Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:48:09.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative digestion of herbage by two breeds of sheep: effects of grass maturity stage and level of intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. López ,
P. Frutos ,
A.R. Mantecón  and
F.J. Giráldez
P. Frutos
Affiliation:
Estación Agrícola Experimental, CSIC, Apartado 788, 24080 León, Spain
A.R. Mantecón
Affiliation:
Estación Agrícola Experimental, CSIC, Apartado 788, 24080 León, Spain
F.J. Giráldez
Affiliation:
Estación Agrícola Experimental, CSIC, Apartado 788, 24080 León, Spain
Get access

Abstract

Two trials were conducted to study the effect of the stage of maturity of fresh herbage on its digestibility by two breeds of sheep (Churra v. Merino). The sward consisted of a mixture of grasses and clover, and was harvested either in late May (early cut, EC) or in late July (late cut, LC). In each trial, 12 mature sheep of each breed were used. Each animal received a different amount of fresh herbage, so that levels of food intake ranged between 8·1 and 24·7 g dry matter (DM) per kg body weight per day. EC herbage showed higher crude protein content (116 v. 67 g/kg DM), lower neutral-detergent fibre concentration (494 v. 664 g/kg DM) and higher DM digestibility (0·687 (s.e. 0·005) v. 0·463 (s.e. 0·007)) than the LC herbage. DM digestibility coefficients observed in Churra (0·694 (s.e. 0·028) for EC and 0·476 (s.e.0·028) for LC herbage) tended to be greater than those observed in Merino sheep (0·680 (s.e. 0·021) for EC and 0·452 (s.e. 0·040) for LC herbage). With the EC herbage DM digestibility tended to decrease as the level of intake increased. Samples of dried herbage were incubated in the rumen of Churra and Merino sheep to determine the DM degradability by the in situ technique. Fractional degradation rates (c values) were significantly faster in the rumen of Churra than in Merino (0·046 (s.e. 0·003) v. 0·031 (s.e. 0·002)), with large differences between breeds in the DM disappearance rates at intermediate incubation times, and no significant differences between Churra and Merino sheep in the mean a + b values. Microbial N supply, calculated from the urinary excretion of purine derivatives, was significantly affected by the herbage maturity stage and by the level of DM intake, but not by the breed of sheep. It is suggested that differences between breeds of sheep in food digestibility may be related to their ability to digest fibrous diets.

