CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THE NEW CITRUS POMACE FEED ADDITIVE
Ескіз недоступний
Дата
2021
Назва журналу
Номер ISSN
Назва тому
Видавець
Анотація
The materials of the article present data on research on the chemical, mineral-vitamin composition and nutritional value of a new feed additive from citrus pomace. The article presents the results of research on the technological line of granulation of citrus waste, established the optimal composition for granulation of citrus feed additives: sunflower meal - 20%, molasses - 5% and 75% of citrus fruits.Their chemical composition was studied, the gross content of proteins, fats, assimilated carbohydrates, including simple sugars, was determined, and the efficiency of use in the diets of farm animals was determined. The positive influence of citrus waste granulation technology has been established, which allows to obtain high-quality granules. Chemical analysis of citrus granules showed that 100 g contains: protein - 6.15 g, fat - 0.99 g, carbohydrates - 21.8 g, of which simple sugars 14 g, the energy value of this feed additive - Kcal (kJ) - 120.7 (505.7).The possibility of preparation of feed additives in the form of granules is revealed, which allows to avoid selfsorting of components and overdose of microelements and to improve the consumption of feed ingredients. The ability to prepare feed additives in the form of granules avoids self-sorting of components and overdose of micronutrients and improve the consumption of feed ingredients. The results of zootechnical researches, structure and nutritional value of average daily rations with use of citrus pomace are resulted.It was found that the introduction into the diet of dairy cows feed additives from citrus pomace during stable lactation increases the average daily expectations by 1.8 kg or 15.5%, feed costs for milk production containing 4 fat were 0.97-0, 98 feed units. When using a feed additive from citrus pomace, the nutritional value of the diet is improved due to the ratio of sugar - protein (0.62: 1 vs. 0.8: 1.2).