Growth performances and feed consumption
At the end of the experiment, the lowest value of average BW (Table 3) was registered by lambs from the T
1 group (33.99±0.59 kg) and the highest by lambs from the T
3 group (35.60±0.68 kg). In this study, it was observed that the final BW of lambs increased with the increase in the protein level of the feed diets although the differences between groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). This can probably be explained by the fact that a higher intake of protein increased the amount of non-degradable protein in the rumen, which was degraded into peptides and amino acid and directly absorbed and utilized in the small intestine
(Yang et al., 2016). Also, the increase of protein levels improved the number and activity of ruminal microorganisms, maximizing ruminal fermentation
(Kerry et al., 1993).
In general, it was found that in all experiments where protein supplementation of diets was encountered, the final BW of the groups that received an increased protein level was higher compared to that of the groups that did not benefit from this increase, even if this difference was not always statistically assured
(Rocha et al., 2004). Contrary to our results, other authors find that the final BW of the groups that benefited from the increase of protein level in diets was significantly higher compared to that of control groups
(Ebrahimi et al., 2007).
In our experiment, the protein supplementation of diets does not negatively influence the ADG and feed consumption, but on the contrary there was a significant increase of the ADG in the first phase of fattening and an improvement in dry matter and protein consumption when the protein supplementation is done in the first phase at fattening (Table 3). Similar results are obtained by
Yang et al., (2016), who found that the appropriate protein level of diets (13.40%) can improve ADG and FCE (feed conversion efficiency) compared with other groups (11.17 and 12.06%). Also,
Dabiri and Thonney (2004) found a little difference in average daily gain and feed efficiency between lambs fed the diets with 15 or 17% crude protein, suggesting that a protein level near 15% would be optimal for 25 to 40 kg growing lambs. In other studies, there was found no effect of protein level on DM intake, daily gain and feed efficiency
(Kaya et al., 2009; Rocha et al., 2004).
The results obtained in this experiment allow us to conclude that the increase of the protein level of lambs feed diets was beneficial and advisable to be realized in the first phase of fattening, as the increase of protein level on the entire fattening period did not lead to a BW and an ADG to justify the additional consumption of nutrients and especially protein.
Meat parameters
Dietary treatments had no effect on carcass traits (slaughter weight, carcass weight, slaughter yield and commercial yield), as the results obtained indicated that between groups there were no significant differences (Table 4). Referring to the muscle surface it was found that there were significant differences between T
2 and T
3 groups compared to T
1 group. As a result, the surface area of the muscle was influenced by the protein level of the diets which led to a higher amount of meat at this level.
The results of our research regarding the influence of protein level of diets on slaughter parameters are similar to those obtained by
Ortiz et al., (2005) who found that the use of rations in the feeding of lambs with different protein levels (15, 20 and 25%) did not significantly influence slaughter weight, carcass weight and slaughter yield. The same conclusion emerges from the research conducted by
Rios-Rincon et al. (2014) who found that the protein level in rations did not induce significant differences between groups in terms of carcass weight and slaughter efficiency. On the other hand,
Ebrahimi et al., (2007) found that the weight of the hot and cold carcass increased significantly with the increase of the protein level in the rations (10.5, 12.5 and 14.5%), but the yield at slaughter was similar.
The observed results of the muscle surface in this study corroborated with those of
Ruiz Nuno et al., (2009) who found that the protein concentration in the diet (14, 16 and 18%) increased the diameter of muscle (P<0.05). In contrast, research conducted by
Rios-Rincon et al. (2014) showed that the protein level in rations (14.5 and 17.5%) did not induce significant differences between groups in terms of muscle surface area.
Analyzing the absolute and relative values of muscle, bones and fat at all three groups, we found differences among groups (Table 5). Thus, we found that increasing the protein level of diets influenced the amount of muscle in the carcass, in the sense of increasing it although the differences between groups were not statistically significant (P<0.05). The possible explanation for the insignificant proportion of muscle in the carcass is that the higher feed intake causes a faster feed flow through the rumen and, therefore, the degradation process of the feed in the rumen is shorter
(Lee et al., 2010). Regarding the percentage of fat in the carcass, the increase in the protein level of rations used in fattening influenced the amount of fat in the carcass, in the sense of reducing it (P<0.05).
Increasing the protein level in Merino lambs feed diets in this study led to a higher proportion of muscles and lower fat in the carcass, which is probably due to an adequate supply of protein to maintain good rumen function and to the efficient conversion of feed into meat
(Milton and Paterson, 2001).
The results obtained in the present experiment are in agreement with those found by
Pajak et al., (1993) who observed a significant increase of muscle in the carcass (from 55.3 to 58.0%), as well as a significant reduction in the fat content (from 16.6 to 14.7%) by increasing around approx. 21% protein level in fattening lamb’s rations (14 and 17%). Results different from ours are obtained by
Prima et al., (2019) who found that the effect of protein level (14, 16 and 18%) was not significant on meat, fat and bone weight, meat-fat ratio, meat-bone ratio and meat-protein content.