Livestock Research for Rural Development 12 (4) 2000

Citation of this paper


Feeding of alfalfa hay with molasses blocks or crumbles to growing rabbit
fryers   

S S Linga and S D Lukefahr

Department of Animal Science & Wildlife Sciences, Texas A&M University
Kingsville, TX 78363, USA
 
s-lukefahr@tamuk.edu

 

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate alfalfa hay in combination with energy supplements (blocks, crumbles, or mash, based on sugar cane molasses) as feed for growing rabbits.  In experiment one, 36 New Zealand White (NZW) straightbred rabbits (age from 37 to 39 d) were involved.  Kits were randomly assigned to each of four diet treatments involving three pens as replicates containing three rabbits.  Diets were control (commercial pelleted diet) or chopped alfalfa hay with or without an energy supplement (blocks or crumbles based on molasses).  Control animals were 296 g heavier than experimental (alfalfa hay diets) rabbits at the end of the 28-d study (P<0.01).  There was no difference in average daily gain (ADG) between groups fed molasses blocks and crumbles (P>0.05). The ADG was 4.3 g more rapid for energy-supplemented rabbits compared to those fed alfalfa alone (P<0.05). 

In the second experiment, 24 Altex and 24 NZW straightbred rabbits (age from 39 to 40 d) were involved.  Kits were assigned to each of the four diet treatments: control (pelleted complete diet) or alfalfa cubes with or without an energy supplement (molasses blocks or mash).  Each diet had four pen replicates containing either three Altex or NZW rabbits.  At the end of the 42-d experimental period, control rabbits were 1,067 g heavier than experimental rabbits (P<0.001).  Energy-supplemented rabbits were 307 g heavier than rabbits fed alfalfa cubes alone (P<0.01).  Altex rabbits had heavier final weights by 221 g than NZW rabbits (P<0.01).  In both experiments, there were no significant differences due to diet in the uniformity of final weights within a pen.  Even though ADG was more rapid for rabbits fed the control diet, from an economic standpoint, it may be more appropriate in developing countries to raise rabbits on forages (in tropical countries alfalfa is not an option but there are alternatives) with an energy supplement based on molasses, especially where commercial feeds are either not available or cost-prohibitive.

Key words: Rabbits, alfalfa, Medicago sativa, molasses blocks, growth, feed utilization

 
Introduction

Alfalfa is a suitable and widely recommended forage for rabbits in temperate and sub-tropical latitudes.  However, alfalfa is low in energy and should be supplemented when fed to rabbits (Lebas 1983; Oyawoye et al 1990).  Integration of forage-based diets with an energy supplement, such as molasses blocks, crumbles or mash, is a simple technology that can be used in developing countries where infrastructure and socio-economic conditions are favorable (Amici and Finzi 1995; Dinh Van Binh et al 1991).  Agro-industrial by-products, such as oil cake or cereal bran, can also be added to improve the nutrient quality of molasses blocks or crumbles (Sansoucy 1986).

In Italy, Finzi and Amici (1996) reported satisfactory growth performance of fryer rabbits when fed fresh alfalfa forage and an energy supplementblocks or crumbles based on molasses).  In Vietnam, satisfactory growth rates were obtained when rabbits were fed molasses blocks with mulberry leaves and Trichanthera gigantea (Le Thu Ha et al 1996).  The cost of molasses blocks, mulberry leaves, and Trichanthera gigantea was reported to be half the cost of feeding a commercial concentrate and grass diet.  In Mauritius, rabbits fed commercial feed pellets with molasses blocks also showed satisfactory body weight gains (Ramchurn et al 1999)

 Two experiments were carried out to evaluate the use of alfalfa as hay or cubes with an energy supplement (blocks, crumbles or mash based on sugar cane molasses) in diets of growing rabbits.  The results of the experiments may have potential application to small-scale, rabbit production systems in less developed countries where commercial pelleted diets are either not available or cost prohibitive.

 
Experimental design and procedures

Experiment 1

Research methodologies were previously approved by the Institutional Animal Care Committee at the Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK).  The study was conducted at the TAMUK rabbit research and teaching facility from April 5 to May 3, 1999.  Thirty-six straight-bred New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits (age from 37 to 39 d) were involved.  Kits were randomly assigned to each of four diet treatments: 1) control (commercial pellets [Cargill-Nutrena Feeds Division, Minneapolis, MN]); 2) alfalfa hay + molasses blocks; 3) alfalfa hay + molasses crumbles, and 4) alfalfa hay alone.  Each diet had three pen replicates with each pen containing three rabbits.  Pen dimensions were 76.2 (length) x 76.2 (width) x 45.7 cm (height).  All kits were subjected to a 5 d adaptation period.  Water was provided using an automatic watering system.

The method suggested by Finzi and Amici (1996) was closely followed in preparing molasses blocks and crumbles (Table 1).  In making the molasses blocks, a feed mix was prepared adding ingredients into a plastic container in the following order: molasses, cement wetted with a small quantity of water, other ingredients (ground alfalfa hay, crimped oats, and wheat bran).  The alfalfa hay and crimped oats were ground to 1 mm diameter using a Thomas-Wiley intermediate mill (3383-L 10 series).  The molasses mix was transferred into 1 litre volume cylindrical containers (diameter of 10 cm) and pounded with a pestle to compact the blocks.  To prepare each block, 500 g of molasses mix was used.  Blocks were removed from the container and placed in a drying oven at 54oC for 3 d. 

For preparation of crumbles, the ingredients were introduced in the following order into a plastic container: molasses, cement wetted with small quantity of warm water, ground wheat flour wetted with a small quantity of warm water, and other ingredients  (alfalfa hay, crimped oats and wheat bran).  About 3 kg of feed mix was poured onto a metal sheet.  The mash feed mix was compacted by applying pressure using another sheet.  The compacted feed mix was then placed in a drying oven at 54oC for 3 d.

 

Table 1. Ingredients in molasses blocks and crumbles

Ingredient

Blocks

Crumbles

Alfalfa hay (ground)
Crimped oats
Wheat bran
Molasses
Cement

7.2
  7.1
 17.6
 50.1
   8.0

7.2
10.8
49.2
11.8
  1.0

Alfalfa hay and crumbles were fed in the morning and in the evening using commercial screen feeders (Bass Equipment Company, Inc., Monett, MO) which were lined with plastic sheets to prevent feed loss.  Molasses blocks were placed directly on the cage floor.  The feed refusal was collected (from collection screens mounted ~ 5 cm below cage floor) on a daily basis and stored in plastic bags, and weighed weekly.

Individual body weights (BW) were recorded weekly.  Mortality was monitored daily. Individual traits also studied were initial weight (IW), final weight (FW), and average daily gain (ADG).  Pen traits were total feed intake (TFI), gross feed conversion (GFC; TFI/total pen weight gain), and market weight uniformity (CV; coefficient of variation in FW of rabbits within a pen).

Weekly body weight and other individual trait data were analyzed using the Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) package (Blouin and Saxton 1990) according to the following equation:

Yijk = m + Di + pji + ijk

where Yijk = observed value of a given dependent variable; m = overall mean; Di = fixed effect of ith diet; pji = random effect of jth pen of the ith diet, assumed to be NID (0, s2p); and ijk = random error, assumed to be NID (0, s2).

 Pen trait data were analyzed using the following model:

Yij = m + Di + ij

 where Yij = observed value of a given dependent variable; m = overall mean; Di = fixed effect of ith diet; and ij = random error, assumed to be NID (0, s2).

 From ANOVA, least-squares diet means for all traits studied were compared (P<0.05) using single degree of freedom orthogonal contrasts: 1) Control vs experimental diets (average of diets containing alfalfa hay); 2) alfalfa hay alone (negative control) vs alfalfa hay with a supplemental energy feed (molasses blocks or crumbles); and 3) molasses blocks vs crumbles.  Survival data were tested (P<0.05) for independence with diet using Chi-square procedures.

