Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T06:12:24.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of genotype on the performance and intake characteristics of sheep grazing contrasting hill vegetation communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. Osoro ,
M. Oliván ,
R. Celaya  and
A. Martínez
K. Osoro
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Aplicada y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Apartado 13, 333000 — Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain
M. Oliván
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Aplicada y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Apartado 13, 333000 — Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain
R. Celaya
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Aplicada y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Apartado 13, 333000 — Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain
A. Martínez
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Aplicada y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Apartado 13, 333000 — Villaviciosa, Asturias, Spain
Get access

Abstract

The live-weight responses, voluntary herbage intakes and diet compositions of two breeds of sheep of different mature live weights, grazing two contrasting hill vegetation communities, were studied over three consecutive grazing seasons. A total of 228 Latxa and 255 Gallega non-lactating ewes, with mature live weights of 42.4 and 33.1 kg respectively, grazed two replicates, each of two 5-ha plots comprising by area either 0⋅3 Calluna vulgaris and 0.7 grass species (Agrostis capillaris, Festuca rubra and Nardus stricta) (treatment C3) or 0.7 C. vulgaris and 0⋅3 of the above grass species (treatment C7).

The Latxa ewes achieved higher rates of live-weight gain than the Gallega ewes under conditions of high availability (sward surface height >3⋅0 cm) of the preferred grass species (A. capillaris and F. rubra) but had lower rates of live-weight gain in the later part of the grazing season when the availability of the preferred grass species was low. In general, the Latxa ewes had higher voluntary herbage intakes per unit live weight and selected a diet of higher digestibility than the Gallega ewes (P < 0⋅001). The composition of the diet was significantly affected by treatment (P < 0⋅001) and was of a higher digestibility in the earlier part of the grazing season (P < 0⋅001).

The results indicate the existence of a significant (P < 0⋅001) genotype × environment interaction affecting diet selection and animal performance. Between-breed differences in diet selection are likely to be important in determining grazing behaviour and thus the suitability of different genotypes for particular environments. Breeds with a small body size are likely to be better suited to the poorer land resources where the availability of preferred species is low.

Keywords

breedsewesfood intakehill landperformance
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 419 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Allden, W.G. and Whitaker, I.A.M. 1970. The determinants of herbage intake by grazing sheep: the interrelationship of factors influencing herbage intake and availability. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21: 755–766.Google Scholar
Barthram, G.T. 1986. Experimental techniques: the HFRO swardstick. Biennial report, Hill Farming Research Organisation, 1984-85, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Carro, M.D., Giráldez, F.J., Ranilla, M.J., González, J.S. and Mantecón, A.R. 1993. Comparative study of rumen activity in Churra and Merino sheep. Animal Production 56: 463 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T.H. and Harvey, P.H. 1983. The functional significance of variation in body size among mammals. American Society of Mammologists special publication no. 7, pp. 632–663.Google Scholar
Demment, M.W., Peyraud, J.L. and Laca, E.A. 1995. Herbage intake at grazing: a modelling approach. In Recent developments in the nutrition of herbivores. Proceedings of the IVth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores (ed. Journet, M., Grenet, E., Farce, M.-H., Theriez, M. and Demarquilly, C.), pp. 121–141. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Ferrer Cazcarra, R., Petit, M. and D’hour, P. 1995. The effect of sward height on grazing behaviour and herbage intake of three sizes of Charoláis cattle grazing cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) swards. Animal Production 61: 511–518.Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, H.A. 1978. Animal size and efficiency with special reference to the breeding female. Animal Production 27: 393–401.Google Scholar
Grant, S.A., Suckling, D.E., Smith, H.K., Torvell, L., Forbes, T.D.A. and Hodgson, J. 1985. Comparative studies of diet selection by sheep and cattle: the hill grasslands. Journal of Ecology 73: 987–1004.Google Scholar
Greeff, J.C., Bouwer, L. and Hofmeyr, J.H. 1995. Biological efficiency of meat and wool production of seven sheep genotypes. Animal Science 61: 259–264.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., Forbes, T.D.A., Armstrong, R.H., Beattie, M.M. and Hunter, E.A. 1991. Comparative studies of the ingestive behaviour and herbage intake of sheep and cattle grazing indigenous hill plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 28: 205–227.Google Scholar
Iason, G.R., Sim, D.A., Foreman, E., Fenn, P. and Elston, D.A. 1994. Seasonal variation of voluntary food intake and metabolic rate in three contrasting breeds of sheep. Animal Production 58: 381–387.Google Scholar
Illius, A.W. 1989. Allometry of food intake and grazing behaviour with body size in cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113: 259–266.Google Scholar
Illius, A.W. and Gordon, I.J. 1987. The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 989–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, E.A., Demment, M.W., Distel, R.A. and Griggs, T.C. 1993. A conceptual model to explain variation in ingestive behaviour within a feeding patch. Proceedings of the XVII international grassland congress, pp. 710–712.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1984. Genstat V, mark 4.04B. Genstat 5 Committee, Rothamsted, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M., Hume, I.D. and Hofmann, R.R. 1995. Comparison of herbivore forage selection and digestion. In Recent developments in the nutrition of herbivores. Proceedings of the IVth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores (ed. Journet, M., Grenet, E., Farce, M.-H., Theriez, M., and Demarquilly, C.), pp. 231–248.Google Scholar
Martínez, A. and Osoro, K. 1995. Respuesta del ganado ovino a la altura de hierba disponible en pastos de raigrás y trébol. VI Jornadas sobre Producción Animal, ITEA vol. extra 16, pp. 171–173.Google Scholar
Mayes, R.W., Lamb, C.S. and Colgrove, P.M. 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.Google Scholar
Milne, J.A., Bagley, L. and Grant, S.A. 1979. Effects of season and level of grazing on the utilization of heather by sheep. 2. Diet selection and intake. Grass and Forage Science 34: 45–53.Google Scholar
Morris, C.A. and Wilton, W. 1976. Influence of body size on the ecological efficiency of cows: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 56: 613–647.Google Scholar
Oliván, M. and Osoro, K. 1997. Utilización de la técnica de los n-alcanos en estudios de ingestión y selección de dieta de los rumiantes en pastoreo: revisión. ITEA 93A: 193–208.Google Scholar
Osoro, K., Martínez, A. and Celaya, R. 1999. Conocimientos básicos para la gestión de los recursos pastables en la Cordillera Cantábrica. V Xornadas pratenses. Lugo. In press.Google Scholar
Penning, P.D., Rook, A.J. and Orr, R.J. 1991. Patterns of ingestive behaviour of sheep continuously stocked on monocultures of ryegrass or white clover. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 237–250.Google Scholar
Revesado, P.R., Mantecón, A.R., Frutos, P. and González, J.S. 1994. Comparative studies of diet selection by Churra and Merino genotypes grazing on a hill shrub community. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. Lawrence, T.L.J., Parker, D.S. and Rowlinson, P.). British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 18, pp. 111–112.Google Scholar
Russel, A.J.F., Doney, J.M. and Gunn, R.G. 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vulich, S.A., Hanrahan, J.P. and O’Riordan, E.G. 1990. Variation of intake at pasture: differences among breeds of sheep of different mature size. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. 15 pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
Wright, I.A., Jones, J.R., Maxwell, T.J., Russel, A.J.F. and Hunter, E.A. 1994. The effect of genotype × environment interactions on biological efficiency in beef cows. Animal Production 58: 197–207.Google Scholar
Zoby, J.L.F. and Holmes, W. 1983. The influence of size of animal and stocking rate on the herbage intake and grazing behaviour of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100: 139–148.Google Scholar