Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:00:34.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of lambs offered fixed amounts of roughage and concentrate either simultaneously, progressively or separately

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. G. Wilkinson  and
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
R. G. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 JUD, UK
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 JUD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two experiments were carried out to study the efficiency of energy utilization by Suffolk × Blackface lambs. In the first experiment, a digestibility trial, the lambs were fed on either a roughage (chopped dried grass), concentrate (whole barley, ground barley and fishmeal), or mixed (roughage and concentrate) diet. The dry matter (DM) and organic matter digestibility coefficients of the mixed diet were slightly, but not significantly, lower than the ‘expected’ values calculated by summation of the separately determined digestibility coefficients of the component feeds. Similarly, the metabolizable energy (ME) value was 1·6% lower than the ‘expected’ value.

In the second experiment, lambs were offered 52·5 kg roughage DM (ME 9·96 MJ/kg DM) and 52·5 kg concentrate DM (ME 11·59 MJ/kg DM) as:(i) a mixed diet (M); (ii) a progressive change from roughage to concentrate (R–C); (iii) a progressive change from concentrate to roughage (C–R); or 105 kg roughage or concentrate DM as either (iv) a roughage diet (R), or (v) a concentrate diet (C). Lambs on treatments R–C, C–R and R and C combined took a similar time to consume their allocation of food and achieved a similar final empty body weight (EBW) and empty body composition. In addition, the total energy retention (ER) of lambs on these treatments was similar to that predicted by a feeding standards model for lambs of a similar liveweight offered diets of the same ME content. Lambs on treatment M consumed their allocation of food faster than those on all other treatments and achieved a slightly, but not significantly, higher final EBW, which contained a higher proportion of fat. The ER was higher than predicted. The higher overall efficiency of lambs on treatment M was attributed to higher daily intakes and differences in the ratio of protein: fat deposited and maintained by lambs on each treatment. The adoption of separate efficiency constants for both deposition and maintenance of protein and fat in current feeding standards would result in a more accurate prediction of animal performance.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 301 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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 (1980). The Nutrient Requirementsof Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Common-wealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Birkelo, C. P., Johnson, D. E. & Phetteplace, H. P.(1991). Maintenance requirements of beef cattle as affected by season on different planes of nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 69, 1214–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L. (1974). Metabolisable energy and feeding systems for ruminants. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers: 7 (Eds Swan, H. & Lewis, D.), pp. 3–25. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Boyne, A. W. (1978). The estimation of the nutritive value of feeds as energy sources for ruminants and the derivation of feeding systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, F. M., Johnson, D. E. & Matsushima, J. K. (1976). Associative effects between corn and corn silage on energy partitioning by steers. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Energy Metabolism (Ed. Vermorel, M.), pp. 253–260. Vichy, France: European Association of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1966). The effect of concentrates on the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract of cows given hay. Journal of Dairy Research 33, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1987). Recent developments in the meta-bolizable energy feeding system for ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia (Ed. Farrell, D. J.), pp. 121–136. Armidale, Australia: CSIRO Division of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. (1986). Effects of dietary concentrates on rumen digestion of fibrous feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
el-Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. & Johnson, R. R. (1961). Effect of starch on the digestionof cellulose in vitro and in vivo by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Animal Science 20, 268–273.Google Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, M. & Stanley, G. H. (1957). Asimple method for the isolation and purification of total lipid from animal tissue. Journal of Biological Chemistry 49, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. (1977). Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood program. In User Guide for LSML 76. Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. N. (1979). Polysaccharide degradation in the rumen. In Microbial Polysaccharides and Polysaccharases (Eds Berkeley, R. C. W., Gooday, G. W. & Ellwood, D. C.), pp. 377–397. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. W. & Bunting, L. D. (1992). Effects of starch on ruminal fermentation and detergent fibre digestion in lambs fed bermudagrass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 36, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledger, H. P. & Sayers, A. R. (1977). The utilization of dietary energy by steers during periods of restricted food intake and subsequent realimentation. 1. The effect of time onthe maintenance requirements of steers held at constant live weights. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Lobley, G. E. (1982). Some factors which influence thermal energy losses during the metabolism of ruminants. Livestock Production Science 9, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B. G. & Muntifering, R. B. (1985). Effect of forage:concentrate on kinetics of forage fiber digestion in vivo. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin No. 33. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. (1982). Associative effects of mixed feeds for ruminants. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Mann, S. O. (1983 a). Associative effects of mixed feeds. 1. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Gauld, S. A. (1983 b). Associative effects of mixed feeds. 1. The effect of dietary addition of bicarbonate salts on the voluntary intake and digestibility of diets containing various proportions of hay and barley. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olthoff, J. C., Dickerson, G. E.. & Nienaber, J. A. (1989). Energy utilization in mature ewes from seven breeds with diverse production potentials. Journal of Animal Science 67, 2550–2564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1970). The utilization of dietary energy for maintenance and for fat and protein deposition in young growing sheep. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Energy Metabolism (Eds Schürch, A. & Wenk, C.), pp. 121–124. Zurich, Switzerland: European Association of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Barnes, B. J., Macdearmid, A., Williams, P. E. V. & Innes, G. M. (1981). Utilization of alkali-treated grain. 3. Utilization by steers of NaOH-treated and rolled barley in silage-based diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 6, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, M. H., Moore, J. A. & Swingle, R. S. (1990). Differential passage rates and digestion of neutral detergent fiber from grain and forages in 30, 60 and 90% concentrate diets fed to steers. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2965–2973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullar, J. D. & Webster, A. J. F. (1977). The energy cost of fat and protein deposition in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 37, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rattray, P. V. & Joyce, J. P. (1976). Utilisation of metabolisable energy for fat and protein deposition in sheep. New Zealand Journalof Agricultural Research 19, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeds, P. J. & Lobley, G. E. (1980). Protein synthesis: are there real species differences? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, C. S. (1977). Factors affecting the cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 33, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Taylor, C. S. (1983). Dynamic factors in models of energy utilization with particular reference to maintenance requirement of cattle. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42, 135–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vadiveloo, J. & Holmes, W. (1979). The effects of forage digestibility and concentrate supplementation on the nutritive value of the diet and performance of finishing cattle. Animal Production 29, 121–129.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. & Smith, J. S. (1974). Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 1. The irrelevance of fasting metabolism. Animal Production 19, 127–139.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. G. & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1991). Growthof lambs offered fixed amounts of roughage and concentrate either simultaneously or sequentially. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 116, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., Macdearmid, A., Innes, G. M. & Gauld, S. A. (1984). Ammonia-treated barley straw and rolled barley offered either together, in a mixed ration, or successively to beef steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar