Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T05:31:23.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on feed intake and feed utilization by sheep I. Voluntary feed intake of dry, pregnant and lactating ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Hadjipieris  and
W. Holmes
G. Hadjipieris
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The feed intake of four dry and of twenty pregnant and lactating ewes has been measured. Hay and dried grass cubes alone or in combination were studied on indoor conditions by direct measurement of intake and digestibility while the intake on grazing was measured by the chromic oxide-faecal nitrogen method.

2. For dry sheep, hay (61% O.M. digestibility) limited intake to 780 g. D.O.M./day and with added grass cubes there was a steady increase so that intake with cubes alone (although their apparent O.M. digestibility was 56%) was 1140 g. B.O.M./day. Pregnant ewes showed similar intakes and only with ewes carrying twins and triplets was there a slight decline in intake with advancing pregnancy.

3. The digestibilities of the diets were similar for pregnant, and lactating ewes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1966 , pp. 217 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Anand, B. K. (1961). Yale J. Biol. Med. 24, 123–140.Google Scholar
A.O.A.C. (1960). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. W. (1963). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutr. Abet. Rev. 32, 669–686.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Brit. J. Nutr. 10, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 36, 328–330.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. & Drew, K. R. (1963). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 23, 53–63.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. G. & Tribe, D. E. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M. I. (1958). Amer. J. Digest. Dis. 3, 659–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipieris, G. (1964). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Hadjipiebis, G., Jones, J. G. W. & Holmes, W. (1965). Anim. Prod. 7, 309–17.Google Scholar
Haogab, R. J. & Holmes, W. (1963). Kent Wild White Clover. Wye College, Ashford, Kent.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Jones, J. G. W. & Drake-Brockman, R. M. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. & Jones, J. G. W. (1965). Anim. Prod. 7, 39–51.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P., Corbett, J. L., Mcdonald, I. & Pullar, J. D. (1963). Anim. Prod. 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
Makela, A. (1956). Acta Agralia Fennica, 85, 1–130.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. (1955). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 63, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. L. (1958). J. Austr. Inst. Agric. Sci. 24, 291–295.Google Scholar
Schinckel, P. W. (1960). Austr. J. Agric. Res. 11, 585–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93–153, 243–302, 369–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar