Effects of traditional brewery dried residue and field pea hull mixtures supplementation on feed utilization and performance of Washera sheep fed natural pasture grass hay as basal diet

Abstract Background The major feedstuffs (natural pasture and crop residues) used for sheep in Ethiopia are fibrous and the crude protein (CP) content is less than 7% that is inadequate to meet the maintenance requirement of sheep. These poor quality feeds should be improved and can be improved through supplementation with nutritious feedstuff. Therefore, to overcome this challenge, there is a need to look for some alternatives but locally available and cheap sources of protein. In this regard, traditional brewery dried residue (TBDR) and field pea hull (FPH) could be an important sources of feed for ruminant livestock. Objectives This experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of supplementing mixtures of TBDR and FPH on the feed intake, digestibility, live weight gain, and economic feasibility of the feeding treatments. Methods In a 3‐month experiment, 20 yearling intact male Washera sheep were blocked based on their initial BW of 22.1 ± 1.58 kg (mean ± standard error of mean), and treatment diets were randomly assigned within a block. Treatments comprised feeding natural pasture grass hay (NPGH) ad libitum + 50 g ground nut cake (GNC) (T 1, control); T 1 + supplemented with 25% TBDR:75% FPH (T 2); T 1 + 50% TBDR:50% FPH (T 3) and T 1 + 75% TBDR:25% FPH (T 4). The supplement feed was offered twice a day at 08:00 and 16:00 while, common salt lick and water were available all time. Results NPGH, FPH, TBDR, and GNC in the current study contained 5.7%, 13.4%, 22.2%, and 45.4% CP and 62%, 61%, 34%, and 20% neutral detergent fibre, respectively. Sheep in supplemented treatments had higher (p < 0.05) apparent digestibility percentage of dry matter and nutrients than those in T 1. Among the supplemented treatments, sheep fed T 4 recorded 4.49 kg extra (p < 0.0001) body weight as compared to that fed T 1 by growing at an average of 49.8 g/day and returned the highest net income (255.8 Ethiopian birr) Conclusion Thus, based on the highest body weight gain and net return, the combinations of 75% TBDR and 25% FPH (T 4) appeared to be recommendable for poor farmers.

Conclusion: Thus, based on the highest body weight gain and net return, the combinations of 75% TBDR and 25% FPH (T 4 ) appeared to be recommendable for poor farmers.

K E Y W O R D S
digestibility, feed intake, non-conventional supplement, small ruminant

INTRODUCTION
Sheep contribute much to the livelihood of farmers and pastoralists all over the world by providing meat, milk, fibre, skin, manure, and immediate cash income to their owners.Sheep in Ethiopia are also among the most economically important livestock species in the country, playing a crucial role in the livelihood of smallholder farmers and pastoralist (Nigussie et al., 2013;Zewdu et al., 2009).However, sheep, in tropical countries in general andin Ethiopia in particular, are managed under low input extensive production systems and consequently produced the lowest carcass weight compared to the world and other least developed African countries (Ayele & Urge, 2019).
About 93% of the feed stuff used for sheep in Ethiopia are coming from natural pasture and the residues after grain threshing (CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2021), such feed resources mostly contain inadequate crude protein (CP) (less than 7%) to meet the minimum requirement for growth of rumen microorganisms (Van Soest, 1994) and consequently low digestibility, and thus have limited voluntary intake by animals.Therefore, these poor-quality feed resources have to improve and can be improved through supplementation with conventional agro-industrial by-products such as flour milling by-products (brans) and residues from oil extraction factories (Ayele et al., 2017).
However, using conventional agro-industrial by-products is unaffordable and inaccessible to rural farmers (Mekasha et al., 2002).Therefore, to overcome this challenge, there is a need to look for some alternative but easily available and cheap sources of protein.In this regard, nonconventional feedstuffs could be used as alternative supplements in sheep production.Among such supplements, traditional brewery dried residue (TBDR), and field pea (Pisum sativum) hull could be important sources of feed for ruminant livestock.
A legume grain crop, field pea, is used all over the world in human diets (McKay et al., 2003), and the hull used as livestock feed.In Ethiopia, field pea is an important pulse crop next to haricot beans and chickpeas (CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2021).Field pea is widely planted and used in Amhara, Oromia, Central, Western, and Southern Tigray of Ethiopian regions (CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2021).TBDR (dried Atella) is the byproduct of cereal grain fermentation residues from alcoholic drinks and beverages such as Tella.These two feedstuffs are available easily as energy and protein feed sources that create an opportunity for a limited period planned fattening of small ruminants in areas where feed shortage in quality and quantity is available.In addition, there is a growing trend in the expansion of smallholder fattening practices in urban and pre-urban areas of the country to ensure household food security and to alleviate poverty as well as to supply better quality animals to satisfy the increasing demand in the domestic market as well as to export live sheep and child meat to many Middle East countries ethiopian sheep & goat productivity improvement program (ESGPIP), 2011; Food and agricultural organization (FAO), 2019).
The feeding trial studies using either of one as a supplement for sheep have been studied and reported improvements in feed conversion efficiency and weight gain in sheep (Ayenew et al., 2012;Mekasha et al., 2002;Mekcha et al., 2019;Mesganaw, 2014).However, there is a gap in information for the use of these supplements in combination (TBDR + FPH) and particularly concerning the ratio at which TBDR and FPH could be mixed to prepare a supplement ration that will improve the weight gain of sheep in the traditional livestock production systems.Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the effects of TBDR and field pea hull (FPH) mixtures supplementation on feed intake, digestibility, body weight change and economic feasibility of Washera sheep fed natural pasture grass hay (NPGH) as basal diet.

