March i tritional Requirements of the ANGORA GOA T s ~. IVERSITY "ltural Experiment Station ‘ng Director, College Station, Texas Con ten ts i Introduction ....................................................................... -- 3 Nutrient Requirements ..................................................... __ 3 Energy ........................................................................ .- 3 Protein ........................................................................ .. 4 Vitamins .................................................................... .. 6 Minerals ..................................................................... -_ 6 Water ......................................................................... -. 6 Recommended Nutrient Allowances ......................... .... .- 6 Diet and Its Influence on Deficiencies .......................... .. 7 Meeting the Energy and Protein Requirements ............. _. 9 Literature Cited ................................................................ ..14 Appendix ........................................................................... ..14 Preface Angora goat production holds a prominent viii Texas agriculture. Most of the goat industry is l the area of the state characterized by complex 4i dense, browse vegetation. Much of the justific i including goats in the ranch enterprise is due to i that goats consume plants not preferred by ca; sheep and that they help control noxious plants. of the problems in Angora goat production are . a lack of understanding of the fluctuations that e 1t in the goat's diet and in the nutritional requirem posed. This publication presents research data and discussion on (1) the kinds and required or nutrients for Angora goats, (2) their diets an nutrient deficiencies and (3) suggested means for A ing proper nutrition. Anal Requirements of the ANGORA GOA T i]. E. HUSTON MAURICE Sl-IELTON W. C. ELLIS* . arch associate and professor, Texas A&M Uni- t» al Research and Extension Center at McGregor; fessor, Department of Animal Science. THE ANGORA GOAT INDUSTRY is an important one in Texas, providing a source of income to producers and assisting in brush control through preferential utilization of plants not readily accepted by other livestock. Producers of Angora goats face many challenging problems, not the least of which is erratic mohair price. However, produc- tion problems such as low fleece weights; poor reproduc- tive performance; and high incidence of death losses from predators, disease, internal parasitism and low temperature stress adversely affect the status of the industry. Under- lying and contributing to each of these problems is the poor nutritional state of most flocks. Notwithstanding this, little definitive information is available on nutrient require- ments of this species. ' A systematic approach to the feeding of any species requires the following steps or processes: 1) a knowledge of the nutrient requirements of the species involved; 2) an understanding of nutrients obtained from forages being consumed; 3) a determination, by a direct comparison of the two preceding, of the supplemental nutrients required for optimum or maximum performance; and 4) a thorough knowledge of nutrients in available feedstuffs and how these may be economically provided for the animal. This report attempts to provide some of this information as it applies to Angora goats. NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS The nutrients required by all higher forms of animals can be classified broadly as energy (carbohydrates, fat or degraded protein), protein, minerals, vitamins and water. Body metabolism involves transforming these nutrients into the forms required for maintenance, body activity, growth and production of such desired products as milk and fiber. The various nutrients are used for different functions, and the amounts required vary greatly; but all are totally inter- related, and life cannot exist for long in the absence of any one. Energy is required to produce body movement through voluntary muscle contraction; it provides for essential in- voluntary muscular activity, such as heart beat, and the driving force for chemical reactions leading to maintenance of body tissues, growth and so forth. Energy may be measured or expressed in a number of ways —- two are used in this report to allow for broader application. The older system of expressing available energy is as Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) which estimates the amount (pounds) or percent of the consumed feedstuff which is available for metabolic uses. A more modern approach is to express available energy as Digestible Energy (DE) which is simply the megacalories of energy digested. Dietary energy requirement for an animal is the level of consumed energy required to maintain normal health and vigor and to promote the desired level of production. From this definition it can be seen that animals have “basal requirements” (often called maintenance) to maintain 3 health and vigor iduring a nonproductive state and addi- The balance of the energy is expended as 5 tional requirements to support productive functions. How- relative magnitude of these efficiency factors pro ever, in fiber producing animals, such as the Angora, these explanation for the large differences in energy functions cannot be separated. The maintenance require- ments for animals in the various stages of pr ments are related to body size since the amount of main- Once the energy requirement for maintaining u! tenance metabolism (basal metabolic rate) increases as the is met, additional energy is used relatively inef animal becomes larger. However, this increase in basal with the greater efficiency realized in milk produ i metabolic rate is more proportional to a fractional power growth of the young animal.. fiilthough the energy of body weight. For Angora goats, the relationship for by the doe and fetus during pregnancy is very s energy requirements hasbeen determined by Brody (2) to calculated for the total gestation period, the energy be: Basal Metabolic Rate of Angora Goat = 126 X W-er’ ment can be quite large during the last 3O days a kilocalories/day in which W : body weight in pounds; and 1), and this often represents a stress period for th kilocalorie = a measure of energy approximately equal to A major energy Cost which an animal has 00005 Pounds 0t totiii siigestibie nutrients tTDNr which is often overlooked is the energy required for As indicated by this relationship, as a goat becomes Cor-y (5) studied the aetivity of range animals m‘ larger, its maintenance requirements increase but at a re- the Texas AgaM University Agricultural Research duced rate (Appendix Figure 1). This is reflected in the "i at Sonora and observed that goats traveled an av requirements table (Table 1) in that energy requirement 1, i miles per day compared with 3.5 miles for of a 100-pound doe is less than twice that of a SO-pound “miles for sheep Consistently, goats traveled doe. In contrast, energy requirements above the main- and on the average traveled 82 pereent andhjs tenance level for productive purposes are characteristic of farther than rattle and sheep"respeetively_ Even , the product and vary directly with the level of production. mate of inerease in energy eost of‘ goats over sh For example, the energy required above the maintenance aetivity may he lovv heeause of the goat's eharaeter level to produce 1 pound of milk per day is constant and movement in foraging and play’ neither of vvhie is enehait the energy required tn Preuuee 2 Peuntis with‘ be evident in a recording of miles traveled. This 's out regard to animai siZe- activity cost over that of sheep is a major cause Unfortunately, only a portion of the energy consumed higher energY estimates tor Angnra goats than is later available in such a way that it can be utilized. A eraiiY aeeePteu Vaiues tot sheeP- Likewise goats '" Large portions of the consumed energy are lost in feces, extensive range 0r in Confinement ean he eXPeeteti urine or gas and are never available for use by the animal's inwer energY requirements than th0se tahniated, ' metabolic processes. When the terms DE or TDN are Wiii he higher than most ether sPeeies 0n a Pennnit used as a measure, the loss through the feces is corrected basis- for since it represents largely undigested material. For a protein from the diet serves to maintain or grazing animai» the inss through the urine and rumen the protein in body tissues, provides for carriers a gases are relatively constant, and an estimate of this is nutrients and is a major Component of various , considered in the calculations. The energy which is di- sueh as meat, milk and fiher_ protein requirements gested and does become available for metabolism is again different functions can he partitioned as was do less than IOO-percent efficient in supplying useful energy. energy The amount of digestible protein requ‘ The efficiency with which this "metabolizable energy” is Zero protein halanee (Consumed protein is equal to t, used depends upon type of diet and function for which protein) is related to the hasal energy require the energY is eXPentieu (grewtn iaetation= and so terth)- maintenance. Animals receiving basal energy requ' it We assume that the geatis tiiet is eeniPeseu tetaiiY or and sufficient protein for zero protein balance can i range forage, the efficiencies of utilization of metaboliz- sidered in equilibrium provided they are in a ,. able energyfor the various functions are closely estimated nonproduetive state and all other nutrients are .f PY the tniinwingi i As mentioned, mohair growth cannot be completely - Efficiency of utilization therefore, an animal in zero protein balance is d Fimriin” ‘if merabalizabia emingy (%) other tissues of protein in order to maintain a 1 Maintenance 80 mohair growth. i Growtih at weights (lb.) 20_30 o5 A choice of protein level for Angora goa 50-60 55 economic as well as a nutritional question. Ma 3 60-100 45 gora goats can be maintained on rations as low as Above inn ‘i0 cent protein. However, mohair production at this i Pregnancy 40 . . . a Lactation 7O very poor, and goats Wlll respond with increased Activity (body movement) 40 production as protein level is increased. Altho Fiber production Not known—probab1y less than 2O protein level of a ration consumed is not as impo 4 85% 0F FETAL WE'°"T'"°“EASE FIGURE i. RELATION OF FETAL AGE TO EM- BRYO WEIGHT OF ANGORA KIDS. The relation of fetal weight to age is curvilinear. The in- crease in body size is geometric in nature and approximates very closely the theoretical curve based on unl'mited population increase in fetal cells. A restriction to rate of development ap- pears to begin only after approximately "I30 days. After this age, sex of the kid or uterine environment (single or multiple embryos, size of doe, level of nutrition, and so forth begins to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I influence rate of development. These data in- I ——~| I I dicate the relative nutrient requirements for fetal development. Approximately 85 percent of fetal weight increase occurs during last 8 weeks of pregnancy (o, i2, 1i). LAST B WEEKS I OF GESTATION q d q 50 1s 10o 125 BIRTH DAYS OF GESTATION 0R FETAL AGE intake, there is a relationship between pro- data support the following conclusions: If goats are worth [ ration balance. Thus, it is logical to be keeping at all, they are worth supplementing to the level the answers to several questions: What required to maintain health and vigor. In one experiment, A level of protein necessary to maintain protein supplementation returned $4 to $5 for each dollar . W 0i VMiOUS 61115565 0f gOfltS? What iS th@ invested in the supplement. However, this response resulted ll 0f protein Which Can be fed With an from reduced death losses of does and kids rather than I_ inCrf-‘asfid mOhair Weight? What i5 thC increased mohair weight (Appendix Table 3). Improved 7 0f pr0t€ir1 for maXimum return 0n invest- nutrition through provision of supplemental protein above émfintfll pt0tffif1? Whflt i5 the inihleflfie 0f the level required to maintain health and vigor can be 7 on mohair quality? Complete and final e questions are not available as they will pditions such as age and prices. However, {given several indications, discussed in the I» um levels of protein and energy necessary ealth and vigor and a moderate level of I ion are those given as the lower range in 2. Experiments at the Texas A&M Uni- tural Research Center at McGregor have i, s in mohair growth from increasing ration lfrom 16 to 20 percent (kids), from 15 to irling billies) and from 6.5 to 10.5 percent ). Although these experiments do not ' urns, they do indicate that Angora goats realistically high‘. protein intake. Thus, the depends on the relative prices of feed in- air and slaughter value of surplus breeding i Tfllbl€S 2 and 5 provide some data, 0n Angora kids should be supplied their nutrient requirements at all . . times and protected against internal parasites as much as possible onse to Supplflnentatlon‘ Generally these in order that they may reach a large mature size. 5 justified for the increased mohair obtained only when mohair prices are reasonably high (Appendix Table 2). It is not possible to say exactly what the price is due to variations in feed costs, mohair prices and the genetic cap- ability of the goats to produce mohair. If the goats are being fed their entire ration, the break-even price of mohair would be at least $1.50 per pound (adult hair) at the present. When protein is being fed as a supple- ment to range forage and the latter is charged to the animal at a substantially cheaper cost than harvested feeds, the break-even mohair price for increased protein supple- meptation would likely be in the order of $1 per pound. L It is generally accepted that increased protein feeding results in increased diameter of mohair fibers (coarser hair). Research data confirm this (Appendix Table 1) but also indicate that the difference is usually small except when comparing extremes. Mohair quality can be improved by protein deprivation, but to do this intentionally is false economy. Thus, decisions concerning level of protein sup- plementation should probably be made without reference to mohair quality. An exception to this might be for those attempting to produce show fleeces in which case the pro- tein level should be held to an intermediate level for the age group concerned. Vitamin; comprise a group of compounds required by the animal in minor amounts but essential for proper func- tion of the body tissues. Almost no research has been conducted on the vitamin requirements of the Angora goats. There is little basis for thinking that vitamin re- quirements of the Angora goat differ greatly from those of the other ruminant species except as related to size. Thus, it would be inefficient to attempt to duplicate the extensive work already done with other species. The only experimental work known to have been conducted with supplemental vitamins for Angora goats is one trial conducted at McGregor using injectable vita- min A in which does were treated prior to fall mating season. In this case, no response was observed, but con- ditions at that time would not suggest the existence of a vitamin A deficiency. Actually, the probability of occur- rence of a vitamin A deficiency in adult animals on range is remote provided there are occasional seasons when green growing plants are available to the animal. Deficiencies are likely to develop in adult animals only during severe, extended dry periods when little or no green forages are available. Young animals may become deficient if they have not had the occasion to graze during at least one season when green forage is available and, consequently, have not built up body vitamin A stores. The routine addition of vitamin A to supplemental rations for goats is probably advisable because of the low cost of this ingredient and because supplements are fre- quently used in a variety of conditions not generally known at time of formulation. There does not appear to be a 6 basis for providing other vitamins to goats und conditions. However, goats often may have red f intake due to unthrift of nutritional or parasi: and under these conditions, they might occasionall to multiple vitamin (A, D and E) injections. zl/Iirzeral requirements of any animal species , plex, and there is no reason to expect that the goat is an exception. The miherals required fall general classifications. Of the “macro minerals’ required in relatively large quantities such as calci i phorus and potassium), only phosphorus is lik deficient in range forage and should be widely formulated range supplements. In addition to th of phosphorus provided, the ratio of total phosphorus the animals receive is important and Y within the range of 1.5-4 calcium to 1 phosphorus. are normally high in calcium but may be low in p Thus, supplying a mineral complex containing a of calcium will only increase chances of deficien toms and should not be done. Mineral supple ranging animals should contain as little calcium sible with the calcium:phosphorus ratio not larg to 1. Requirements for "micro minerals" or “tr erals” (those required in small amounts) may r higher for Angora goats than for other species u!‘ the higher basal metabolic rate. Also, Angoras (j other species have a high proportion of their b! as physiologically active tissue due to the smaller » of body fat. However, little evidence is available cate that forages of typical Angora goat range are ' in trace minerals. It is possible that areas with s soil and the higher rainfall areas may have plants in one or more of the trace minerals; in these" broad base trace mineral supplement could be Water is of immediate and critical impo U, it seems a safe assumption that all producers r Water should be clean, well distributed and ple failure to meet these requirements will result ~_ water intake with correspondingly lower feed in reduced productivity. Because Angora goats can finicky in consumption of food or drink, it may A important that they be provided clean water th A with other species. RECOMMENDED NUTRIENT ALLOWANC Table 1 contains the recommended nutrien ances for the different classes of Angora w» various weights and stages of production. Calcul these values were based on a number of assump determined constants which are summarized in the dix. These recommended values are compromi " higher than bare minimum nutrition for life and lo, allowances which would support high but unec ATS i‘ OMMENDED NUTRIENT ALLOWANCES FOR Recommended intake/ day 11.1.1. (lb.) Gain DM DE DP VitA‘ (lb.) (lb.) (Mcal) (lb.) (mcg) » does 0-.15 2.1-2.7 2.5-3.2 .13-.17 146 0-.10 2.4-2.8 2.8-3.3 .14-.17 176 0-.05 3.1-3.3 3.3-3.4 .17-.18 246 0 3.8 3.7 .19 293 g o 4.0 4.0 .21 35o (last8weeks) I i 30-45 3.1-3.5 3.s-4.4 .2o-.24 48s .30-.40 3.3-3.8 4.0-4.5 .21-.24 585 g .30-.35 4.0-4.3 4.5-4.7 .24-.25 780 - .50 4.6 4.9 .26 976 16 weeks) ' —.o5-.oo 3.1-3.7 4.1-4.7 .23-.2s 43s -.05-.00 3.5-3.9 4.4-4.8 .25-.28 585 "-205 4.0-4.2 4.8-5.1 .27~.29 780 —.05 4.4 5.3 .30 976 ' yearlings .30 1.8 2.4 .16 100 .25 2.5 3.1 .18 200 .20 3.2 3.7 .20 292 ; .10 3.3 3.8 .19 390 lies " .30 3.7 4.8 .26 390 .20 4.2 4.9 .25 488 .10 4.4 4.7 " .24 585 Pl (lb.) .006 .006 .006 .006 .006 .006 .006 .007 .007 .007 .008 .008 .009 .004 .005 .006 .007 .007 .007 .007 v- weight change in pounds. * er in pounds. energy in megacalories. protein in pounds. ' A in micrograms. l‘ in pounds. -tions for sheep. , P allowances taken from National Research Coun- production. Individual producers may wish to shift above or below these values depending on their conditions and goals. Recommended allowances for the lighter animals range from allowances for maintenance and mohair pro- duction (lower range) to increased nutrition allowing for development of underdeveloped goats (higher range). These extra allowances are considerable, and it is doubtful that extremely underdeveloped Angoras can consume a level of nutrients high enough in typical feedstuff to per- form all the functions of maintenance, high level produc- tion (such as mohair growth, pregnancy or lactation) and growth. This points out the desirability that kids make good early development while nursing or during their first season in order that does reach optimum size before the burden of pregnancy or lactation is imposed (Figure 2). Table 2 presents recommended nutrient composition in diets of goats. These values are based on the same assumptions used to construct Table 1, but they may be more valuable to some ranchers who have obtained com- position data on their range forage. DIET AND ITS INFLUENCE ON DEFICIENCIES Although a knowledge of the nutrient requirements of animals is essential for proper management, it is of little use to producers unless nutrient consumption can be esti- mated with reasonable accuracy. Deficiencies may occur due to low quality of forage available to the animal or to an inability of the animal to ingest and utilize (lack of size or ill thrift) an adequate total amount. Fraps (4) studied the feeding habits of goats and determined that with only a few exceptions, goats could meet their nutrient FIGURE 2. OPTIMUM GROWTH CURVE FOR ANGORA FEMALES. The curve represents a theoretical curve since it does not provide for seasonal fluctuations. .The values were ob- tained from reports of Shelton (ll) and (l2) and Menzies (6). These represent minimum sizes to provide for maximum reproductive effi- ciency and survival in times of stress. Actually, these values represent approximate physiologi- cal maturity for populations from which these data were obtained and would theoretically dif- fer for animals with different genetic mature size. m‘ H i g ciiunuunnxqp11i1-p q n: N ‘l YEAR BREED AGE 0F DOE 2 YEAR 2% YEAR ADULT TABLE 2: REQUIRED COMPOSITION OF DIETS FOR AN- GORA GOATS Classes and weights (lb.) I of goats TDN (S70) DE (Mcal/lb.) CP (%) P (%) Weahers and dry does 50 50-60 1.0-1.2 9.0-10.4 .21 60 50-58 1.0-1.2 9.0-10.4 .19 80 50-54 1.0-1.1 9.0- 9.7 .17 100 50 1.0 9.0- 9.5 .16 120 50 1.0 9.0 .16 Pregnant doe-s (lrst 8 vaeoks) ‘ 50 54-62 1.1-1.2 10.0-11.1 .18 60 54-60 1.1-1.2 10.0-10.5 .17 80 54-56 1.1 10.0 .16 100 54 1.1 10.0 .16 Lactating does (16 weeks) 50 58-65 1.2-If)‘ 11.0-12.0 .22 60 58-62 1.2 11.0-11.5 .21 80 58-60 1.2 11.0-11.2 .20 1C0 58 1.2 11.0 .20 Developing billies 80 65 1.5 11.4 .19 100 60 1.2 10.5 .16 120 55 1'1 9'8 '14 WeII-bred ‘and well-fed Angora does produce an abun Growing kids and Yearlings ' quality mohair and give birth to strong, vigorous kids. ‘ 2O 68 1.4 13.3 .19 40 65 1.5 11.6 .18 60 60 1-2 10-6 ~18 requirements when grazed freely on ranges having 80 58 1.2 10.0 .18 vegetation. _- I TDN—T°I?~I Digestible Nutrimis Situations in which requirements may not be‘ DE — Digestible Energy ' CP_Crude Protein when forage is limited in quantity such as und p__p_hosphorus trons of drouth and overgrazing; when there 1s a1 array of forage species resulting in seasons <5 is no high quality, green forage available; and-i states of high nutritive requirements (growing ki 1.0 - ing does, and such). One of the more serious d periods is during late gestation which falls in t a months when green, high quality forage is gener ited. The usual result of under nutrition during I is either abortion or birth of small kids (Figure 3) poor nutrition during the late stage of pregnancy- a cause of low birth rate by Angora goats with an in death loss of newborn kids (Appendix Table 3i F” c l It is difficult to determine exactly what an” consuming on an extensive range. However, I made the following estimates of forage types c‘ by cattle, sheep and Angora goats: BIRTH WEIGHT OF KIDS ILBI I H a: Average 0]‘ C1455?! 0f Feeding Activity in Pertenta 0]‘ Tatal Feeding Activity Expreried a; I ‘Sn-I Percentage; 0f Total Feeding Time Percentage of total activ. I I I I ' 7 .15 .20 .25 .30 Class of feeding activity Cattle Sheep ' I CRUDE PROTEIN CONSUMPTION (LB/DAY) grazlrig .2 rowslng . . FIGURE 3. INFLUENCE OF PROTEIN INTAKE BY DOE DURING LAST Miscellaneous 1379 7A2 8 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY ON BIRTH WEIGHT OF KIDS. (Unpublished S l 1 8( 2 61 data from Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Center at upp ememary ‘ 3 ' McGregQfL 8 1 STAGE OF MATURITY‘ IOTEIN, DIGESTIBLE ENERGY, AND PHOSPHOROUS COMPOSITION OF VARIOUS RANGE PLANTS AS IN- Energy Protein Date P i of growth collected crude digestible % TDN DB2 % i; and buffalograss yth 4/50 12.0 7.8 60 1.2 .11 i - forage 8/31 8.8 4.8 54 1.1 .09 2/25 5.5 1.5 47 0.9 .06 Tijplack and sideoats) 1h 11.5 8.7 56 1.1 .14 8/51 7.7 5.8 52 1.0 .12 . “are 12/19 6.4 2.5 49 1.0 .09 weathered 5.5 0.0 40 0 8 .05 14.5 9.5 68 1.4 .14 Iwth 7/15 10.4 6.5 57 1.1 .08 i1’! .» 