This article presents the results of studies to determine the effectiveness of non-traditional feed additives from local natural raw materials in feeding sheep in Yakutia. According to the scheme of the scientific experiment, sheep from the control group consumed the feed of the main diet, while animals from the II and III experimental groups received non-traditional feed additives together with the main diet. In the course of the research, the influence of feeding conditions on the change in live weight, as well as on the indices of the digestibility of nutrients, the exchange of nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus in the body of sheep, was determined. The inclusion of non-traditional feed additives in the daily ration of sheep contributed to an increase in live weight by 3.73% and 0.88%. The study of the indices of the digestibility of nutrients in experimental animals established the difference in the superiority of the experimental groups over the control group in dry matter by 6.15% and 4.19%, organic matter by 4.99% and 3.89%, crude protein by 7.67% and 5.5%, crude fat by 3.04% and 2.7%, crude fibre 2.43% and 1.46% and nitrogen-free extractives 6.47% and 5.51%. When comparing the indices of the digestibility of nutrients between the experimental groups, the difference in superiority in all parameters of animals in the III experimental group over the sheep in the II experimental group in dry matter 1.96%, organic matter 1.1%, crude protein 2.17%, crude fat 0.34%, crude fibre by 0.97% and nitrogen-free extractives by 0.96%. The data show the promise of using non-traditional feed additives from local raw materials in feeding sheep in Yakutia.

1.
A. A.
Merzlyakov
,
G.
Gonchig
and
M. B.
Danilov
,
Proc. Int. Conf. on Scientific Innovations for Agricultural Production
(
Omsk: Omsk SAU
,
2018
), p.
1377
1381
.
2.
V. V.
Aboneev
 et al., Meat Productivity of Sheep and Factors Determining it (
Stavropol: SSI SRILFP RAAS
,
2011
).
3.
V. I.
Guzenko
, Pasture Forages and the Effectiveness of their Use in Sheep Breeding (
Stavropol: SSAU “AGRUS”
,
2004
).
4.
T. T.
Eshimbekov
and
R. S.
Salykov
,
Bulletin of the Altai State Agrarian University
2
(
160
)
173
175
(
2018
).
5.
D. R.
Sharafutdinova
and
E. K.
Papunidi
,
The Veterinarny Vrach Journal
1
13
16
(
2010
)
6.
I.
Berrios
 et al.,
Cub.I.agr. Se
17
(
2
)
169
174
(
1983
).
7.
L.
Ghaemnia
,
M.
Bojarpour
,
K. H.
Mirzadeh
,
M.
Chaji
and
M.
Eslami
,
Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances
9
(
4
)
779
781
(
2010
).
8.
H.
Ipek
,
M.
Avci
,
N.
Aydilek
and
M.
Yerturk
,
Acta Veterinaria Brno
81
(
1
)
43
47
(
2012
).
9.
A.
Erdenechimeg
,
A.
Otgonjargal
and
N.
Togtokhbayar
,
Mongolian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
24
(
02
)
9
15
(
2018
).
10.
L.
Bacakova
,
M.
Vandrovcova
,
I.
Kopova
and
I.
Jirka
,
Biomaterials Science
6
(
5
)
974
989
(
2018
).
11.
N. M.
Chernogradskaya
,
M. F.
Grigorev
,
A. I.
Grigoreva
and
S. I.
Stepanova
,
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth and Environmental Sci
.
548 022010
(
2020
). doi:.
12.
M. F.
Grigorev
,
A. A.
Sidorov
,
A. I.
Grigoreva
and
V. V.
Sysolyatina
,
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth and Environmental Sci
.
548
042008
(
2020
). doi:.
13.
A. P.
Kalashnikov
, Reference Manual on Rates and Rations for Feeding Farm Animals ed 
A P
Kalashnikov
,
V I Fisinin et
al
(
Moscow
:
Russian Agricultural Academy
,
2003
).
14.
M. F.
Tomme
, Method for Determining the Digestibility of Feed and Rations (
Moscow: VIZH
,
1969
).
15.
A. I.
Ovsyannikov
, Fundamentals of Experimental Work in Animal Husbandry (
Moscow: Kolos
,
1976
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.