Experiment 2

The study was conducted from June 4 to July 16, 1999 at the TAMUK rabbit research and teaching facility.  Twenty-four Altex and 24 NZW straightbred rabbits (age ranging from 39 to 40 d) were involved. Altex is a commercial sire breed with a selection history which emphasized heavy 70-d body weights (Lukefahr et al 1996).  In Experiment 1, the plastic sheet used to line the base of the feeders above the screen was sometimes damaged by the rabbits, resulting in feed wastage. To prevent wastage, alfalfa cubes were used in Experiment 2.  The alfalfa cubes were placed in forage feeders (Bass Equipment Company, Inc., Monett, MO).  Wastage of crumbles due to scrabbling was also observed in Experiment 1.  In this experiment, crumbles were replaced by mash (having the same nutrient composition as crumbles).  Mash was mixed with water in the proportion of 1:1 and fed in porcelain crocks.  The mash was fed daily, and the refusal was collected and weighed daily.  Kits were assigned to each of the four diet treatments: 1) control (commercial pellets [Nutrena, Cargill-Nutrena Feeds Division, Minneapolis, MN]); 2) alfalfa cubes + molasses blocks; 3) alfalfa cubes + mash, and 4) alfalfa cubes alone.  Each diet had four pen replicates, and each pen contained either three Altex or NZW kits[RP4] .  Individual body weight data were analyzed using the Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) package of Blouin and Saxton (1990) according to the following equation:

Yijkl = m + Di + Bj + (DB)ij + pkji + ijkl

 where Yijkl = observed value of a given dependent variable; m = overall mean; Di = fixed effect of ith diet; Bj = fixed effect of jth breed; (DB)ij = diet x breed interaction; pkji = random effect of kth pen of the j th breed and ith diet, assumed to be NID (0, s2p) ; and ijkl = random error, assumed to be NID (0, s2).

Pen trait data were analyzed using the following model:

         Yijk = m + Di + Bj + (DB)ij + ijk

where terms are as defined above.  Diet means were compared as described for the previous experiment.  For survival data, Chi-square tests (P<0.05) for independence (e. g., diet and breed) were performed. Gender is generally not an important source of variation for growth traits in rabbits and so was excluded from the above model.
 

Results

Chemical analyses of feeds

Pellets had significantly higher DM, CP, and NDF and lower ADF and ash percentages compared to the average of experimental diets used in Experiments 1 and 2 (Table 2). Molasses blocks had lower DM, CP, NDF, and ADF but higher ash content compared to crumbles or mash (P<0.01 or P<0.001).  Alfalfa hay used in Experiment 1 had significantly higher CP and lower NDF and ADF percentages compared to alfalfa cubes used in Experiment 2. 

Table 2. Generalized least-squares means for nutrient composition (percentage DM basis) and selected contrasts for Experiments 1 and 2

n

DM CP NDF ADF Ash
Feeda
Pellets

12

88.5 16.7 37.9 21.0 8.6
Alfalfa hay

12

89.6 17.8 43.3 33.8 8.8
Alfalfa cubes

9

89.4 15.2 46.0 34.9 8.7
Molasses blocks

12

84.8 10.8 22.3 13.0 24.8
Crumbles or mash

12

86.0 12.4 29.0 17.4 11.5
SEb 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2
Selected contrastc
Pellets-Exp.1 diets 1.7 ▒0.3*** 3.0 ▒ 0.1 *** 6.4 ▒ 0.3** 0.4 ▒ 0.2 * -6.4 ▒ 0.3***
Pellets-Exp.2 diets 1.8 ▒0.3*** 3.8 ▒ 0.1*** 5.5 ▒ 0.3 ** -0.8 ▒ 0.2 ** -6.4 ▒ 0.3***
Blocks-Crumbles or mash -1.2 ▒ 0.4** -1.5 ▒0.2*** -6.7 ▒ 0.4** -4.3 ▒0.3*** 13.3 ▒0.3***
Alfalfa hay-cubes 0.2 ▒ 0.5 2.6 ▒ 0.2*** -2.7 ▒ 0.4** -1.1 ▒ 0.3 ** 0.1 ▒ 0.3
aChopped alfalfa hay was used in Experiment 1 and alfalfa hay cubes were used in Experiment 2.
b
Average standard error of the least-squares nutrient means in the column.
c
Exp. 1 diets = average of all experimental feeds (excluding pellets) used in Experiment 1; Exp. 2 diets = average of all experimental feeds (excluding pellets) used in Experiment 2.  See Table 1 for description of diets.

*
P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001

 

Experiment 1
Individual growth and pen trait performance 

There were no differences in IW (Table 3 and Figure 1) due to diet (P>0.05).  Control animals had more rapid ADG by 11.2 g/d (P<0.001) and heavier FW by 296 g (P<0.01) than experimental animals fed chopped alfalfa hay with or without molasses blocks or crumbles. There were no differences in FW between animals fed the supplemental energy diets (molasses blocks or crumbles) and animals fed alfalfa hay alone (P>0.05).  However, animals fed energy supplements had 4.3 g/d higher ADG compared to animals fed alfalfa hay alone (P<0.05).  There were no differences in ADG or FW between animals fed molasses blocks or crumbles (P>0.05).  Only one mortality case (in alfalfa hay alone group) was observed throughout the 28-d experimental period. The control pens consumed 2,677 g more feed than animals in experimental pens throughout the 28-d study (P<0.01) as shown in Table 4.  There were no differences in GFC or CV between diets (P>0.05). 

 

Table 3. Generalized least-squares diet means for growth traits and selected contrasts among diets (Experiment 1)

Diet

IW

FW

ADG

Control (pellets)

1194

2320

40.3

Alfalfa (Alf)+ Molasses blocks (Mo)

1207

2016

28.9

Alf + Crumbles (Cr)

1230

2121

32.1

Alf

1200

1936

26.3

SEc

52

64

1.4

Selected contrasts

 

 

 

Control – Expl. Diets

-19 60

296 73**

11.2 1.6***

Alf – (Mo+Cr)/2

-18 64

-133 78

-4.3 1.7*

Mo – Cr

-23 74

-106 92

-3.2 2.0

aTrait abbreviations: IW = initial body weight, g; FW = final body weight at end of 28-d trial, g; ADG = average daily gain, g/d.
b
Diet abbreviations: Expl. = average of diets containing alfalfa hay with molasses blocks (Mo) or crumbles (Cr), or alfalfa hay alone (Alf). 
c
Average standard error of the least-squares diet means in the column.
*
P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

 

Figure 1.  Growth curves of rabbits fed pellets (control), or chopped
alfalfa hay ad libitum with or without energy supplements (molasses blocks or
crumbles) during Experiment 1


Table 4
. Generalized least-squares diet means for pen traits and selected contrasts for Experiment 1a

Item

TFI, g

GFC

CV of final wt

Control (pellets)

13186

4.4

6.7

Alf + Mo

10349

4.2

12.7

Alf + Cr

11541

4.2

7.0

Alf

9664

4.4

4.2

SEc

610

0.4

2.9

Selected contrasts

 

 

 

Control – Expl. diets

2,677 705**

0.1   0.4

-1.3 3.4

Alf – (Mo + Cr)/2

-1,281 748

0.2   0.4

-5.7 3.6

Mo – Cr

-1,192 863

0.0   0.0

5.7 4.1

aTrait abbreviations: TFI = total 28-d pen feed intake (pellets, alfalfa hay, molasses blocks or crumbles), g; GFC = gross feed conversion (TFI/pen weight gain, g); CV = coefficient of variation in FW of rabbits within a pen, %. Each pen initially contained three fryers.
b
Diet abbreviations: Expl. = average of diets containing alfalfa hay with molasses blocks (Mo) or crumbles (Cr), or alfalfa hay alone (Alf). 
c
Average standard error of the least-squares diet means in the column.

 

Experiment 2
Individual growth and pen trait performance. 

There was no difference in IW between diets (P>0.05) (Table 5 and Figure 2).

