Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:19:32.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on comparative digestion in sheep, goats and fallow deer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Ramanzin ,
L. Bailoni  and
S. Schiavon
M. Ramanzin
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Agripolis 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy
L. Bailoni
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Agripolis 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy
S. Schiavon
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Agripolis 35020, Legnaro (PD), Italy
Get access

Abstract

Three ewes, three female goats and three male fallow deer, aged between 7 and 12 months and weighing 24·0 to 32·2 kg, were used in this experiment to outline the main differences in digestion among the three species. Dietary treatments were three diets with three forage: concentrate ratios of 10: 90, 50: 50, and 90:10 and two different feeding levels (45 and 90 g/kg M0·75 per day). The three diets were given to the three animals of each species in a Latin-square design; the two levels of feeding were compared ivithin diet in each period of the Latin square. The diet selected, apparent digestibility, and rumen retention time of Cr-mordanted neutral-detergent fibre were significantly different among species and dietary treatments. Interactions between species and dietary treatments were also significant for all the above variables. Sheep showed the highest intakes and apparent digestibilities of the forage-rich diets, and the longest rumen mean retention times. Goats tended to select diet components, despite allowance of diets being limited, and had lower food intakes than sheep. Apparent digestibility of forage-rich diet was also lower. Rumen mean retention times were shorter and less influenced by dietary treatments. Fallow deer had an apparent digestibility of forage-rich diets which was even lower than that of goats. Food intake was similar to that of sheep, with no evidence of selection. Rumen mean retention time was shorter than that of goats.

Keywords

digestionfallow deerforageconcentrate ratiogoatssheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 163 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Andrighetto, I., Carnier, P., Ravarotto, L. and Tutta, C. 1992. Effetto di differenti concentrazioni di energia e di proteina della dieta sulle prestazioni produttive di capre da latte. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animate 18: 303–312.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. 1980. Research on goat nutrition and management in Mediterranean Middle East and adjacent areal countries. Journal of Dairy Science 63:1681–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brelurut, A., Pingard, A. and Thériez, M. 1990. Le cerfet son élevage (ed. Véterinaire, du Point). Maisons-Alfort.Google Scholar
Brown, L. E. and Johnson, W. L. 1984. Comparative intake and digestibility of forages and by-products by goats and sheep: a review. International Goat and Sheep Research 2: 212-226.Google Scholar
Bruno, E. and Apollonio, M. 1991. Seasonal variations in the diet of adult male fallow deer in a submediterranean coastal area. Revue d'Ecologie (Terre Vie) 46: 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Jouany, J. P., Martin-Rosset, W. and Thériez, M. 1994. Aptitudes comparées de différentes espèces d'herbivores domestiques à ingérer et digérer des fourrages distribués à l'auge. Annales de Zootechnie 43:11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Focant, M., Vanbelle, M. and Godfroid, S. 1986. Activité alimentaire et motricité du rumen chez la chèvre et le mouton pour deux regimes mixtes: foin, orge. Reproduction, Nutrition, Dévelopment 26:277–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberger, D. O., Toyakawa, K., Barry, T. N., Ball, A. J. and Suttie, J. M. 1994. Seasonality in digestion and rumen metabolism in red deer (Cervus elaphus) fed on a forage diet. British Journal of Nutrition 71:489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, R. R. 1985. Digestive physiology of the deer, their morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. In Biology of deer production. The Royal Society of New Zealand, bulletin no. 22, pp. 393–407.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B., Engelhardt, W. V. and White, R. G. 1979. The digestive physiology of wild ruminants. In Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Ruckebush, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 743–761. MTP Press Ltd, Falcon House, Lancaster, England.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. and Goodall, E. D. 1976. The intake, digestibility and retention time of roughage diets by red deer (Cervus elaphus) and sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35: 98A.Google Scholar
Kerridge, F. J. and Bullock, D. J. 1991. Diet and dietary quality of red deer and fallow deer in late summer. Journal of Zoology, London 224:333–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. A., Spence, A. M. and Wilson, S. 1978. A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40: 347–356.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P., Owen, E. and Giger-Reverdin, S. 1991. Feeding behaviour of goats at the trough. In Goat nutrition (ed. Morand-Fehr, P.), pp. 3–12. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Poli, B. M., Ponzetta, M. P., Zappa, A. and Giorgetti, A. 1991. Voluntary intake and digestibilities of four diets in fallow deer and in ewe. Proceedings of the ninth congresso nazionale of the Associazione Scientifica di Produzione Animate, Rome (ed. Stampa Romana), pp. 363–367.Google Scholar
Ramanzin, M., Bittante, G. and Bailoni, L. 1991. Evaluation of different chromium-mordanted wheat straws for passage rate studies. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 2989–2996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1987. SAS/STAT user's guide, release 6.04. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tisserand, J. L., Hadjipanayiotou, M. and Gihad, E. A. 1991. Digestion in goats. In Goat nutrition (ed. MorandFehr, P.), EAAP publication no. 46, pp 46–60. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1982. The kinetics of digestion. In Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, pp. 211–229. O and B Books Inc., Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59:381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar