J. Glasscock, T. Whitney, D. Hewitt, S. Cooper, F. Bryant, Christina M Toenjes
{"title":"Intake of Supplemental Deer Pellets Containing Ground Blueberry Juniper by Wild Pigs","authors":"J. Glasscock, T. Whitney, D. Hewitt, S. Cooper, F. Bryant, Christina M Toenjes","doi":"10.26077/8C72-9755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Supplemental feeding of cervid species such as white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; deer) is now a common management practice in the United States. Supplemental feeding can be costly and more expensive when supplements are consumed by non-target species such as wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ; pigs). From May 13 to June 17, 2015, we evaluated the effects of using ground blueberry juniper ( Juniperus ashei) or cottonseed ( Gossypium spp.) hulls as a roughage ingredient in a supplemental deer pellet to deter pig consumption at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center in San Angelo, Texas, USA. We analyzed dry matter intake, growth performance, in vitro digestibility and fermentation, and blood serum chemistry of pigs using a 2 × 2 factorial study design that included 3 feeding periods. Pigs were assigned to 1 of 4 supplement diets ( n = 5 pigs/supplement) or to a commercially available swine diet (BASAL; n = 4 pigs). Animals assigned to supplement diets were also offered BASAL based on percentage of body weight (BW) during each period. Supplement diets differed by roughage source and percentage of roughage: cottonseed hulls 20%, cottonseed hulls 40%, blueberry juniper 20%, or blueberry juniper 40%. During each period, the amount of supplement and BASAL diet offered to animals assigned to a supplement was fed as a percentage of BW; period 1 (day 0 to 17) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet, period 2 (day 18 to 26) = 5% supplement diet and 2% BASAL diet, period 3 (day 27 to 34) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet. Animals assigned to only BASAL were offered the same amount of feed as a percent of BW as supplement animals during each period. We observed a roughage × period interaction ( P = 0.03) for supplement dry matter intake g/day and a roughage × period interaction ( P < 0.09) for total dry matter intake as a percentage of BW. No differences were observed within period. No other variables had percent roughage x period differences. Ground blueberry juniper was indigestible by pigs; the in vitro digestibility of dry matter and gross energy was <1%. Greater blood serum alanine aminotransferase ( P = 0.07) in pigs consuming experimental supplement diets suggested the possibility of liver damage. Our findings suggest that there does not appear to be a benefit of using ground juniper as a roughage source to reduce consumption of supplemental deer feed by pigs.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"22 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26077/8C72-9755","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
: Supplemental feeding of cervid species such as white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; deer) is now a common management practice in the United States. Supplemental feeding can be costly and more expensive when supplements are consumed by non-target species such as wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ; pigs). From May 13 to June 17, 2015, we evaluated the effects of using ground blueberry juniper ( Juniperus ashei) or cottonseed ( Gossypium spp.) hulls as a roughage ingredient in a supplemental deer pellet to deter pig consumption at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center in San Angelo, Texas, USA. We analyzed dry matter intake, growth performance, in vitro digestibility and fermentation, and blood serum chemistry of pigs using a 2 × 2 factorial study design that included 3 feeding periods. Pigs were assigned to 1 of 4 supplement diets ( n = 5 pigs/supplement) or to a commercially available swine diet (BASAL; n = 4 pigs). Animals assigned to supplement diets were also offered BASAL based on percentage of body weight (BW) during each period. Supplement diets differed by roughage source and percentage of roughage: cottonseed hulls 20%, cottonseed hulls 40%, blueberry juniper 20%, or blueberry juniper 40%. During each period, the amount of supplement and BASAL diet offered to animals assigned to a supplement was fed as a percentage of BW; period 1 (day 0 to 17) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet, period 2 (day 18 to 26) = 5% supplement diet and 2% BASAL diet, period 3 (day 27 to 34) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet. Animals assigned to only BASAL were offered the same amount of feed as a percent of BW as supplement animals during each period. We observed a roughage × period interaction ( P = 0.03) for supplement dry matter intake g/day and a roughage × period interaction ( P < 0.09) for total dry matter intake as a percentage of BW. No differences were observed within period. No other variables had percent roughage x period differences. Ground blueberry juniper was indigestible by pigs; the in vitro digestibility of dry matter and gross energy was <1%. Greater blood serum alanine aminotransferase ( P = 0.07) in pigs consuming experimental supplement diets suggested the possibility of liver damage. Our findings suggest that there does not appear to be a benefit of using ground juniper as a roughage source to reduce consumption of supplemental deer feed by pigs.
期刊介绍:
Human–Wildlife Interactions (HWI) serves the professional needs of the wildlife biologist and manager in the arena of human–wildlife conflicts/interactions, wildlife damage management, and contemporary wildlife management. The intent of HWI is to publish original contributions on all aspects of contemporary wildlife management and human–wildlife interactions with an emphasis on scientific research and management case studies that identify and report innovative conservation strategies, technologies, tools, and partnerships that can enhance human–wildlife interactions by mitigating human–wildlife conflicts through direct and indirect management of wildlife and increased stakeholder engagement. Our intent is to promote a dialogue among wildlife professionals concerning contemporary management issues. As such, we hope to provide a repository for wildlife management science and case studies that document and share manager experiences and lessons learned.