Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:06:08.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestion of heather (Calluna vulgaris) by red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

Robert Moss  and
J. A. Parkinson
Robert Moss
Affiliation:
Nature Consmmcy, Blackhall, Banchory, Kincardineshire
J. A. Parkinson
Affiliation:
Nature Conservancy, Merlewood Research Station, Grange-over-Sands, Lancs.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. In the wild, red grouse live largely on heather, a high-fibre (25%), low-protein (7%) food. Digestibility trials were carried out under semi-natural conditions, with magnesium as a digestibility marker. Two trials were done, one in autumn and one in spring.

2. Digestibility of the dry matter varied from 21 to 30% and metabolizable energy from 1.1 to 1.6 kcal/g. These variations were inversely related to intake and could partly be accounted for by facultative variations in holocellulose and lignin digestion.

3. Digestion of soluble carbohydrates, protein (measured as α-amino-nitrogen) and holocellulose varied between trials according to the initial concentration in the food. The digestibility of soluble carbohydrate was high (78–83%) in autumn (16% in food) and low (61–66%) in spring (11% in food) and that of protein was relatively low (24–31%) in autumn (6% in food) and high (42–48%) in spring (7% in food). Digestibility of crude fat was 30–33% for four birds and 20% for one bird.

4. By comparison with poultry, voluntary intake of dry matter was very high relative to body-weight and intake of energy appeared to be adequate. None the less, all birds lost weight during the trials, presumably for reasons other than energy shortage.

5. Urate excretion increased in parallel with body-weight losses, but formed only 2% of the total N output at low weight losses, in which event the main nitrogenous compounds in the droppings were α-amino N (presumably largely from undigested protein), ammonium salts and ornithuric acid.

6. The ornithuric acid was presumably a detoxication product of prolignins and possibly tannins and other polyphenols. Its excretion by grouse corresponds to the excretion of hippuric acid by ruminants.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 285 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis 10th ed. Washington, DC: Association of official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Baldwin, B. C., Robinson, D. & Williarns, R. T. (1960).Biochem. J. 76, 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, I. H. (1960). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 11, 560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1957). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 8, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1964). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond. no. 174.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1965). Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2, p.1251 [Black, C. A.editor.] Madison Wis: American Society of Agronomy Inc.Google Scholar
Deriaz, R. E. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1969). Amt. J. agric. Res. 20, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullion, G. W. (1967). Conserv. Volunt. September-October p. 23.Google Scholar
Hill, D. C., Evans, E. V. & Lumsden, H. G. (1968). J. Wildl. Mgmt 32, 854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, J. L. (1944). Analyst, Lond. 69, 271.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D., Watson, A. & Miller, G. R. (1963). J. Aninm. Ecol. 36, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBee, R. H. & West, G. C. (1969). Condor 71, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. K. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 65 A..Google Scholar
Moran, T. & Pace, J. (1962). J. agric. Sci., Cainb. 59, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. (1967). Aspects of grouse nutrition. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Moss, R. (1969). J. Anim. Ecol. 38, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. (1972). J. Wildl. Mgmt 36, part 1. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1960). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 827.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, K. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J. A., Iggo, B., Scandrett, F. J. & Stewart, C. P. (1854). Biochem. J. 58, 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendergast, B. A. (1969). Nutrition of spruce grouse of the Swan Hills, Alberta. MS Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Pulliainen, E., Paloheirno, L. & Syrjala, L. (1968). Suomal. Tiedeakat. Toim. Ser. A 4, no. 126.Google Scholar
Ritter, G. J., Seborg, R. M. & Mitchell, R. L. (1932). Ind. Engng Chem. analyt. Edn 4, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Storry, J. E. (1962). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32, 1055.Google Scholar
Slier, I. H. (1955). Analyt. Chem 27, 821.Google Scholar
Suomalainen, H. & Arhimo, E. (1945). Ornis fenn. 22, 21.Google Scholar
Tasaki, I. & Okumura, J. (1964). J. Nutr. 83, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsky, J. & Nowakowski, T. Z. (1957). Analyst, Lond. 82, 110.Google Scholar
Wacker, W. E. C. & Vallee, B. L. (1964). In Mineral Metabolism Vol. 2, part A, p. 483 [Comar, C. L. and Bronner, F., editors]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
West, G. C. (1968). Ecology 49, 1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. A. (1911). The Grouse in Health and in Disease, Being the Final Report of the Committee of Enquiry on Grouse Disease p. 67. London: Elder.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. R., Waldroup, P. W., Jones, J. E., Duerre, D. J. & Harms, R. H. (1965). J. Nutr. 85, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, L. E., Murphy, M. & D'Addieco, A. A. (1946). Paper Trader. J. 122, 35.Google Scholar