Table 5. Generalized least-squares means for diets and breed for growth traits and selected contrasts for Experiment 2a

Item

IW

FW

ADG

Diet

 

 

 

Control (pellets)

1040

2411

32.7

Alf + Mo

980

1466

11.3

Alf + Mash

986

1425

10.9

Alf

966

1138

4.8

SEc

38

62

1.6

Breed

 

 

 

Altex

1033

1720

16.6

NZW

854

1499

13.3

SEc

27

44

1.1

Selected contrast

 

 

 

Control – Expl. Diets

64 ▒ 45

1,067 ▒ 66 ***

23.7 ▒ 1.7 ***

Alf – (Mo + Mash)/2

-17 ▒ 47

-307 ▒ 88 **

-6.3 ▒ 2.2 *

Mo – Mash

-7 ▒ 55

41 ▒ 81

0.5 ▒ 2.1

Altex – NZW

79 ▒ 39

221 ▒ 63 **

3.4 ▒ 1.6

aTrait abbreviations: IW = initial body weight, g; FW = final body weight at end of 42-d trial, g; ADG = average daily gain, g/d.
bDiet abbreviations: Expl. = average of diets containing alfalfa hay with molasses blocks (Mo) or mash, or alfalfa hay (Alf) alone. 
cAverage standard error of the least-squares diet and breed means in the column.
‡P<0.10; *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

Control rabbits had heavier final weights by 1,067 g (P<0.001) and more rapid ADG by 23.7 g/d (P<0.001) compared to the rabbits fed the experimental diets.  Rabbits fed alfalfa cubes in combination with an energy supplement (molasses blocks or mash) had heavier FW by 307 g (P<0.01) and more rapid ADG by 6.3 g/d (P<0.05) compared to rabbits fed alfalfa cubes alone.  There were no differences in FW or ADG between rabbits fed molasses blocks and rabbits fed mash (P>0.05).

Figure 2. Weekly growth response of rabbits fed pellets (control), or alfalfa
cubes ad libitum  with or without energy supplements (molasses blocks or mash)
during Experiment 2

 

Altex had heavier IW by 79 g (P = .07), heavier FW by 221 g (P<0.01), and better ADG by 3.4 g/d (P = .07) compared to NZW (Figure 3).

 

Figure 3. Weekly growth response of Altex and  NZW breeds of fryers
during Experiment 2

Eleven cases of mortality were observed during the 42-d trial (one in control, one in alfalfa cubes with molasses blocks, three in alfalfa cubes with mash, and six in alfalfa cubes alone group).  Three of the dead rabbits were Altex and eight were NZW.  Chi-square tests for independence revealed no relationship between breed and mortality rate (P2 = 2.95; P>0.05).  However, a relationship between diet and mortality rate was detected (P2 = 7.90; P<0.05).  Proportionately more rabbits died than expected in the alfalfa cubes alone group (negative control).

Control animals consumed 5,247 g more feed per pen (P<0.001) and had better feed conversion (P<0.001) compared to animals fed the experimental diets (Table 6).  Animals fed a supplemental energy feed (molasses blocks or mash) had better conversion compared to animals fed alfalfa cubes alone (P<0.001).  However, there was no difference in feed intake between animals fed an energy supplement and animals fed cubes alone (P>0.05).  The feed conversion for rabbits fed alfalfa cubes alone was very poor (28.5).  There were no differences in coefficient of variation of final weight, due to diet or breed (P>0.05).  There were no differences in feed intake between Altex and NZW. However, Altex had a better feed conversion than NZW (P<0.05).  The diet*breed interaction source was never significant for any of the individual or pen traits analyzed.

Table 6. Generalized least-squares diet and breed means for pen traits for Experiment 2a

Item

TFI

GFC

CV of final wt

Diet

 

 

 

Control (pellets)

15341

3.7

8.8

Alf + Mo

11266

8.0

11.7

Alf + Mash

9597

8.0

8.8

Alf

9419

28.5

9.7

SEc

707

1.1

4.0

Breed

 

 

 

Altex

11843

10.5

11.4

NZW

10968

13.6

8.1

SEc

507

0.7

2.8

Selected contrast

 

 

 

