but higher than barley grain (P < 0.05). For protein chemical profiles, the BFSFP had lower (P < 0.05) CP (31.0 vs. 41.6, 12.5%DM), SCP (4.9 vs. 9.1, 3.4%DM), and NPN (11.0 vs. 18.2, 9.2%CP) than canola meal but higher than barley grain. The BFSFP had highest NDICP (2.6 vs. 0.9, 0.4%CP) and ADICP (0.14 vs. 0.30, 0.06%DM) than both canola meal and barley grain. For carbohydrate chemical profiles, the BFSFP had higher (P < 0.05) CHO (58.1 vs. 50.4, 83.7%DM) and starch (4.5 vs. 1.3, 55.9%DM) than canola meal but lower than barley grain. The BFSFP had higher (P < 0.05) NDF (42.9 vs. 28.6, 18.9%DM) and hemicellulose (27.7 vs. 10.5, 12.9%DM) than both canola meal and barley grain. The BFSFP had had lower (P < 0.05) ADF (12.7 vs. 17.5, 5.7%DM) and ADL (3.0 vs. 8.0, 0.8%DM) than canola meal but higher barley grain. As to energy profle, the BFSFP had no significant difference in NE for lactation when compared to barley grain and canola meal (1.80 vs 1.93 vs. 1.69 Mcal/kg DM, P >0.05). The BFSFP had similar in NE for growth (1.29 Mcal/KD DM) when compared to canola meal (1.29 vs. 1.20 Mcal/kg DM, P >0.05) but lower than barley (1.29 vs 1.42 Mcal/kg DM, P< 0.05). In conclusion, the newly developed blended fat stimulated feed product differed in physiochemical and nutritional characteristics in comparison with commercially available energy-rich and protein-rich feeds.