Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:24:10.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical structure of twelve forage species in relation to rate of intake by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. Wilman ,
E. J. Mtengeti  and
G. Moseley
D. Wilman
Affiliation:
Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
E. J. Mtengeti
Affiliation:
Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
G. Moseley
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3EB, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In order to understand better the relationship between plant physical structure and rate of intake, twelve plant species were compared: Trifolium repens L., Medicago sativa L., Onobrychis viciifolia Scop., Desmodium intortum (Mill.) Urb., Brassica napus L., Spergula arvensis L., Lolium perenne L., Lolium multifiorum Lam., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Chloris gayana Kunth, Cenchrus ciliaris L. and Zea mays L. The effects of early as opposed to late harvesting were compared. Plants were grown in a heated glasshouse in each of 2 years, examined for morphology, anatomy, neutral detergent fibre and digestibility, and fed to sheep for 1-min test periods to record rate of intake.

Rate of intake was in the order tropical grasses < temperate grasses < broad-leaved species < S. arvensis. The range was wide: from 4·6 g dry matter/min with C. gayana to 15·6 g with S. arvensis. The lowest rate of intake was associated with the possession of a large number of veins, close together, in parallel lines (tropical grasses); a rather higher rate was associated with fewer veins, further apart, in parallel lines (temperate grasses); the next to the highest rate was associated with broad leaves, which had a network of veins; the highest rate was associated with thin stems containing thin vascular bundles. L. perenne, L. multifiorum, C. gayana and C. ciliaris were similar in the thickness of large and small leaf blade veins and leaf sheath veins. F. arundinacea and Z. mays had rather thicker veins. T. repens, 0. viciifolia. D. intortum and B. napus were similar in the thickness of petiole vascular bundles. Neutral detergent fibre was lowest in B. napus and highest in C. gayana and C. ciliaris. In vitro digestibility was highest in B. napus and lowest in D. intortum.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 126 , Issue 3 , May 1996 , pp. 277 - 285
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

Bryan, W. W. (1969). Desmodium intortum and Desmodium uncinatum. Herbage Abstracts 39, 183–191.Google Scholar
Derrick, R. W., Moseley, G. & Wilman, D. (1993). Intake, by sheep, and digestibility of chickweed, dandelion, dock, ribwort and spurrey, compared with perennial ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 120, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, R. E., Goplen, B. P., Brandt, S. A. & Cheng, K.-J. (1982). Disruption of leaf tissues by rumen microorganisms: an approach to breeding bloat-safe forage legumes. Crop Science 22, 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, C. D. (1960). Methods of estimating the leaf area of grasses from linear measurements. Annals of Botany New Series 24, 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, M. N. & Minson, D. J. (1988). Large particle breakdown by cattle eating ryegrass and alfalfa. Journal of Animal Science 66, 992–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeod, M. N. & Smith, B. R. (1989). Eating and ruminating behaviour in cattle given forages differing in fibre content. Animal Production 48, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1990). Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moore, R. M. (Ed.) (1970). Australian Grasslands. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. & Antuna Manendez, A. (1989). Factors affecting the eating rate of forage feeds. In Proceedings of the XVlth International Grassland Congress, Nice, France, 1989, Vol. 11, pp. 789–790.Google Scholar
Mtengeti, E. J., Wilman, D. & Moseley, G. (1995). Physical structure of white clover, rape, spurrey and perennial ryegrass in relation to rate of intake by sheep, chewing activity and particle breakdown. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 125, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1989). Recommended Varieties of Grasses and Herbage Legumes 1989/90. Farmers Leaflet no. 4. Cambridge: NIAB.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1993). Recommended Varieties of Fodder Crops 1993. Farmers Leaflet no. 1. Cambridge: NIAB.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1994). Recommended Varieties of Forage Maize. Farmers Leaflet no. 7. Cambridge: NIAB.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1982). Nutritive and utilisation value of sainfoin. In The Future of Sainfoin in British Agriculture, pp. 8–11. Hurley: Grassland Research Institute.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
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Wilman, D. & Asiedu, F. H. K. (1983). Growth, nutritive value and selection by sheep of sainfoin, red clover, lucerne and hybrid ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. R. (1985). An interdisciplinary approach for increasing yield and improving quality of forages. In Proceedings of the XVth International Grassland Congress, Kyoto, Japan, 1985, pp. 49–55.Google Scholar