Control – Expl. Diets

5,247 762 ***

-11.1 1.2 ***

-1.3 4.4

Alf – (Mo + Mash)/2

-1,012 1,002

-20.4 1.5 ***

-0.5 5.8

Mo – Mash

1,668 897

0.0 0.0

2.8 5.2

Altex - NZW

874 677

-3.1 1.0 *

3.3 3.9

aTrait abbreviations: TFI = total 42-d pen feed intake (pellets, alfalfa hay, molasses blocks or mash), g; GFC = gross feed conversion (TFI /pen weight gain, g); CV = coefficient of variation in FW of rabbits within a pen, %. Each pen initially contained three rabbits.
b
Diet abbreviations: Expl. = average of diets containing alfalfa hay with molasses blocks (Mo) or mash, or alfalfa hay (Alf) alone. 
c
Average standard error of the least-squares diet and breed means in the column.

*
P<0.05;
*** P<0.001

 

Discussion

The higher ash content of molasses blocks and crumbles could be explained by the addition of cement.  Drying molasses blocks and crumbles at 54 C for 3 d may possibly have initiated Maillard’s reaction.  This could have negatively affected the quality and quantity of protein in the molasses blocks and crumbles.  Furthermore, alfalfa in combination with an energy supplement may not have provided adequate quantities of minerals to meet the requirements of rabbits.  This could be one possible reason for the slower growth rates in forage-fed rabbits compared to control animals; however, such growth rates may be acceptable in developing countries where forages are usually cheaper than commercial pellets  In both the experiments, animals fed supplemental energy feeds (molasses blocks, crumbles or mash) had more rapid weight gains than those fed only on alfalfa hay.  These observations are in agreement with Amici and Finzi (1995) and Finzi and Amici (1997). Ramchurn et al (1999) postulated that the sugar content of molasses in the blocks would be primarily digested in the stomach and the non-sugar contents would stimulate fibre digestion by microbes in the hindgut.  This action could result in better utilization of fibre in the diet and more rapid weight gains of rabbits.

The ADG of rabbits was less in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1.  These results could partially be explained by the lower CP and higher NDF and ADF percentages in the alfalfa cubes used in Experiment 2 compared to the chopped alfalfa hay used in Experiment 1.  This could possibly have negatively affected growth rates in Experiment 2.  Higher ambient temperatures during Experiment 2 could also have possibly negatively affected feed appetite.  McNitt and Lukefahr (1993) reported that temperature and day-length had a significant effect on rabbit growth performance.  These authors reported that growth rates are lowest in summer and highest in early spring and late autumn.  Furthermore, increased fibre digestion could have produced more heat of fermentation in rabbits involved in Experiment 2 due to the higher fibre level in the alfalfa cubes.

The higher mortality during Experiment 2 could be explained by lower the lower crude protein content and higher fibre contents of the alfalfa hay cubes fed to the rabbits in Experiment 2.  De Blas et al (1981) reported high mortality rate in rabbits fed diets high in crude fibre and low in protein.  Laplace (1978) associated high mortality rates with slow growth rates.  Of relevance, in less developed countries with arid or tropical climates, ADG performance of 20 g/d is considered satisfactory (Lukefahr and Cheeke 1991).

Altex had heavier IW and FW, more rapid growth rate and better feed conversion compared to NZW. These findings are in agreement with the reports of Ruiz-Feria et al (1996) and Ruiz-Feria and Lukefahr (1998).  These authors reported better growth performance in Altex compared to NZW when fed different forages (such as cactus, mesquite, and lablab) and restricted quantities of commercial feed pellets.  The better growth performance of Altex was attributed to the larger volume of the gastro-intestinal tract, and also to the selection history of this breed for rapid growth performance.


