Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:38:52.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Food intake, digestibility and rumen fermentation in reindeer fed baled timothy silage in summer and winter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. H. Aagnes ,
A. S. Blix  and
S. D. Mathiesen
T. H. Aagnes
Affiliation:
Department of Arctic Biology and Institute of Medical Biology, University of Tromso, N-9037 Tromso, Norway
A. S. Blix
Affiliation:
Department of Arctic Biology and Institute of Medical Biology, University of Tromso, N-9037 Tromso, Norway
S. D. Mathiesen
Affiliation:
Department of Arctic Biology and Institute of Medical Biology, University of Tromso, N-9037 Tromso, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Reindeer calves(Rangifer tarandus tarandus) were used in parallel feeding trials with two different qualities of round-bale timothy silage in September 1992 (summer) and April 1993 (winter) in northern Norway, to determine the effect of season on their food intake and ability to utilize silage of different fibre contents. The silages were prepared from first-cut (FC) and regrowth (RG) timothy. The FC silage contained (on a dry matter (DM) basis) 12·3% crude protein, 30·4% cellulose and 6·2% water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), whereas the RG silage contained 14·3% crude protein, 18·7% cellulose and 30·0% WSC. For each trial, six male calves were taken directly from a natural range and divided into two groups of three animals. One group was offered FC silage and one RG silage ad libitum, for 46 days. Mean daily DM food intake (g/kg liveweight) was not significantly different in summer compared to winter(P > 0·05), but significantly higher in the animals fed RG silage compared to the animals fed FC silage (P < 0·0001). The apparent digestibility coefficient of DM was high for both silages both in summer and winter, ranging from 74·4 to 86·6%. However, the digestibility in winter was significantly higher than in summer(P < 0·002) and the digestibility of RG silage was higher than that of the FC silage (P < 0·009). The ruminal VFA concentration was significantly higher in winter than in summer (P < 0·03) and in the animals fed RG silage (range 55·3–104·9 mM) compared to the animals fed FC silage (range 35·2–61·7 mM) (P < 0·002). In spite of the high digestibility of both the FC and RG silages, the nitrogen balance was significantly higher in the animals in winter compared to summer(P < 0·0001) and in the animals fed RG silage compared to the animals fed FC silage(P < 0·0001). Thus, utilization of grass silage in reindeer appears to be influenced both by season and by plant quality.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 127 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 517 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

Aagnes, T. H. & Mathiesen, S. D. (1995). Round baled grass silage as food for reindeer in winter. Rangifer 15 (1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aagnes, T. H., Sormo, W. & Mathiesen, S. D. (1995). Ruminal microbial digestion in free-living, in captive lichen-fed, and in starved reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in winter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61, 583–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aagnes, T. H. & Mathiesen, S. D. (1996). Gross anatomy of the gastrointestinal tract in reindeer, free-living and fed baled timothy silage in summer and winter.Rangifer 16 (1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). The regulation of food intake by sheep. Animal Production 3, 51–61.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1961). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 2. The relationship between the voluntary intake of roughages, the amount of digesta in the reticulo-rumen and the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract.British Journal of Nutrition 15, 531–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fussell, R. J. & McCalley, D. V. (1987). Determination of volatile fatty acids (C2-C5) and lactic acid in silage by gas chromatography. Analyst 112, 1213–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, K. J. & Zabransky, R. J. (1975). Modification of the gas-liquid chromatography procedure and evaluation of a new column packing material for the identification of anaerobic bacteria. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2, 1–7.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. (1985). Digestive physiology of the deer – their morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. In Biology of Deer Production (Eds Drew, K. & Fennessy, P.), pp. 393–407. The Royal Society of New Zealand, Bulletin 22.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. (1989). Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobsen, E. & Skjenneberg, S. (1975). Some results from feeding experiments with reindeer. In Proceedings of the First International Reindeer and Caribou Symposium (Eds Luick, J. R., Lent, P. C., Klein, D. R. & White, R. G.), pp. 342–353. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, E. & Skjenneberg, S. (1979). Experiments with different diets to reindeer. Feeding value of reindeer feed (RF-71). Scientific Report, Agriculture College, Norway 58, 1–11.Google Scholar
Larsen, T. S., Nilsson, N. Ö. & Blix, A. S. (1985). Seasonal changes in lipogenesis and lipolysis in isolated adipocytes from Svalbard and Norwegian reindeer. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 123, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lechner-Doll, M., Hume, I. D. & Hofmann, R. R. (1995). Comparison of herbivore forage selection and digestion. In Proceedings of the IVth International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (Eds Journes, M., Grenet, E., Farce, M-H., Thériez, M. & Demarquilly, C.), pp. 231–248. Paris: INRA Editions.Google Scholar
Nilssen, K. J., Sundsfjord, J. A. & Blix, A. S. (1984). Regulation of metabolic rate in Svalbard and Norwegian reindeer.American Journal of Physiology 241, R837–R841.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. A., Aagnes, T. H. & Mathiesen, S. D. (1994). Digestion of herring by indigenous bacteria in the minke whale forestomach. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60, 4445–4455.Google Scholar
Person, S. J., White, R. G. & Luick, J. R. (1980). Determination of nutritive value of reindeer-caribou range. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Reindeer and Caribou Symposium (Eds Reimers, E., Gaare, E. & Skjenneberg, S.), pp. 224–239. Trondheim: Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk.Google Scholar
Ryg, M. & Jacobsen, E. (1982). Effects of castration on growth and food intake cycles in young male reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 60, 942–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sas/Stat (1990). User Guide, Version 6, 4th Edn, Vol 2. Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
Søormo, W., Aagnes, T. H., Olsen, M. A. & Mathiesen, S. D. (1994). The bacteriology of the small intestinal mucosa of free-living reindeer. Rangifer 14 (2), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supelco, (1975). Analyses of VFAs from anaerobic fermentation. Bulletin 748F.Google Scholar
Supelco, (1985). GC analyses of lactic acid in the presence of other volatile free acids. The Supelco Reporter, Chromatography and Chemical Standards News 4, 9–10.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanSoest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. New York: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar