Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:52:25.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of grass preservation on intake, apparent digestibility and rumen degradation characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Cushnahan  and
F. J. Gordon
A. Cushnahan
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR
F. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

A study was carried out to examine the effects of method of grass conservation on intake and apparent digestibility by sheep and rate of degradation in the rumen of cattle. Thirty-six hoggets were arranged in a three-period partial change-over design involving nine treatments. The treatments consisted of fresh herbage or herbage from the same pasture which was ensiled for 2, 4, 7, 10, 20 and 41 days in round bales or herbage from the same pasture conserved as hay or ensiled in a bunker silo for 51 days. In addition the rate of dry-matter disappearance in the rumen for each treatment was determined using three rumen fistulated steers. The fresh and ensiled treatments had been frozen prior to feeding. Results from the study showed that the dry-matter intakes, corrected for losses of volatile compounds, of material ensiled in round bales, was increasingly depressed with period of ensiling up to 20 days after ensiling. Intakes of digestible energy followed a similar trend. Regression analysis indicated that reductions in intake with ensiling were mainly due to increases in ammonia N and n-butyric acid concentration, while changes in pH, water-soluble carbohydrate and acetic acid concentration also influenced intake. The differences in intakes of dry matter and digestible energy between fresh herbage and herbage from the bunker silo were not significant. The ensiling of herbage in round bales had little effect on organic matter apparent digestibility but led to an increase in nitrogen apparent digestibility and effective degradability when calculated at rumen outflow rates of 0·05 per h and 0·08 per h. Conservation of grass as hay led to a reduction in the intake, apparent digestibility and effective degradability of dry matter.

Keywords

digestibilityhayintakerumen degradationsilage making
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 429 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The nutrient requirements of niiuinnnt livestock. Supplement no. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Bryant, A. M. and Lancaster, R. J. 1970. The effect of storage time on the voluntary intake of silage by sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 30: 77–89.Google Scholar
Chestnutt, D. M. B. 1990. Effect of forage type on the digestion of whole barley grain by breeding ewes. Animal Production 51: 583–591.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proceedings of the tenth international grassland congress, Helsinki, pp. 445–453.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1973. [Chemical composition, fermentation characteristics, digestibility and voluntary intake of forage silages: changes compared to initial green forage.] Annales de Zootechnie 22: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. and Dulphy, J. P. 1977. Effect of ensiling on feed intake and animal performance. Proceedings of the international meeting on animal production from temperate grassland, Dublin, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
Deriaz, R. E. 1961. Routine analysis of carbohydrate and lignin in herbage, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, E. and Edwards, R. A. 1976. Feeding value of silage: silages made from freshly cut grass, wilted grass and formic acid treated wilted grass. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 27: 536–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulphy, J. P. 1980. The intake of conserved forages. In Forage conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), occasional symposium of the Britisli Grassland Society, no. 11, pp. 107–121.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarquilly, C. 1991. Digestibility and voluntary intake of conserved forages. Proceedings of a conference on forage conservation towards 2000, Institute of Grassland and Forage Research, Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
Etheridge, M. O., Stockdale, C. R. and Cranwell, P. D. 1992. Effect of ensilation of lucerne on voluntary intake, digestibility and eating and rumination behaviour in sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 32: 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, H., Matsuoka, S., Takahashi, J. and Toyama, E. 1990. The effect of time of harvest on the protein degradability of conserved forages in the rumen. Japanese journal of Zootechnical Science 61: 734–741.Google Scholar
Gill, M. 1986. Interaction between animal and feed in the control of voluntary intake of conserved forages by ruminants. Proceedings of the 1986 Cornell nutrition conference, pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. R., Anderson, D. H. and Phillips, P. 1984. Lamb production from silage. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference, Belfast, pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R., Demarquilly, C. and Dulphy, J. P. 1982. Forage conservation. In Nutritional limits to animal production, (ed. Hacker, J. B.), proceedings of an international symposium held at St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 1981, pp. 363–387.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Murphy, J. J. 1993. The effects of ensiling on the intake of herbage and milk production by lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 56: 423–424 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lancaster, R. J. 1975. Storage time and fermentation temperature of grass silage as factors affecting its voluntary consumption by sheep. New Zealand journal of Experimental Agriculture 3: 199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, S., Carro, M. D., Gonzalez, J. S. and Ovejero, F. J. 1991. The effect of method of forage conservation and harvest season on the rumen degradation of forages harvested from permanent mountain meadows. Animal Production 53: 177–182.Google Scholar
McLeod, D. S., Wilkins, R. J. and Raymond, W. F. 1970. The voluntary intake by sheep and cattle of silages differing in free acid content, Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 25: 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen, journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 645–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moisio, T. and Heikonen, M. 1989. A titration method for silage assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 22: 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. and McDonald, I. 1981. Degradability of protein supplements and utilisation of undegraded protein by high producing dairy cows. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 17–30. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Paine, C. A., Crawshaw, R. and Barber, W. P. 1982. A complete method for the in sacco estimation of rumen degradability on a routine basis. In Forage protein in ruminant animal production (ed. Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, no. 6, pp. 177–178.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Lucas, H. L. 1954. Change-over designs. Technical bulletin North Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, no. 147.Google Scholar
Petit, H. V. and Flipot, P. M. 1992. Feed utilization of beef steers fed grass as grass hay or silage with or without nitrogen supplementation, journal of Animal Science 70: 876–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Playne, M. J. and McDonald, P. 1966. The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 17: 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, G. L., Bryant, A. M., Jury, K. E. and Hutton, J. B. 1979. Silage and dairy cow production. 1. Digestible energy intake and yield and composition of milk of cows fed pasture and pasture silages. New Zealand journal of Agricultural Research 22: 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, A. J. and Gill, M. 1990. Prediction of the voluntary intake of grass silages by beef cattle. 1. Linear regression analyses. Animal Production 50: 425–438.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1976. Laboratory methods for evaluating energy value of feedstuffs. In Feed and energy sources for livestock (ed. Swan, H., and Lewis, D.), Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Vipond, J. E., Hunter, E. A. and King, M. E. 1985. The utilization of whole and rolled cereals by ewes. Animal Production 40: 297–301.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. 1959. The efficiency of wool production of grazing Merino sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 865–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Hutchinson, K. J., Wilson, R. F. and Harris, C. E. 1971. The voluntary intake of silage by sheep. 1. Interrelationships between silage composition and intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77: 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar