Correction: Date palm by-products, fish waste, and Moringa oleifera as a cost-effective total mixed ration for fattening lambs: trade-offs between economic benefits and growth performance

The cost of animal feed is a serious limiting factor in livestock production in arid and semi-arid regions. This study investigated whether a locally formulated total mixed ration (TMR) based on date palm by-products, fish processing waste, and Moringa oleifera could serve as an economical alternative to commercial TMR for fattening Omani lambs. Methods: Twenty intact male Omani lambs (initial body weight 20.5 ± 2.3 kg, approximately 5 months old) were randomly assigned to two dietary treatments (n = 10 per treatment) in a completely randomized design for 84 days. The formulated TMR contained palm fronds (16%), barley grains (20%), fish meal (10%), date syrup (18%), Moringa oleifera leaves and stems (34%), and sodium chloride (1%). Productive performance, nutrient digestibility, hematological and biochemical parameters, carcass characteristics, meat quality, and feeding economics were evaluated and compared between the two dietary treatments. Results: Commercial TMR lambs gained significantly more total weight (11.30 vs. 6.37 kg; P < 0.0001) and average daily gain (0.135 vs. 0.076 kg/day) with better feed conversion ratio (6.17 vs. 11.19 kg feed/kg gain; P = 0.0011) than lambs fed formulated TMR. Crude protein digestibility was significantly higher in formulated TMR (68.64 vs. 61.35%; P = 0.039), whereas neutral detergent fiber digestibility was significantly higher in commercial TMR (49.51 vs. 36.56%; P = 0.002). Animals fed commercial TMR had significantly greater slaughter weight (30.86 vs. 25.54 kg; P = 0.004), but dressing percentage did not differ between groups. Internal fat deposition was significantly lower (P = 0.012) in formulated TMR animals, with 35.4% less total internal fat (1.305 vs. 2.021 kg). Hematological variables were within normal physiological limits in both groups. Blood biochemical analysis showed significant time × treatment interactions for glucose (P = 0.001) and calcium (P = 0.020). No significant treatment effects were observed for any meat quality attributes, including ultimate pH (5.31 vs. 5.37), cooking loss (27.37 vs. 25.90%), and shear force (3.90 vs. 3.81 kg; all P > 0.05). The formulated TMR reduced daily feeding cost by 68.5% and lowered feed cost per kg live weight gain by 41.3% compared to commercial TMR. Hot carcass weight (13.42 ± 2.29 vs. 11.28 ± 2.32 kg; P = 0.053) and cold carcass weight (13.07 ± 2.25 vs. 11.03The cost of animal feed is a serious limiting factor in livestock production in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide. The fundamental cause of this is an extreme shortage of freshwater, which severely limits the amount of arable land that can be used to grow feed crops for humans and animals. However, some feeds are locally available, in particular natural rangeland grazing and browsing plants and agricultural by-products, especially those from the date palm, fish-processing waste, and Moringa spp. Finding ways to reduce feeding costs through the use of such byproducts or alternative feed resources can help promote circulareconomy approaches to agriculture and support sustainable livestock production in regions where resources are limited (1,2).Sheep production is an integral element of agriculture production systems around the world, contributing to food security and supporting livelihoods in arid and semi-arid environments globally and within Oman (3-5). Feed quality is largely responsible for differences in growth performance, carcass characteristics and profit among animals raised in intensive lamb fattening operations (6,7). Commercial total mixed rations (TMRs) are common dietary formulations utilized in these settings due to their precise nutritional content and controlled ratios of essential nutrients (8,9). Yet increasing feed ingredient costs render them economically prohibitive in some cases, especially within countries experiencing water scarcity which precludes most homegrown feed crops (5,10).Utilization of locally sourced agricultural by-products and alternative feedstuffs in physiologically appropriate amounts may be to production costs the within feed formulations as as a of feed resources that are in including by-products from the date palm fish-processing and Moringa oleifera including these in a TMR may be to the and of these compared to commercial of animal palm in arid and semi-arid environments to the of agricultural The production of date palm by-products is to but are in animal which a a protein content of and an content from to with and as the on date fronds are that can be used for However, the content is in palm which fiber digestibility palm by-products the of and their through protein or processing to digestibility oleifera is a that was in but in and regions around the Moringa leaves are in protein and a with a content of essential such as and to their nutritional Moringa leaves such as and which and that with leaves can growth performance, and reduce in livestock fiber is an of animal feed quality and nutrient digestibility, and in is by content detergent fiber and detergent fiber as as and digestibility is of the and of fiber in the may nutrient digestibility and reduce fiber is for normal fiber the and is of dietary for lambs both the production and fiber the of of for intensive systems to However, that as as of is fiber are fed in of the fiber quality animal fiber digestibility for and feed of locally protein be to economically for intensive lamb by-products and including fish meal and of protein for animal feed protein is of with a in essential such as and meal which may for and by-products which to effects on meat quality Omani is a to arid by and of feed Omani are among the most and a significant in production and fattening in the of feeding for fattening is of for production and the sustainable use of this animal study compared a formulated TMR date palm by-products, fish waste, and Moringa oleifera with a commercial TMR for growth performance, physiological parameters, carcass characteristics, and meat quality in fattening Omani lambs. was that the formulated TMR nutritional for the commercial feeding was the of Oman approximately approximately The from to the the the was intact male Omani lambs (initial body weight 20.5 ± 2.3 kg, approximately 5 months old) were assigned randomly to two dietary treatments (n = 10 per treatment) in a completely randomized Animals were in a with × with to a an was formulated TMR contained palm fronds (16%), barley grains (20%), fish meal (10%), date syrup (18%), Moringa oleifera leaves and stems (34%), and sodium chloride (1%). fronds were to approximately and Moringa oleifera leaves and stems were approximately of The commercial TMR was a lamb fattening which formulated TMR in with the were per of the body weight to The feed and was daily to animal feed were for protein by the by and content by in a for all to detergent fiber and detergent fiber were and of as by and were for for content was was in a animals per treatment and was to for days. and were a were through a with that and to through This from and from was and a of was and was and was with of 10 to of was on of to a of 10 to loss were per animal the of the and for were and for digestibility of and were the × weight was an daily gain total weight feed and feed conversion ratio were were by and 84 of Blood for hematological variables were and an within of were less than for and and less than for this per and Blood for biochemical variables were and to for to for was and total calcium and were commercial on an were per with and for all for of were Animals were slaughter Hot and cold carcass were and the dressing percentage was The internal fat and were and the were for meat quality ultimate cooking shear a and were used for all and processing to the and of the animal were by the and the of and of Oman and were to of the feeding was based on ingredient daily feeding of live weight and of cold was the for the feed and body weight were as with treatment TMR vs. formulated and as with animal within treatment) as to within animal and time as and were used to the of and was was to differences between treatment for carcass characteristics, meat quality parameters, hematological and biochemical that were time Blood biochemical and hematological two time and were mixed with time as treatment × time as and animal as are as ± P < was for the of the formulated in the TMR are in The percentage of in the TMR with Moringa oleifera for barley date syrup date palm fronds and fish meal of the chloride was with formulated TMR a of from in sodium chloride to and in Moringa oleifera and fish was in date The protein content of in the TMR was from in date syrup to in fish meal and in Moringa The content of the was higher in fish meal and lower in date syrup by Moringa oleifera and date palm fronds fiber between with neutral detergent fiber in Moringa oleifera and date palm fronds and was and in fish meal and detergent fiber The percentage of calcium and were in fish meal and by Moringa oleifera and of commercial and formulated are in The content was significantly higher in the commercial TMR than in the formulated TMR Crude protein were and between The was lower in the formulated TMR than that in the commercial TMR neutral detergent fiber content was higher in the commercial TMR than in the formulated TMR The detergent fiber were and in the formulated TMR and commercial The was higher in the commercial TMR than that in the formulated TMR were and in the commercial and digestibility of the commercial and formulated is in and The digestibility of was not ± and ± between the two treatments (P = digestibility was not significantly between commercial and are ± (n = per P < P < neutral detergent detergent weight of lambs fed commercial or locally formulated total mixed ration a feeding lambs gained weight the and lambs fed commercial TMR greater from to ± = ± and ± P = digestibility was significantly higher in the formulated TMR (68.64 ± than in the commercial TMR ± = 0.039), which showed an in formulated TMR. digestibility was significantly higher (49.51 ± in commercial TMR than in formulated TMR ± = which in the formulated TMR. digestibility to be lower in formulated TMR ± than in commercial TMR ± was not significant = of the in the digestibility was significantly higher in commercial TMR ± than in formulated TMR ± = performance, and of the two are in weight gain and average daily gain were significantly higher in the