11/11 5.7 0.0 44 0.9 .04 file) ‘qty 9/26 5.5 1.7 49 0.9 I .c6 ed and green 12/14 6.1 2.5 48 0.9 .08 eheading 2/24-3/23 17.0 12.6 70 ‘ 1.4 .28 “head 5/1 11.7 7.6 60 1.2 .14 . p s _ I green growth 12/12 14.4 10.1 65 1.5 .17 wth 10.0 5.9 56 1.1 .12 i.» » th, mature plants 6/2 7.2 3.3 5O 1.0 .08 I 4/28 17.7 5.4 55 1.1 .26 i.» mature 10/'18 8.9 2.7 51 1.0 .12 1/24 9.6 2.9 50 1.0 .10 ‘i 8/29 9.4 2.9 50 1.0 .15 ‘d spring 16.0 12.2 65 1.3 .20 d £311 18.0 14.2 45 0.9 .15 ‘_ cultural Research Center at McGregor, Texas. I 2 megacalories of DE. significant finding of this early study was“ forage composed such a large proportion of I . This has since become a well-established determine the forage species which composed i cattle, sheep and goats by months and t0 ;._ iutrient contribution of each forage to the we found the following consumption pattern 1h Percent composition of diet by season Spring Summer Fall Winter Average ‘i. 25 “52 45 51 52 ‘w! 22 5 5 53 65 49 ' 55 15 4 4 19 'onal data for many of the range forage spe- ‘is and analyzed at different stages of growth i1 l in ranch management. Fraps (4) later ‘- values reported in Fraps (4), Morrison (8) and Schneider (10) and from unpublished data obtained at the Texas A&M gy (DE) in megacalories per pound of dry matter was calculated from the relationship that 1 pound of TDN is approxi- are reported in Table 3. This table has been compiled from results in Fraps (4), Morrison (8), Schneider (10) and from more recent unpublished data obtained at the Research Center at McGregor. Values for plants where no date of collection is indicated are estimated relative to other values. MEETING THE ENERGY AND PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS The tendency of Angora goats to consume a wide variety of plants increases the probability of meeting their " requirements in comparison with livestock which consume fewer plant species. Table 4 contains examples of diets gra:ed by goats from complex vegetation throughout the year. Seasonal shifts in consumption favoring the more nutritious plants are evident. Therefore, the contribution of certain plants to the total diet has a great influence on 9 TABLE 4. COMPOSITION OF AN EXAMPLE DIET FROM AN AVERAGE RANGE‘ Season Spring Summer Fall Winter Buffalo grass and curley mesquite 10 12 23 16 Grama grasses 5 10 10 5 Bluestems 3 10 1O Texas wintergrass _ 5 Rescue grass 5 5 Liveoak leaves 15 30 43 65 Shin oak leaves 7 25 10 Various forbs 55 13 4 4 Total 100 100 100 100 Total diet composition % crude protein 15.3 11.0 8.3 9.5 % digestible protein 10.0 5.2 3.1 3.7 ‘Z, TDN 64.0 58.8 49.5 50.9 DE (Mcal/lb.) 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 % phosphorus 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.11 ‘These example diets were formulated using observations made by Fraps and Cory (4) and are expressed as the percent of each of the various forages contributed to the total seasonal diets. They are based on the assumption that the animals are able to con- sume all the forage desired and are not restricted by quantity available or time required for foraging. the necessity of supplemental feeding. For example, if Texas wintergrass and rescue grass are totally absent from the example diets, a deficiency of protein and energy is v much more likely in the winter months. The tendency (of goats to prefer browse aids them in meeting their nutri- ent requirements, and pastures devoid of browse species should probably not be used extensively by Angora goats. However, due to the low digestibility of liveoak protein, liveoak alone will not provide adequate digestible protein (Huston and Shelton, 5). It should be pointed out that these diets are only simplified examples of the very com- plex actual diets, but they do contain the most important plants. If it is assumed that these diets are representative of an average range, likely deficiencies can be calculated using the requirements table (Table 1) and the composition of each of these diets. If, on the other hand, the range is so bare that ani- . mals are limited in the amount of forage available, any such calculations of nutrient intake would be in error. For general application, two situations will be considered. In situation 1, the amount of forage available is not limiting and voluntary dry matter consumption equals that predicted in Table 1. The adequacy of the diet depends only on quality of available forage. In situation 2, animals are grazing a devoid range, and the amount of forage available will not meet predicted dry matter consumption. The severity of this situation depends on both how much forage is available and its quality. These will vary from case to case. However, if quantity is limited, quality likely will be low. For this example, it will be assumed that the 10 goats are able to consume one half their predict matter consumption of forage having 3 percent di protein, .05 percent phosphorus and containing 0. calories of digestible energy per pound. Examples ‘ culating likely deficiencies for breeding does by -- i stage of production follow. Examples of Calculating Deficiencies in Diet * DM DE DP (lb.) (Mcal.) (lb.) 1. Dry does and muttons in I July on average range (80 lb.) z» Requirements (Table 1) 3.3 3.3 .17 Furnished by diet (Table 3) 3.3 3.3 .17 y Deficiency 0.0 0.0 0.0 " 2. Pregnant does in January on average range (80 lb.) Requirements 4.1 4.5 .24 if Furnished by diet 4.1 4.1 .15 . Deficiency 0.0 0.4 .09 -' 3. Dry does in July on average range (50 lb., developing) Requirements 2.7 3.2 .17 Furnished by diet 2.7 2.7 .14 Deficiency 0.0 0. 5 .03 4. Pregnant does in January on average range (50 lb., developing) Requirements 3.5 4.4 .24 ‘ Furnished by diet 3.5 3.5 .13 ~. Deficiency 0.0 0.9 .11 5. Does in early stage of pregnancy in November on devoid range (80 lb.) Requirements (Table 1) 3.3 3.3 .17 7 Receiving from diet 1.65 1.3 .05 Deficiency 1.65 2.0 .12 6. Pregnant does in January on devoid range (80 lb.) Requirements 4.3 4.5 .24 , l Receiving from diet 2.15 1.7 .06 , l Deficiency 2.15 2.8 .18 Similar calculations can be made for goats) other productive states. Table 5 summarizes the deficiencies for all classes of Angora goats at the ' weights provided they are consuming the diets y Table 4. It is not likely that deficiencies will oc spring because of the abundance of high quality V’ especially forbs. Normal summer grazing should quate for mature goats but inadequate for growk and billies. The period from late fall through the“ months is the most likely time for a deficiency t with the most detrimental time being in the adve A months. Requirements for replacement kids should. llplementol feeding of Angora goats fills the nutrition rage quality fluctuations. in order to bring the kids t0 as large a mature Able. Shelton (11) shows that the weight of a ~ doe when it is placed in a breeding flock has I». ive correlation with lifetime productivity in p duction and fleece weights. However, goats SUMMARY o1= LIKELY DEFICIENCIES ON p NGE (LB. MCAL/DAY) Season Summer F all Winter Spring <80 1.) e dry dry pregnant lactating energy (Mcal) 0.40 . jprotein (lb.) 0.07 0.09 _(lb.) 0.002 0.002 0.002 i developing (50 lb.) i_ te dry dry pregnant lactating a ergy (Mcal) 0.50 0.50 0.90 itotein (lb.) 0.03 0.09 0.11 (lb.) 