Conclusions

Supplementing alfalfa hay with molasses blocks, crumbles or mash improves the growth performance of rabbit fryers compared to alfalfa hay alone. However, it is acknowledged that alfalfa cannot be grown in most developing countries and that the cost of feeding imported alfalfa would be prohibitive.  In addition, the form in which alfalfa hay is offered to rabbits can also affect growth performance.  Better growth rates were achieved by feeding chopped alfalfa hay of higher nutritional quality rather than alfalfa hay cubes.  The market price of a live rabbit fryer was USD $2.5/kg.  Costs of the commercial pelleted diet, molasses blocks, and crumbles were calculated to be USD $0.37, 0.37, and 0.45 per kg, respectively.  Alfalfa was assumed to be grown by the farmer and available free of cost.  The feed cost per 1 kg of live weight gain was calculated at USD $1.60, 0.70, and 1.06 for rabbits fed commercial feed pellets, alfalfa hay with molasses blocks, and alfalfa hay with crumbles, respectively.  In countries where alfalfa is grown, it could be economical to raise rabbits on alfalfa (growing the alfalfa on-farm) supplemented with energy feeds as an alternative to feeding commercial pelleted diets.  For tropical countries, where alfalfa cannot be grown economically, other sources of forage can be used. Such forage-based feeding systems (forage plus an energy supplement) are well suited to the less developed countries where commercial pelleted diets are generally not available. 


References

Amici A and Finzi A 1995 Molasses blocks as supplementary feeds for growing rabbits. World Rabbit Science 3(2):69-79.

Blouin D C and Saxton A M 1990 Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM).User’s Manual. Lousiana State Univ., Baton Rouge.

De Blas J  C,  Perez E, Fraga M J, Rodriguez J M and Galvez J F 1981  Effect of diet on feed intake and growth of rabbits from weaning to slaughter at different ages and weights. Journal of Animal  Science 56:1225-1232. 

Dinh van Binh, Bui van Chinh and Preston T R 1991 Molasses-Urea blocks as supplements for rabbits. Livestock Research for Rural Development  (3) 2:13-18

Finzi A and Amici A 1996 Unconventional feeding technologies for rabbits in developing countries. Proc. VI World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse, France. Volume 3. pp 341-345.

Finzi A and Amici A 1997 Utilizacion de piensos desmenuzados de producion rural: Completo y para integracion del alfalfa. 12th symposium de cunicultura, Gran Canaria, 30 y 31 de Mayo de 1997, Asociacion Espa˝ola de Cunicultura.

Laplace J P 1978 Le transit digestif chez les mono-gastriques. III. Comportement (prise de nourriture caecotrophie) montricite et transit digestifs et pathogenie des diarrhees chex le lapin. Annale Zootechnique 27:225.

Lebas F 1983 Digestibilite de la luzerne employee comme seul aliment pour des lapins en croissance. Doc. Roneo Lab. Rech Elevage Lapin. INRA.

Le Thu Ha, Nguyen Quang Suc, Dinh Van Binh, Le Thi Bein, and Preston T R 1996 Replacing concentrates with molasses blocks and protein-rich tree leaves for reproduction and growth in rabbits. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd8/3/ha83.htm
.

Lukefahr S D and Cheeke P R 1991 Rabbit project development strategies in subsistence farming systems: 2. Research applications. World. Animal Review 69(4):26-35.

Lukefahr S D, Odi H B and Atakora J K A 1996  Mass selection for 70-day body weight in rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 74:1481-1489.

McNitt J I and Lukefahr S D 1993 Breed and environmental effects on postweaning growth of rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 71:1996-2005.

Oyawoye E O, Oyikin M E and Shehu Y 1990 Studies in the nutrition of rabbits. Chemical evaluation of some tropical legumes as replacements for alfalfa in rabbit diets. Journal of Applied Rabbit Research 13:32-34.

Ramchurn R, Raggoo J and  Ruggoo A 1999 Digestibility and growth in domestic rabbits using multi-nutrient blocks as a feed supplement. Livestock
Research for Rural Development. http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd12/1/ram121b.htm.

Ruiz-Feria C A and Lukefahr S D  1998 Rabbit growth and feeding performance in South Texas. Evaluation of Dolichos lablab and Opuntia stricta as local forages and effect of fur clipping. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development. 2(1):5-19.

Ruiz-Feria C A, Lukefahr S D, Pro M A, Becerril C P and Felker P 1996 Cactus (Opuntia stricta) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) as forage resources for growing rabbits in semi-arid, subtropical South Texas. Proc. VI World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse, France. Vol. 3. pp 257-261.

Sansoucy R 1986 Manufacture of molasses-urea blocks. World. Animal Review 57(1):40-48.

Received 16 June

Go to top