commercial TMR (11.30 ± kg and ± than in the formulated TMR ± kg and 0.076 ± = < the total feed was not ± and ± kg, = feed ratio was significantly higher in the commercial TMR ± kg than in the formulated TMR ± kg < feed conversion ratio was significantly lower in the commercial TMR (6.17 ± kg feed/kg than in the formulated TMR ± kg feed/kg gain; = was to feed a significant of feed = P < 0.001) and showed that the feed of lambs in both significantly the The analysis showed that the feed was not significantly between the commercial and formulated TMR = = The the of a × = = the for the = = that both a of the animals from the two treatments are in a significant of time = < = and showed that the body weight of lambs in both significantly the significant of was = = = with the commercial TMR higher body weight ± than the formulated TMR ± kg). significant time × was observed = < = that the growth of the lambs between the two groups. both showed weight gain the commercial TMR a and more than the formulated TMR with the between in the of the body in both were ± and The hematological of the animals fed commercial and formulated are in Animals from the two treatments did not differ > in any hematological was a significant of time < on a of variables and which significantly the time of the The for all were within the for biochemical of animals fed commercial and formulated are in The a significant of time = < 0.001) and a significant time × treatment = = 0.020). The significantly time = = with differences between treatments = was a time for glucose = < with glucose from significant time × treatment = = 0.001) that the of between the with a more in the formulated TMR compared with the in the showed time = but the time × treatment was significant = = calcium between the calcium in the commercial TMR but in the formulated TMR were significantly by treatment = P = with the formulated TMR lower were significantly by the treatment = = with the commercial TMR higher significantly time = = and was significantly higher in the formulated TMR = = are in slaughter were significantly higher in animals fed the commercial TMR compared to the formulated TMR (30.86 ± and 25.54 ± kg, P = The body weight was significantly higher in animals fed the commercial TMR than the formulated TMR ± and ± kg, P = 0.002). Hot carcass weight to be higher in the commercial TMR (13.42 ± 2.29 than in the formulated TMR ± 2.32 the was not significant (P = The cold carcass weight a (13.07 ± 2.25 The and showed significant differences between the two groups. weight ± and ± kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = and ± and ± kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = and ± and ± kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = ± and ± kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = and kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = and ± and ± kg for the commercial and formulated TMR = were all between the dietary pH of the meat time are in the pH of the commercial TMR ± and formulated TMR ± were = the pH to be lower in the commercial TMR ± than in the formulated TMR ± but the was not significant = and were significant differences in the pH between the commercial and formulated TMR groups. The pH ± and ± for the commercial and formulated TMR within the normal for meat in both The amount of did not differ between the two = Commercial TMR lambs had lower ± than the formulated TMR lambs ± The cooking loss percentage was not between the two = with commercial TMR animals ± and formulated TMR animals ± cooking did not differ between the dietary treatments = The commercial TMR had a shear force of ± kg, the formulated TMR showed 3.81 ± were within the for meat force < 5 meat evaluated the a are in were not significantly between the two = with commercial TMR meat ± and formulated TMR meat ± were between treatments = and ± and ± for the commercial and formulated TMR were not significantly between the two = but the formulated TMR meat had higher ± compared to commercial TMR meat ± all meat were between the two dietary for the costs in the commercial and formulated TMR are in and was a significant < 0.001) in the cost of feed between the commercial and formulated TMR groups. Animals in the commercial TMR showed higher daily feeding cost ± compared to animals fed the formulated TMR ± approximately 68.5% in daily feeding cost for the formulated TMR The of this was by an = and The cost of the formulated TMR per live weight The feed cost per kg live weight gain for the formulated TMR compared to for the commercial a 41.3% in production the lower growth of the formulated TMR weight cold carcass weight of and feed cost per kg live weight of lambs fed commercial or locally formulated total mixed ration (TMR) an fattening weight was significantly higher in the commercial TMR < cold carcass weight did not differ significantly between P 0.05). Feed cost was significantly lower in the formulated TMR < a 41.3% in cost per kg live weight gain compared to commercial TMR The in the the cost with the formulated TMR. commercial TMR and formulated TMR. are as ± = 10 per TMR formulated in the which Moringa oleifera date palm date and fish was to feed cost by 68.5% some of carcass and meat quality, including total fat by 35.4% compared to the commercial TMR. this a in growth performance, in a lower average daily gain and an higher feed conversion ratio compared to commercial total feed of nutrient The observed differences in growth performance, feed and carcass between the two can be by that the nutritional of the their and physiological of the lambs. a in where rations nutrient to commercial rations but in of and formulated TMR had a higher protein content than the commercial TMR vs. which was the for lambs but a lower and higher of the of date palm fronds and Moringa oleifera The content between the two that the formulated TMR protein for whereas the lower and higher that the fiber quality and digestibility were palm fronds as feedstuffs with and them with digestibility Moringa oleifera leaves are in and but such as and that can digestibility and fish meal is a of fish processing that protein and but is in the and digestibility Commercial TMR contained significantly more than formulated TMR vs. The of this is by the that and of in the are greater than those of in more and for and to and were higher in formulated TMR. are or not by in the or to of the amount of and in a a on of feed The P ratio was this was by the calcium in Moringa oleifera leaves and fish meal which could an of dietary formulated TMR in significantly higher digestibility (68.64 vs. = but lower vs. = and digestibility vs. = than the commercial as in The higher digestibility in the formulated TMR could be to the protein meal and Moringa and their which may the to and protein The lower and digestibility in the formulated TMR are to the content and the of and in date palm fronds and which can the of and as as to and dietary fiber and fat from and The differences in and digestibility between the two that such as and may the nutrient and feed of of digestibility in the formulated TMR be to the of Moringa oleifera and of such as and on is to fiber which was by in production analysis that showed less total was compared to those was significantly lower were in Moringa oleifera to cause significant in to in the of in fiber by for between and fiber of limits fiber by within the to production per of which limits to total and the ratio responsible for gain fat or in digestibility was significantly lower in the formulated TMR compared to the was higher in the vs. This is by of The of dietary calcium was higher in the formulated TMR compared to the = in of calcium that are not by and through the could this digestibility but may help for of fed the formulated as fat a loss of in growth is the most of this as that the formulated TMR was not to support the weight gain and feed in lambs. The significantly lower and higher in the formulated TMR vs. < 11.19 vs. = 0.0011) that the and were limiting and that the formulated TMR was not to the and of nutrients for growth and feed The total feed in the formulated TMR the effects of or as the cause of the reduced growth performance, and that the quality and of the nutrients were the growth the content in the formulated TMR did not differ significantly from that of commercial the lower digestibility of and which are of and for and the interactions between and may an in the which could the lower growth in this and that is the limiting factor for lamb growth dietary is a and that and can be more and to dietary than and to this was a but significant of in the formulated TMR vs. which with reduced and digestibility in lower for on an animal of be a kg lamb whereas be the animal but to in the formulated TMR was to animals or the to animals to the growth is or growth is animals that amounts of per kg in dietary can severely growth of the formulated TMR in of protein the animal with of the and any in to less total protein on This is by the of digestibility used which was digestibility including and digestibility were greater for the formulated the amount of the may not to support of feed in that both had with an by a and a in the of the This could the physiological and of lambs to the and as as the of such as and The of or in feed in both that the lambs were to with the and their nutrient but the differences in growth and feed that nutrient and were not in the formulated TMR hematological and biochemical in 5 that the formulated TMR did not any effects on the physiological and of the as most were within the normal and did not differ significantly between the two groups. The and in 5 that the and were not by the and that the lambs in both were to their and The significant time × treatment for = and the increasing in both as in that the lambs their with which is with on The biochemical in some and differences between the two as as significant time × treatment interactions for glucose = 0.001) and calcium = which to The glucose in were more and less in the formulated TMR than in the commercial TMR which could be to the lower of date syrup compared to and the effects of fiber and in and date palm fronds on glucose and the and contained within Moringa oleifera and through and in and glucose observed in the TMR the may due to a of from date lower compared to commercial calcium were higher in the formulated TMR and did not were lower and more in the commercial TMR which could be by the calcium content of Moringa oleifera leaves and fish meal in the formulated TMR. The lower and in the formulated TMR in are to the effects of and in and