| dc.contributor.author | Vinutha, K.S. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Khan, A.A. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Prakasham, R.S. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Srinivas Raol, P. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Ravi, D. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Prasad, Kodukula V.S.V. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Ramana Reddy, Y. | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Blümmel, Michael | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-05-12T15:53:05Z | en_US |
| dc.date.available | 2016-05-12T15:53:05Z | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/73386 | en_US |
| dc.title | Comparisons of ensiled maize, sorghum and pearl millet forages fed to sheep | en_US |
| cg.authorship.types | CGIAR and developing country institute | en_US |
| dcterms.abstract | Water-use efficient sorghum (7) and pearl millet (5) forages were
compared with reference maize forage as silage tested with Nellore
Brown sheep. Mean silage organic matter intake was 352, 297 and
137g!d in maize, sorghum and pearl millet silage, respectively Current
pearl millet forage cultivars do not match maize forage in terms of
fodder quality Of the 7 sorghum cultivars several were on par with
maize though the cultivar dependent variation in intake was huge
(254 to 343g!d). Anti-nutritive factors associated with sorghum like
dhurrin were undetectable in the silages, although present in the fresh
forage. A routine laboratory trait does not seem to describe sorghum
and pearl millet forages adequately More research is required to
understand the true nutritional potential of sorghum and in particular
pearl millet forages. Dissemination of these forages based on only
biomass yield should be discouraged. | en_US |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open Access | en_US |
| dcterms.audience | Scientists | en_US |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Vinutha, K.S., Khan, A.A., Prakasham, R.S., Srinivas Raol, P., Ravi, D., Prasad, K.V.S.V., Ramana Reddy, Y. and Blummel, M. 2016. Comparisons of ensiled maize, sorghum and pearl millet forages fed to sheep. Paper Presented at Animal Nutrition Society of India Conference, Karnal, India, 6-8 February 2016. | en_US |
| dcterms.issued | 2016-02-06 | en_US |
| dcterms.language | en | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | forage | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | animal feeding | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | crops | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | sheep | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | livestock | en_US |
| dcterms.subject | feeds | en_US |
| dcterms.type | Conference Paper | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | ANIMAL FEEDING | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | CROPS | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | FEEDS | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | FORAGES | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | LIVESTOCK | en_US |
| cg.subject.ilri | SHEEP | en_US |
| cg.contributor.affiliation | International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics | en_US |
| cg.contributor.affiliation | International Livestock Research Institute | en_US |
| cg.contributor.affiliation | Indian Institute of Chemical Technology | en_US |
| cg.contributor.crp | Livestock and Fish | en_US |