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.001 ‘ ethers (s0 lb.) ~ ergy (Mcal) ‘rotein (lb.) 0.07 0.05 "(1b.) 0.002 0.002 0.002 d yearlings (60 lb.) ergy (Mcal) 0.50 p 0.50 0.50 “tein (lb.) 0.0’; ‘ 0.10 0.08 (lb.) 0.001 0.001 0.001 i, (8011).) 'rgy (Mcal) 1.10 1.10 1.10 “tein (lb.) 0.07 0.15 0.12 (lb.) p 0.002 0.003 0.005 TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF LIKELY DEFICIENCIES ON DEVOID RANGE (LB. OR MCAL/DAY) Season Summer Fall Winter Spring a Productive state dry dry pregnant lactating Breeding does (80 lb.) Digestible energy (Mcal) 2.10 2.10 3.00 3.40 Digestible protein (lb.) 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.23 Phosphorus (lb.) 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.007 Breeding does (50 1b., maintenance) Digestible energy (Mcal) 1.40 1.40 2.40 2.70 Digestible protein (lb.) 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.18 Phosphorus (lb.) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 Breeding does (50 lb., developing) ' Digestible energy (Mcal) 2.10 2.10 3.00 3.20 Digestible protein (lb.) 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.22 Phosphorus (lb.) 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.007 should not be fed at a high level in an attempt to increase production above their genetic potential. Predicted deficiencies when goats are grazed on devoid range are given in Table 6. Necessarily, these deficiencies are in direct relation to requirements since the content of consumed forage is assume-d constant. Comparing Table 5 with Table 6 illustrates the consequences of overgrazing. Situation 1 allows for maximum utilization of range for- age, and supplemental feeding only fills gaps due to forage quality variation. In contrast, overgrazing requires supply- ing a substantial portion of the animal’s requirements. Ranchers should avoid routine occurrences of situation 2. Average mohair prices will not support large scale supple- mental feeding of Angora goats. Since a major reason for maintaining Angoras is to promote range improve- ment, goat numbers should be held sufficiently low to avoid frequent periods of overgrazing. However, occa- sional unavoidable periods of forage shortage such as dur- ing severe, temporary drouth may justifiably demand sup- plemental feeding during situation 2. Any of a number of protein and energy sources can be used to supplement possible deficiencies in range for- age. Many excellent commercially prepared feeds which generally fall into one of three general types are available. “Protein blocks” are popular with many producers because of their convenience. They generally contain high levels of protein and include a feed limiter (usually salt). These are usually best suited for supplying protein when energy is not deficient. “Liquid supplements” contain urea as the crude protein source and are good sources of supple- mental energy. Many different formulations are available, and, again, convenience of distribution is a real advantage. However, no research information is available on the value of these urea-containing liquid supplements for Angora goats. Commercial “range cubes” are still popular with many ranchers and provide excellent nutrition. They have 11 the disadvantage “of requiring hand feeding, which not only necessitates large investments in labor but also results in the “bully” effect in the flock in that the more timid goats are dominated and thereby underfed. Some of the more basic or homegrown feeds also can be used to meet requirements. Table 7 contains most of the more common concentrate feedstuffs and their com- positions. Since only a low level of consumption is usually necessary to supply the deficient nutrients, palatability of the supplemental feed is of minor importance. A series of supplemental feeding studies using Angora wethers at the Research Center at McGregor has shown little or no dif- ference in the value of cottonseed meal, hydrolyzed feather meal and blood meal as supplemental protein sources. There is no clear evidence that any of the listed concen- trates should be considered better than others when in- cluded in a protein supplement to range forage. Their value should be indicated by their digestible protein and digestible energy contents only. Urea, on the other hand, does not supply protein but is a protein substitute and should not replace more than one-third of the supplemental protein in dry feed mixtures. A method of limiting consumption of a supplement to a determined level is very desirable. Salt has been used for this purpose with variable results. Although the effects of high levels of salt consumption are still in question, it is recommended that the practice be used provided for- age is available at all times. A level of one part salt to four parts dry supplement is commonly used. Producers should experiment with other levels in order to determine what level will satisfactorily limit supplement consumption under their conditions. Gypsum has also been used successfully as a feed limiter when included in supplements at about half the level required for salt. ‘ Feeding goats during periods of forage shortage is a little different from supplementing range forage deficien- cies. A minimum level of roughage should be supplied in order to avoid gastrointestinal disturbances or nutrient deficiencies associated with concentrate feeds only. How- ever, feeding of roughages should not be considered mandatory as healthy goats will usually consume a limited amount of roughage even if it is necessary that they chew bark from trees. Actually, these conditions best allow goats to perform their important function of controlling undesirable plants, although such continued management would be extremely detrimental to the desirable range vegetation. Roughage should be fed only to provide some nutrient not included in concentrates or during extremely low-temperature stress periods. Table 7 contains the more common roughage feed- stuffs and their nutrient contents. When fed in drylot, it is advisable that a complete feed contain not less than 2O percent of a poor quality roughage (cottonseed hulls), 25 percent of a medium quality roughage (sorghum hay) or 30 percent of a high quality roughage (alfalfa hay). When hay and roughage are fed separately as total diet, hay should 12 TABLE 7. APPROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF AVAILABLE FEEDSTUFFS‘ Protein Energy CP DP TDN DE % % ‘70 MCHI/l High protein feedstuffs Blood meal 82.2 58.4 60.4 1.21 f Cottonseed meal s 33.3 71.7 1.42 , Feather meal (hydrolyzed) 87.4 61.2 63.8 1.28 i Guar meal 38.7 36.4 68.0 1.36 ‘ Linseed meal 35.2 30.6 75.5 1.60 Peanut meal 45.3 40.3 76.0 1.52 1 Soybean meal 44.0 37.0 77.9 l’ Urea (45% N) 281.0 220.0 t" 1 High energy feedstuffs Barley 11.8 9.2 75.6 1.51 i‘ Corn 8.7 6.7 80.]. 1.60 , Corn and cob meal 7.4 5.4 73.2 1.46, Molasses, cztne 3.0 0.0 53.7 1.08 i Oats 12.0 9.4 70.1 1.40 Sorghum grain (milo) 10.9 8.5 79.4 1.59 1 Wheat, hard winter 13.5 11.3 79.6 1.59 1 High roughage feedstuffs Alfalfa, dehydrated 17.9 12.3 54 1.1 i‘ Alfalfa hay 15.3 10.9 51 1.0 j Cottonseed hulls 3.9 0.0 44 0.9 ' Oat hay 8.2 4.9 47 0.9 Peanut hay 10.0 5.4 47 0.9 Peanut hulls 6.7 1.6 19 0.4 Prairie hay 7.4 3.7 46 0.9 » i Sorghum hay 8.8 4.3 49 1.0 4' Calcium Phosphorous T. % % mi‘ High mineral feedstuffs ' Bone meal, steamed 29 14 + s Phosphate, deflourinated 33 18 ‘ Phosphate, dicalcium 22 18 Limestone, ground 34 Oyster shell flour 38 ‘Assembled from values appearing in National Research Handbook for sheep (1968) and Morrison (8) and fro L tion experiments conducted at the Agricultural Research . at McGregor, Texas. ' i *P'hosphorous content unknown. 2Present in adequate amounts. be fed at a minimum level of one percent of the body weight per day. Drylot feeding of Angora y little justification since mohair and goat meat pric , the practice impractical. There is some justificati drylot feeding of males as a selection tool. How seems obvious that selections made under these co may adversely affect the adaptability of the breed unfavorable environmental conditions under whi are raised. i If it is assumed that a 100-head flock of 80R breeding does has access to the diet given in Table does will be consuming a deficient diet from about t 15 through about March 15. During this peri should be supplied 0.08 pounds of digestible prot head per day or about 8 pounds of digestible prote u.‘ ..'_' -‘ .0 head. The amount 0f a feed ingredient Sly this amount of protein can be calculated g equation: t of nutrient required . 1' . . X 100 _ of nutrient 1n feedstuff A _ is the most economical available protein pf t necessary to meet requirements would fDP/day 7 DP_ _‘ nds per week. However, feeding cotton- 1 is often inadequate when other nutrients ient. The following example supplements to demonstrate the relative value of vari- for different situations. is, ><100% I 25 lb/day Recommended Range ginder Average Conditions i‘ Percent Pounds Ingredients composition /ton i“ 140%) Sorghum grain 25 500 Cottonseed meal 70 1400 Urea 3 60 Dicalcium phosphate 2 4O Vitamin A1 + + _ .g Total 100 100 . 50%) Sorghum grain 58 1 160 i Cottonseed meal 37 740 Urea 3 60 Dicalcium phosphate 2 40 Vitamin A1 + + Total 100 2,000 .,10%) Q Sorghum grain 82 1640 i’ Cottonseed meal 14 280 Urea 2 4O Dicalcium phosphate 2 4O Vitamin A1 + + _, Total 100 2,000 ient composition Protein Energy i, rude Digestible TDN DE P” il(%) (96) (%) (Mall/lb) (0/0) A 40 53.0 70 1.40 .77 30 24 72 1.45 .65 ' 2o 16 75 1.50 .55 'h A is optional but if included should provide g d of supplement or 5 million IU per ton. it 0f supplements is an estimate of available A high protein supplement should be used when the animals energy requirement is being met or almost met by the natural diet. If protein is the only nutrient limiting, the animal would benefit only slightly from being fed high energy, low protein feedstuff such as molasses and so forth. The high protein supplements are usually best suited to animals which have reached their mature weight. On the other hand, young animals in the process of grow- ing are often limited by the amount of digestible energy which they consume. Feeding a little more of a higher energy, lower protein supplement would be a much better investment than feeding a high protein supplement. Table 8 contains a recommended schedule for supplementing Angora goats on either an average range (Table 4) or a devoid range. It is assumed that the producer is interested TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE FOR SUPPLEMENT- ING ANGORA GOATS On average range Pounds /day Supple- /100 Class and weight Period ment head Wethers and dry does 50-80 lb. (developing) July 15-Nov. 15 3 20 Nov. 15-Mar. 15 2 40 Above 8O lb. Nov. 15-Mar. 15 1 2O Breeding does 50-80 lb. (developing) July 15-Nov. 15 5 20 Nov. 15-Mar. 15 2 32-50 Above 80 lb. July 15-Nov. 15 3 5-10 Nov. 15-Mar. 15 1 20-30 Growing kids and yearlings Below 40 lb. July 15-Nov. 15 3 35 Nov. 15—Mar. 15 2 40 Above 4O lb. July 15-Nov. 15 3 2O Nov. 15-Mar. 15 2 40 Developing billies 80-120 lb. July 15-Nov. 15 3 4O Nov. 15—Mar. 15 2 50 On devoid range Hay and Concentrates Concentrate Only Concen- Supple- Grain trare‘ ment 1 (lb. / (l-b. / head (lb. / head head Class Hay /day) /day) /day) 1% of Wethers and dry does body weight .75 .3 1.0 Breeding does Dry do. .75 .3 1.0 Pregnant do. 1.50 .3 1.6 Lactating do. 1.50 .3 2.0 Growing kids and yearlings do. 1.25 .3 1.0 Developing billies do. 1.75 .2 1.5 ‘The type of concentrate used will depend on the hay fed. If alfalfa (or other high quality legume hay) is fed, corn (or other high energy grain) is adequate, but Supplement 3 should be fed if the hay is some type of grass hay. l3 in getting increased development in the underdeveloped 4. does and muttons. Alternatively, the lighter animals should be fed similar to the goats weighing more than 80 pounds. 5. It is important to consider the quality of hay being fed to animals on devoid range. A high quality hay such as alfalfa when fed in combination with some grain is 6_ quite adequate provided phosphorus is made available (free-choice bone meal). However, poor quality hay with 7_ grain would not provide adequate protein. Supplement 5 in combination with a fair to poor quality hay would 3_ provide good nutrition. . 9. LITERATURE CITED 1. Blaxter, K. L. The Energy Metabolimz of Ruminantr, Charles 10' C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 1962. v 2. Brody, S., Bioenergeticr and Growl/a, Reinhold Publishing 1L Company, New York, 1954. 3. Cory, V. L., Activity of livestock on the range, TAES Bul. 12. 567,1927. APPENDIX Methods of Calculating Nutrient Allowances for Angora Goats (References) Energy——Digestible Energy (DE) was calculated as DE _ Metabolizable Energy (ME) 7 .3 1. Maintenance 6 W55 3. ME = >< 1.5 Kcal/day 1 Assumptions : a. Resting metabolism of Angora goats (BMR) .55 BMR : 126 >< Wu, Kcal/day (2) . . NE b. Efficiency factor f1 2W: 0.80 (1) c. Practical maintenance = 1.5 X BMR (2, 3) 2. Growth ME = Maintenance +—L{etain€d Energy f2 Assumptions: a. RE = Retained Energy of growth at weights: (7) f2 = Efficiency factors of at weights: (1) 14 Eraps, G. S. and V. L. Cory, Composition and uti 1 range forage of Edwards and Sutton counties, TAES ,__ 1940. 1 Huston, j. E. and Maurice Shelton, Effect of livest on protein utilization and mohair production ofi goats, TAES PR-2451, 1967. Menzies, ]. W., Effect of Angora doe size on kid an production. TAES PR-2524. . l Mitchell, H. H., Comparative Nutrition 0f Man and tic Animalr, Vol. 1 and 2, Academic Press, New Y Morrison, Frank B., Feed: and Feeding, 22nd Ed., rison Publishing Company, Clinton, Ohio, 1959. Overman, O. R., F. P. Sanmann, and K. E. Wrig on the composition of milk, Ill. Agric. Expt. Sta. V 1929. Schneider, Burch Hart, Feed: of t/ae World; Tbef bility and Comporition, West Virginia Agricultu .1 ment Station, Morgantown, 1947. 1 Shelton, Maurice, Factors affecting kid production _A does, TAES MP-496, 1961. _- Shelton, Maurice, The relation of size t0 breeding A ance of Angora does, TAES PR-2539, 1965. Weight (lb.) RE/lb. gain 2O 1,500 Kcal 40 1,600 " 60 1,700 " 80 1,800 " 100 1,900 " 120 2,000 " Pregnancy L, Increased f1 ' é‘ ME = Maintenance + Growth + + Fetus fEnergy 3 Assumptions : a. Total gain of pregnant doe : 25 lb. b. Fetus weight : 9 lb. (Considering 6 lb. ‘ 50% incidence of twins) l‘ c. Fetus growth : 90% in last 8 weeks of¢ gestation - d. Composition of fetus: 3.3% fat = 0.30 lb. fat = 1,226 Kcal '1 18.9% protein : 1.70 lbs. = 4,362 e e. Maternal tissue growth: 50% in last 8 Weeks f. Composition of maternal growth: 0.4% fat : 0.06 lb. fat : 256 Kcal 6.5% protein = 1.04 lb. = 2,628 Kcal - energy during last 8 weeks = (s) + (5,588) (9) ‘i 56 days i" - body metabolism = 116-55 = 560 Kcal/day : 108 Kcal / day icy factor f3 of fetal growth : 0.40 tenance + Growth + ———-—Milk Energy f4 content of milk : fat + 2.44)Kcal (9) contains 4.5% fat (7) production : 1.5 lb. /day content of milk = 870 Kcal/day f ~ factor f4 for milk production J <1> F 'ble Protein (DP) was calculated as + MFN + NB _ MFN) X 625 BV Endogenous urinary nitrogen) . 126 >< Wjf mg/day etabolic fecal nitrogen) _ gm N/100 gm dry matter intake V‘ ogen balance) = Nitrogen g- ed — excreted '1 3 a i gical value) = 0.60 ohair nitrogen + nitrogen i r growth of underweight does 'on of growth = 2.56% (7) Qunder “Energy.” g a t/day above maintenance J60 = 3.70 gm/day j- der “Energy.” tent of milk = 5.5% (7) Q ts/day above maintenance 6.55 gm/day MEGACALORIES PER DAY I I 40 60 80 loo a’ -_____—_— BODY WEIGHT (LB) APPENDIX FIGURE l. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BODY WEIGHT AND "BASAL METABOLISM" OF ANGORA GOATS. The graph shows theoretical values for "basal metabolism" assuming that basal en- ergy requirements increase in relation to (A) body weight or (B) "body weight to the 0.55 power. As the goat increases in size from 20 to 80 pounds, relationship A indicates that basal metabo- lism would increase fourfold: 80 0.65 X 2o = 2.62 megacalories/day. Actually, basal metabolism increases in relation to body weight to the 0.55 power (relationship B). Increasing body weight from 20 to 80 pounds increased basal metabolism only from 0.65 to 1.40 megacalories per day: A-fold-increase in body weight 22-fold increase in basal metabolism. 15 APPENDIX TABLE 1. THE INFLUENCE OF PROTEIN ON PERFORMANCE OF YEARLING ANGORA BILLIES IN *1 Fleece Data (6 month basis) Ration Total Daily Lot protein gain feed Grease wt Yield Clean wt Length Diameter no. (%) (155 days) intake (lb.) (%) (lb.) (cm) (microns) 1 12 46.3 4.3 9.5 80.4 6.5 14‘ 2 15 56.1 4.5 10.6 75.4 7.8 i151} 5 18 54.5 4.6 15.5 74.8 9.9 14 ' APPENDIX TABLE 2. INFLUENCE OF LEVEL OF PROTEIN ON ECONOMIC RESPONSE OF YEARLING BILLIES IN l? fir" a Feed Total cost Per-head returns in dollars at mohair prices a Ram?‘ feed P“ u? $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1; Lot protein cost mohair a no. (%) (51; / head) ($) Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 1 12 15.44 1.45 4.65 —8.s1 6.94 —6.50 9.26 —4.18 11.57 —1.s7 15.89 2 15 15.38 1.46 5.29 —10.09 7.92 —7.46 10.57 —4.81 13.21 —~2.17 15.86 3 18 17.06 1.28 6.64 "-10.42 9.96 -'7.1O 13.29 —3.77 15.65 "-1.43 19.96 APPENDIX TABLE 3. INFLUENCE OF LEVEL OF NUTRITION OF ANGORA GOATS IN LATE GESTATION ON S 1 AND KID PRODUCTION (ALL DOES PLACED ON EXPERIMENT A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS PRIOR TO KIDDIN Adequacy of diet: Treatments‘ 1 Ground sorghum hay 2 3 Ground sorghum hay Ground sorghum hay + cottonseed meal + ground oats Ground sorg, + cottons. + grounv 4 Protein inadequate adequate inadequate adeq Energy inadequate inadequate adequate adeq Protein content (%) 6.5 10.8 7.5 10.5 Number of does 19 20 18 22 I Average initial wt (lb.) 80 83 86 82 Daily feed intake (lb.) 1.8 2.9 2.5 2. Average weight loss (lb.) —13 0 — 2 — 2 No. of does aborting 3 1 0 0 NO. Of live kids 4 19 20 21 Average kid weight (lb.) 4.92 5.9 5.7 5. Death loss in does (no.)‘* 3 1 0 0 Live kids as‘ _ ‘Z, of does in group 21.1 95-0 111-1 95-‘ ‘70 of does kidding“ 28.6 100.0 125.0 116. ‘Minerals and vitamin A were provided to each group. 21f the weights of the aborted kids were included, the average weight of the kids in this group would be 4.0 pounds. "All death losses of does were from freezing after shearing. *Represents kids that lived at least 24 hours. “Aborters were included as 16 kidding.