Study area description
The experiment was conducted in Hulet-Eju Enessie district, Keranio Keble, 11 • 15′N latitude and 37 • 45′E longitude at an altitude of 1200 m above sea level, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.The area receives 1200 mm average annual rainfall of bimodal type that occurs between March-April and June-August.The average annual temperature ranges from 8 to 25 • C (Derejaw et al., 2013).

Experimental sheep management
Intact, male, 20 yearling, Washera sheep with an initial body weight (IBW) of 22.11 ± 1.58 kg (mean ± standard error of mean) were purchased from Woyin-wuha local market.The age of the animals was determined by observing the size of the incisor teeth (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program [ESGPIP, 2009) and information obtained from the owners.The sheep were dewormed with Albendazole (15 mg/kg) and sprayed with Diazinine (1 mL/L of water) against common internal and external parasites, respectively, and were vaccinated against anthrax (0.5 mL/head), sheep Pox (1 mL/head) and pasturolosis (2 mL/head) during the quarantine period of 21 days.Thereafter, sheep were penned (136 cm × 80 cm, pen area) individually in a well-ventilated house that was equipped with feeding (separate for supplement and hay) and watering troughs.Each sheep was tagged with neck collars for identification and ease of record keeping.

Feed collection and preparation
NPGH, composed of mainly Cynodon dactylon, Eragrostis, Sporobolus and Pennisetum species, was purchased from surrounding farmers' fields, harvested at the proper stage, dried, transported to the study site, and stored under shade to maintain its quality.NPGH was manually chopped to the size of about 4-5 cm (Likawent et al., 2012;Panadi et al., 2021) for better utilization and used as a basal diet throughout the experimental period.
Wet traditional brewer residue, a byproduct of Tella (local drink), was collected from households who brew it regularly using ingredients such as maize, barley, and wheat for the preparation.The wet traditional brewery residue was dried on a canvas to reduce the moisture content at the required level (15%).To ensure uniform drying and to avoid clumping, wet, traditional brewery residue was spread thinly on the canvas and mixed with a fork several times a day.All the required quantities were collected before the commencement of the experiment, thoroughly mixed, and stored in the well-ventilated house.The FPH was collected from a nearby agro-industry mill.A groundnut cake was bought from the surrounding oil extraction factory.

Experimental design, treatments, feeding and measurements
The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design based on their IBW and stratified into five blocks consisting of four animals per block, and treatment feeds was assigned randomly to each animal within a block.Supplement feed (450 g/day dry matter [DM]) was offered twice a day at 08:00 and 16:00 with a common salt lick and water offered free choice.The treatments used were feeding NPGH ad libitum + 50 g ground nut cake (GNC) (T 1 , control); T 1 + supplemented with 25% TBDR:75% FPH (T 2 ); T 1 + 50% TBDR:50% FPH (T 3 ) and T 1 + 75% TBDR:25% FPH (T 4 ).The basal diet was provided to all animal ad libitum to ensure a refusal of a 20% allowance of the previous days' intake, and the intake was adjusted once every third day.Fifty grams of GNC were added to all animals to meet the maintenance requirement of the sheep in the control group.Data collection was started after 15 days of experimental feeds and pen adaptation.Feeds offered and the corresponding refusals were recorded daily to determine the daily feed intake for each animal for the duration of the experiment (90 days).Samples of feeds offered and refusals were taken every day and pooled for each feed offer and per treatment for the refusals.Thereafter, at the end of the experiment, pooled feed and refusal samples were thoroughly mixed and sub-sampled for chemical analysis.
Metabolized energy (ME) MJ/day intake was estimated from digestible organic matter intake (DOMI) values by using the equation of AFRC (Agricultural Food and Research Council) (1993), where DOMI is digestible organic matter intake (in grams per kilogram DM).The IBWs of the experimental animals were determined by taking the mean of two consecutive weights measured after overnight fasting at the beginning of the feeding trial.Thereafter, animals were weighed individually every 10 days throughout the feeding trial period of 90 days.Average daily gain was calculated as a difference between final and initial BW divided by the number of feeding days.Feed conversion efficiency was calculated by dividing the daily BW change to daily feed intake.
A digestibility trial was conducted after the completion of the feeding trial using all sheep.Sheep were harnessed with faecal collecting bags to collect faeces for digestibility determination.Sheep were allowed to acclimatize to the faecal collecting bags for 3 days, and this was followed by a collection of faeces for 7 days.The collected faeces were weighed daily and 20% of the daily faeces voided by each animal was sampled and pooled over the collection period for each sheep separately and stored in a deep freezer at −20 • C using plastic bags.At the end of the digestibility trial, the collected faecal samples were thoroughly mixed, then 10% of the total collected sample from each animal was sub-sampled, weighed, partially dried at 60 • C for 72 h, ground, and stored in airtight polyethylene plastic bags pending chemical analysis.During the digestibility period, hay offered and refused was recorded daily and samples from feed offered and refusals from each animal were taken daily to make a composite sample.The apparent digestibility percentage of DM was calculated as DM intake minus DM in faeces divided by DM intake and times by a hundred.Likewise, the apparent digestibility percentage of other nutrient intakes (organic matter [OM], CP, neutral detergent fibre [NDF], and acid detergent fibre [ADF]) was calculated as nutrient intake minus nutrients in faeces divided by nutrient intake and times by hundred (McDonald et al., 2010).

Partial budget analysis
The analysis involved the calculation of the variable costs of sheep, feeds and benefits gained from the result (Upton, 1979)

Chemical analysis
Faeces and feed samples (offer and refuse) were dried at 105 • C overnight in a forced draft oven for DM determination.The remaining feed and faeces samples were dried at 60 • C to constant weight and ground through a 1 mm sieve screen for DM, total ash and nitrogen determination following the procedure of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (1990).The nitrogen content of the samples was determined using Kjeldahl procedure, and then CP was determined as N × 6.25.NDF and ADF were determined following the procedures described by Van Soest and Robertson (1985).OM was calculated as ash deducted from hundreds.

Statistical analysis
Data obtained on feed intake, digestibility and body weight change were subjected to the analysis of variance using PROC GLM procedure of SAS software package version 9.1 (SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems Institute), 2008).Least square means and standard errors were determined using the LSMEANS and STDERR statements in PROCGLM.
Mean separations were determined using Tukey's multiple comparison procedure.The statistical model used was Y ij is the response variable, µ is the overall mean, T i is the treatment effect, B j is the block effect and E ij is the random error.

Chemical composition of treatment feeds
The chemical composition of the treatment feeds is presented in Table 1.The CP content of NPGH used in the current study is low compared to the CP contents in TBDR and FPH.On the other hand, the NDF and ADF contents were higher in NPGH followed by FPH, whereas TBDR had the lowest NDF and ADF contents.The CP content of the refusals of the basal diet observed in the present study was lower as compared to the CP content of hay offered.Conversely, hay refusals in all treatments had relatively higher NDF and ADF content than the offered (Table 1).

Feed intake
The basal diet (NPGH) intake was reduced (p < 0.0001) in supplemented sheep by about 207 g/day (T 2 ), 220 g/day (T 3 ) and 170 g/day (T 4 ) than sheep consumed the control treatment (

Apparent dry matter and nutrient digestibility
Sheep in supplemented treatments had higher (p < 0.0001) DM, OM, CP, NDF and ADF apparent digestibility percentages than those in the control treatment (Table 3).Among the supplemented treatments, T 4 achieved the best apparent digestibility of CP.No differences (p > 0.05) were evidenced in the apparent digestibility percentage of ADF and NDF among supplement treatments.those fed control treatment by growing at an average of 49.8 g/day (Table 4).

Partial budget analysis
To evaluate the profitability of the treatment feeds partial budget analysis was conducted (

Chemical composition of treatment feeds
Dietary nutrients, especially energy and protein, are the major factors affecting the productivity of sheep.The lowest protein content in feed at which the sheep does not lose weight is above 7.5% in DM (Van Soest, 1994).Hence, the observed CP content of natural pasture hay used in the current study was below the maintenance requirement of sheep.Consequently, a 50 g/day/sheep GNC supplement was given to all sheep to satisfy the maintenance requirement of sheep in the control treatment.The NDF and ADF contents were also higher than the level (55%) above which voluntary feed intake is limited (Van Soest, 1994), indicating a need for supplement feeds to complement this feedstuff.The low nutrient content of natural pasture hay might be due to poor species composition of natural pasture hay (McDonald et al., 2010).The fact that, the lower CP and higher cell wall fibre content in hay refusals as compared to the offered might be associated with the Note: T 1 : hay + 50 g GNC; T 2 : T 1 + 25% TBDR + 75% FPH; T 3 : T 1 + 50% TBDR + 50% FPH; T 4 : T 1 + 75% TBDR + 25% FPH.Abbreviations: ΔNI, change in net income; ΔTVC, change in total variable cost; ETB, Ethiopian birr; GNC, ground nut cake; MRR, marginal return rate.
selective feeding of sheep for more palatable and nutritious parts of hay than the unpalatable and lignified parts of it.
The CP content of FPH in this study was higher than the values of 10.5% and 8%, reported by Mesganaw (2014) and Mekasha et al. (2002), respectively.On the other hand, comparable NDF but lower ADF contents of FPH were recorded in the current study as compared to the report of Mekasha et al. (2002).The dissimilarity in the nutrient contents of FPH used in this study from the CP content of FPH used in the former studies might be due to the method of processing and variety of the field pea.The CP content of TBDR in the current study was comparable with the results of 21.2%, 22.3% and 21.8% reported by Solomon (2007), Ayenew et al. (2012), andHagos (2014), respectively, but it was higher than the value 10.2% reported by Geaush (2011).
Lower NDF content of TBDR in the current study was recorded than reported by Mekasha et al. (2002) and Hagos (2014), but it was comparable to 34.7% reported by Ayenew et al. (2012).Differences in NDF content of TBDR among studies might be associated with differences in the ingredients used to Tella preparation and the preparation methods followed in different areas of the country.

Feed intake
The DM intake of roughage feeds is determined by rumen fill and digesta passage rate, whereas the consumption of highly digestible, high-energy (often low-fibre, high-concentrate) diets is controlled by the animal's energy demands and by metabolic factors (NRC (National Research Council), 2000).Hence, the lower total DM intake observed in the control treatment (T 1 ) than the supplemented groups might be due to gut fill and lower digesta passage rate arising from deficiency of nutrients for rumen microorganisms.Grovum and William (1977) reported that longer feed retention in the rumen resulted in reduced feed intake.On the other hand, the improvement in total DM intake in the supplemented sheep, in general, could be attributed to a better supply of CP that promoted the proliferation of rumen microorganisms enabling more efficient digestion of the fibre components leading to more feed intake (McDonald et al., 2010).Generally, the total DM intake as a percentage of BW in the present study was within the range of 2%-6% recommended by the ARC (Agricultural Research Council) (1980) and 3.2% by Ranjhan (1997).
It was noted in previous studies that supplementation reduced the DM intake of hay per day (Ayele et al., 2017(Ayele et al., , 2022;;Fentie & Solomon, 2008).It could be due to supplementation resulting in substitution rather than complementation of hay intake.ARC (Agricultural Research Council) (1980) also indicated that concentrate supplements increase total DM intake but reduce the intake of roughages due to substitution.The highest NDF and ADF intakes in sheep fed T 2 as compared to the others and higher NDF and ADF intakes in T 2 than T 3 and T 4 supplemented groups could be explained as a high content of these components in FPH as it was 75% in composition in T 2 and partly due to function of high DM intake as compared to the control.

Apparent digestibility of treatment feeds
The digestibility of a feedstuff is the proportion of the feed or any single nutrient of the feed which is not recovered in faeces.It is the single most important variable determining animal performance and voluntary intake, and it correlates with the amount of nutrients that can be extracted from feed.The digestibility of a feed is closely related to its chemical composition, especially the fibre fraction of a food has the greatest influence on its digestibility, and both the quantity and quality of the fibre are important (McDonald et al., 2010).Hence, the lowest DM, OM and CP digestibility recorded in sheep fed T 2 supplement might be due to the high NDF content of the supplement.
Supplementing forage with a concentrate containing a readily available source of carbohydrates reduces NDF and ADF digestion due to its rapid fermentation to volatile fatty acids, which depresses the rumen pH to 6 or less.The low rumen pH inhibits cellulolytic microorganisms' activity, and hence, fibre digestion reduces (McDonald et al., 2010).
However, in the current study, this would not happen, but supplementation improved fibre digestion compared to the control and similar among supplement treatments.That might be partly explained by the supplements used that might contain a little amount of readily available carbohydrates and which might not bring rumen pH change but provides protein to enhance the activity of the rumen microorganisms, which are then better able to digest the fibre component of the feed (Ranjhan, 1997), and might be due to the high NDF and ADF content in FPH would aid in buffering, thus delaying any decrease in pH (Mekasha et al., 2002).Ranjhan (1997)

Body weight change and feed conversion efficiency
Body weight gain in animals is dependent on the animal's genetic potential and the extent to which the feed allows this potential to be expressed (Irshad et al., 2013;Oddy & Sainz, 2002), and it is an indicator of the potential of the feed along with the ability of the animals to extract nutrients from the feed.Protein and energy are the major nutrients affecting the weight gain of sheep (Freer & Dove, 2002).
Accordingly, 22 g/day more ADG and higher FCE in sheep fed T 4 (75% TBDR and 25% FPH) treatment than T 2 and T 3 in supplemented groups of sheep in this study could be attributed to the higher CP and ME contents of the supplement that promote more microbial population growth and therefore encourage digestion making nutrient available to increase weight gain in sheep.
The daily BW gain in T 4 (79 g/day) of supplemented sheep in this study was similar to 78.7 g/day for the same breed of sheep supplemented with commercial concentrate mixed with the sweet blue lupine seed at various ratios (Likawent et al., 2012).Ayele et al. (2022) reported comparable ADG (84 g/day) for the same breed of sheep fed finger millet straw ad libitum + 280 g CM + 120 g grass pea hull.Similarly, comparable to the current result, 74 g/day ADG was reported for Farta sheep when sheep were supplemented with natural pasture hay + 150 g/day dried Atella + 100 g/day wheat bran (Teshager et al., 2022).On the other hand, the ADG values (56-79 g/day) in the current study for the supplemented groups of sheep were higher than 16-25 g/day observed in Washera sheep supplemented with 300 g/day of different forms of white lupin to Rhodes grass hay basal diet (Gebru et al., 2015).Growth rates between 45 and 64 (Mesganaw, 2014)) and 40-49 g/day (Assefu, 2012) have also been reported for Washera sheep fed hay as a basal diet and supplemented with FPH to concentrate ratio and roughage to concentrate ratio, respectively.However, the ADG values recorded from the current study as well as previous studies of Ethiopian sheep were much lower than the ADG values (256-290 g/day) recorded for Najdi lambs in Riyadh, Saud Arabia fed complete pelleted diets supplemented with different levels of Arthrospira platensis supplement (Alghonaim et al., 2022).Differences in ADG among studies could be attributed to variations in the supplements (type and amount), basal diets used, and the environment in which the experiments were conducted, and variations in sheep breeds used.Sheep in the control treatment in the current study were able to gain body weight, contrary to the results of Ayele et al. (2022) and Ayenew et al. (2012), who reported 5.6 and 23 g/day BW loss, and even better BW gain was observed in this study for the sheep in control treatment than that reported by Likawent et al. (2012) for the same breed of sheep.The better performance of sheep in the control treatment in this study could be attributed to the higher CP content of the GNC that was given to all sheep to fulfil the maintenance requirement of sheep in the control treatment, and it was above maintenance requirement.

Partial budget analysis
The fact that sheep fed T 4 (75% TBDR and 25% FPH) fetched better price as compared to the others was due to higher final body weight of sheep which resulted in good body condition and attract the buyers.It is generally noted that animal feed cost is the single largest expense in to evaluate the economic profitability of the treatment feeds.Purchasing and selling prices of sheep, purchasing price of hay, FPH, and traditional dried brewery residue were recorded.Other expenses such as feed and sheep transportation costs, mineral licks, housing, labour, and veterinary services, which were common for all treatments, were not considered in the calculation of the partial budget analysis.The selling price of each sheep was determined by inviting well-experienced three sheep dealers, who know the prevailing market price of sheep in the study area's market.Therefore, the average price determined by the dealers was used as the selling price of the sheep.The cost of feeds was computed by multiplying the actual DM intake of feed for the whole feeding period (90 days) with the current purchase price of each treatment feed.The total cost associated with each sheep during the experimental period in each treatment was summed and the average was taken as a total variable cost (TVC).The total return (TR) was calculated as the difference between the selling and purchasing prices of the experimental animals.The net income (NI) was calculated as the amount of money left when TVC is subtracted from the TR.The change in NI (ΔNI) was calculated as the difference between the change in TR (ΔTR) and the change in TVCs (ΔTVC).The marginal rate of return (MRR) measures the increase in NI (ΔNI) associated with each additional unit of expenditure (ΔTVC) and expressed in percentage as MRR = ´NI ´TVC × 100.
and McDonald et al. (2002) indicated that protein-rich feeds added to balance low protein roughages increase microbial activity in the rumen, consequently resulting in improved fermentation of the cell wall carbohydrates.The observed improvement in the apparent digestibility of DM and nutrients due to supplementation is in agreement with the report of Fentie and Solomon (2008), Ayele et al. (2017, 2022) in a trial using Farta sheep, three sheep breeds of Ethiopia, and the same sheep breed as the current study, respectively.
Chemical composition of feeds offered and hay refused (% dry matter[DM]).

Table 2
Daily feed intake of Washera sheep fed on natural pasture grass hay (NPGH) and supplemented with traditional brewery dried residue (TBDR) and field pea hull (FPH) mixtures.
).On the other hand, supplementation improved (p < 0.0001) total DM intake by 280 g/day (T 4 ), 243 g/day (T 2 ) and 230 g/day (T 3 ) over the control TA B L E 2 1 : hay + 50 g GNC; T 2 : T 1 + 25% TBDR + 75% FPH; T 3 : T 1 + 50% TBDR + 50% FPH; T 4 : T 1 + 75% TBDR + 25% FPH.Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fibre; ADL, acid detergent lignin; CP, crude protein; DM, dry matter; GNC, ground nut cake; ME, metabolized energy; NDF, neutral detergent fibre; OM, organic matter; SEM, standard error of mean.treatment.Supplementation increased (p < 0.0001) the intake of OM, CP, ME, NDF and ADF as compared to sheep in control group.The total average daily CP intake was higher (p < 0.001) in the order of T 4 = T 3 > T 2 in supplemented groups, but there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) among supplemented groups of sheep in total DM intakes as percentage and metabolic body weights.Similarly, ME intakes were comparable for all supplemented groups.NDF and ADF intakes in sheep fed T 2 supplement were higher (p < 0.0001) than those groups of sheep consumed T 3 and T 4 .
Apparent dry matter and nutrients digestibility by Washera sheep fed on natural pasture grass hay supplemented with traditional brewery dried residue (TBDR) and field pea hull (FPH) mixtures.
Supplemented sheep gained higher (p < 0.0001) FBW, ADG, and FCE than sheep fed control treatment.Among the supplemented groups of sheep, sheep fed T 4 gained 4.49 kg extra body weight as compared to TA B L E 3
TA B L E 4