Keywords

digestibilityfood intakeherbagerumen digestionsheep breeds.
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , December 2001 , pp. 513 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th edition. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Amor, J.J. 1994. [Diurnal patterns of intake and rumination in sheep as affected by different factors.] Tesis doctoral, Universidad de León.Google Scholar
Balcells, J., Guada, J.A., Peiró, J.M. and Parker, D. S. 1992. Simultaneous determination of allantoin and oxipurines in biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography 575: 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. and Campling, R. C. 1962. Regulation of voluntary food intake in ruminants. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 32: 669–686.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Cammell, S. B. and France, J. 1986. The effect of forage species and stage of harvest on the processes of digestion occurring in the rumen of cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 56: 439–454.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N.McC. and Wainman, F. W. 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10: 69–91.Google Scholar
Chen, X. B., Chen, Y. K., Franklin, M. F., Ørskov, E. R. and Shand, W. J. 1992. The effect of feed intake and body weight on purine derivative excretion and microbial protein supply in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1534–1542.Google Scholar
De Waal, H. O. 1995. In sacco dry matter disappearance of herbage and maize meal from the rumen of lactating Dorper and Merino ewes supplemented with protein and energy on native pastures. South African Journal of Animal Science 25: 1–6.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C., Chenost, M. and Giger, S. 1995. Pertes fécales et digestibilité des aliments et des rations. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques. Ingestion et digestion (ed. Jarrige, R., Ruckebusch, Y., Demarquilly, C., Farce, M.-H. and Journet, M.), pp. 601–647. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J., France, J. and Davies, D. R. 1998. Different mathematical approaches to estimating microbial protein supply in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 3370–3384.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J.-P., Balch, C. C. and Doreau, M. 1995. Adaptation des espèces domestiques à la digestion des aliments lignocellulosiques. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques. Ingestion et digestion (ed. Jarrige, R., Ruckebusch, Y., Demarquilly, C., Farce, M.-H. and Journet, M.), pp. 759–803. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. 1986. The kinetics of particulate matter in the rumen. In Control of digestion and metabolism (ed. Milligan, L.P., Grovum, W.L. and Dobson, A.), pp. 173–195. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Frutos, P., Revesado, P. R., A.R., Mantecón, J. S., González and Carro, M. D. 1992. Proportion of digestive tract: a comparison of two Spanish sheep genotypes (Churra vs. Merina). Nutrition Clinique et Métabolisme 6: 173–174.Google Scholar
Frutos, P., Wright, I. J., Giráldez, F. J., Mantecón, A. R. and Iason, G. 1998. Seasonal variation in nutrition and supplementation in sheep extensive systems in north-central Spain. In The implications of extensification for the health and welfare of beef cattle and sheep (ed. Goddard, P.), proceedings of a workshop held in Aberdeen (UK), pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I. and Moss, A. R. 1994. Effect of breed, age and body condition of sheep on the measurements of apparent digestibility of dried grass. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture handbook, no. 379. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1977. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 6. The effect of level of food intake on mathematical predictions of the kinetics of digesta in the reticulorumen and intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 38: 425–436.Google Scholar
Iason, G. R., Sim, D. A. and Foreman, E. 1995. Seasonal changes in intake and digestion of chopped timothy hay (Phleum pratense) by three breeds of sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 125: 273–280.Google Scholar
Jouany, J.-P., Broudiscou, L., Prins, R. A. and Komisarczuk-Bony, S. 1995. Métabolisme et nutrition de la population microbienne du rumen. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques. Ingestion et digestion (ed. Jarrige, R., Ruckebusch, Y., Demarquilly, C., Farce, M.-H. and Journet, M.), pp. 349–381. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Lourenço, A. L. G., Dias-da-Silva, A.A., Fonseca, A. J. M. and Azevedo, J. T. 2000. Effects of live weight, maturity and genotype of sheep fed a hay-based diet, on intake, digestion and live weight gain. Livestock Production Science 63: 291–296.Google Scholar
Mann, D. L., Goode, L. and Pond, K. R. 1987. Voluntary intake, gain, digestibility, rate of passage and gastrointestinal tract fill in tropical and temperate breeds of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 64: 880–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manso, T., Castro, T., Mantecón, A. R., Rodríguez, G. and Falagán, A. 1999. [Rumen degradation of shrub communities from semi-arid lands in the Southeast of Spain in two sheep genotypes (Segureña vs. Merino).] Archivos de Zootecnia 48: 95–100.Google Scholar
Manzke, V., Munchow, H., Betzin, B. and Hasselmann, I. 1997. Investigations of digestive and metabolic mechanisms of adaption of several breeds of sheep and goats to malnutritional conditions. International Journal of Mammalian Biology 62: 124–128.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.Google Scholar
Owens, F. N. and Goetsch, A. L. 1986. Digesta passage and microbial protein synthesis. In Control of digestion and metabolism (ed. L. P. Milligan, , Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A.), pp. 196–223. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., Carro, M. D., Giráldez, F. J., Mantecón, A. R. and González, J. S. 2000. Comparison of rumen fermentation patterns and in situ degradation of grazed herbage in Churra and Merino sheep. Livestock Production Science 62: 193–204.Google Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., Carro, M. D., Valdés, C., Giráldez, F. J. and López, S. 1997. A comparative study of ruminal activity in Churra and Merino sheep offered alfalfa hay. Animal Science 65: 121–128.Google Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., López, S., Giráldez, F. J., Valdés, C. and Carro, M. D. 1998. Comparative digestibility and digesta flow kinetics in two breeds of sheep. Animal Science 66: 389–396.Google Scholar
Revesado, P. R., Mantecón, A. R., Frutos, P. and González, J. S. 1994. Comparative studies of diet selection by Churra and Merina genotypes grazing on a hill shrub community. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J., Parker, D.S. and Rowlinson, P.) British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 18, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar
Sebek, L. B. J. and Everts, H. 1999. In situ rumen degradation of dry matter and crude protein in ewes and dairy cows. Animal Science 68: 801–808.Google Scholar
Sinclair, L. A., Garnsworthy, P. C., Newbold, J. R. and Buttery, P. J. 1995. Effects of synchronizing the rate of dietary energy and nitrogen release in diets with a similar carbohydrate composition on rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124: 463–472.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS companion for the Microsoft Windows environment, version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. C. and Torrie, J. H. 1981. Principles and procedures of statistics, second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Teferedegne, B., McIntosh, F., Osuji, P. O., Odenyo, A., Wallace, R. J. and Newbold, C. J. 1999. Influence of foliage from different accessions of the sub-tropical leguminous tree, Sesbania sesban, on ruminal protozoa in Ethiopian and Scottish sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 78: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, second edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C.I. 1981. Rate of passage of digesta through the gut of mammals and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 51: 789–820.Google Scholar
Weyreter, H. and Engelhardt, W. v. 1984. Adaptation of Heidschnucken, Merino and Blackhead sheep to a fibrous diet of poor quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64: (suppl.) 152–153.Google Scholar