date palm which can and dietary and reduce their for and in the of of which is by in the is that the lower of formulated TMR lambs is to of than as and hematological were within for production in formulated TMR animals, within may protein and due to growth as of with lower slaughter weight and body weight in the formulated TMR as in are of the lower growth the but not that the lambs were or The dressing percentage between the two vs. = in that the of carcass to live weight was not by the and that the was The significantly greater in fat in the formulated TMR which to 35.4% less total internal fat (1.305 vs. 2.021 kg; P = especially in fat and fat with the and of Moringa The of and in Moringa oleifera leaves were to and reduce the of such as and in and support the of feeding Moringa oleifera to This in body is the of as lower and reduced fat digestibility in the formulated TMR due to the higher fiber content and the of as in and limited the for and in the in Moringa oleifera and to and by the and of and lower and higher calcium in the formulated TMR as in may to the reduced fat as both glucose and calcium in and and in the of and a meat quality this is and as that the lambs in the formulated TMR with less internal fat which to be processing and and are meat with and as are as and more than with amounts of internal fat are and lower and as production costs and reduce the of meat the formulated TMR that were more with and in the meat and which could higher and of dressing percentage significantly lower slaughter and body is that to physiological percentage in is based largely on the of internal and carcass than body weight dressing between that was a to body weight was the greater fiber content of the formulated TMR which to greater However, reduced of the formulated TMR fiber may which can the effects of common in meat quality in that were significant differences between the two in most of the attributes, which is a and for the and of meat from lambs fed the formulated TMR. pH and pH in both that and were not by the and that the lambs in both had and pH pH was not by (5.31 and for commercial and formulated and within the normal for meat the formulated This was physiologically livestock on a to higher ultimate pH of greater animals fed the formulated TMR pH to animals fed the commercial the lower The most is that the formulated TMR to support those for normal in such as cooking and showed significant differences between the two that the protein and were not by the The shear force in which are for were between the two that the did not any effects on meat which is an essential quality for and The of in shear force (3.90 vs. 3.81 and between that and of are the 5 kg for meat which the commercial of formulated TMR lamb meat a and were between the two and were within the for lamb such as those in such as can meat from by and the of and The higher in formulated TMR vs. may be to the higher content of Moringa oleifera leaves of and that in and a more this did not = may be with feeding of and be with of formulated total mixed ration (TMR) with significantly lower < 0.001) daily feeding cost vs. 68.5% and feed cost per kg live weight gain than commercial TMR and a for especially in regions where alternative feedstuffs such as date palm date processing waste, Moringa oleifera and fish meal are locally and can be The use of agricultural by-products as feed to a and on grains and that feed costs of the total cost of livestock production in where the of to feed are the to reduce daily feeding cost by 68.5% Omani and with an This for the lower growth feeding cost by 41.3% per kg of gain that the economics of the formulated TMR did not from the use of less but are to locally agricultural their cost formulated TMR a lower average daily gain and higher feed conversion ratio nutrient The reduced digestibility of and with the of in the to the lower for such as and to nutrient digestibility in by and to the The use of such as and can be an to nutrient digestibility in that and can fiber digestibility by and growth in that the of and significantly and digestibility < in grazing could be a for nutrient in fed of and limited the of the of the observed differences in digestibility between the two in digestibility animals and analysis alternative feedstuffs and which a in nutrient and animal and of meat quality a better of the and of from fed on formulated and be to digestibility of alternative such as and may fiber by some of the in date palm fronds and Moringa The use of may by increasing within the and increasing of and an and to help better feed to that reduce of or of date palm fronds and Moringa oleifera the of on on in digestibility of with a could the on growth between the formulated and commercial TMR based on the of agricultural by-products and animal by-products with Moringa to feed costs by 68.5% compared to commercial TMR. in and feed conversion were due to a in digestibility and lower this in production performance, meat quality, cold carcass weight and hematological were and showed a 35.4% in internal fat for formulated TMR fed some such as the of increasing the amount of barley or date syrup in the formulated digestibility and could be to growth in processing could be used to nutrient formulated TMR is a for production in arid regions where cost and are