Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T19:30:14.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of silages Digestion of organic matter, gross energy and carbohydrate constituents in the rumen and intestines of sheep receiving diets of grass silage or grass silage and barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. C. Thomas ,
N. C. Kelly ,
D. G. Chamberlain  and
M. K. Wait
P. C. Thomas
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
N. C. Kelly
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
D. G. Chamberlain
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
M. K. Wait
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Two experiments were conducted to study the digestion of organic matter, gross energy and carbohydrate constituents in the rumen, small intestine and caecum and colon of sheep given grass silage diets. Three silages made from perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) with formic acid as an additive were used. One was made from first-harvest grass in the spring and the others from regrowth grass cut from a single sward in either early autumn or late autumn. Expt I involved a comparison between the spring silage given alone or supplemented with barley (silage:barley, 4:I dry matter (DM) basis). Expt 2 involved a comparison between the early-cut and late-cut autumn silages.

In Expt I, supplementation of the silage with barley resulted in a non-significant (P > 0.05) reduction in the proportion of digestible energy (DE) and digestible organic matter digested in the rumen and an increase in the proportions digested in the small intestine. There were also pronounced effects of barley on ruminal cellulolysis and the proportion of digestible cellulose broken down in the rumen was reduced (P < 0.05) from 0.90 to 0.77. There was an increased passage of α-linked glucose polymers to the duodenum but even with the supplemented diet 0.91 of the dietary polymers were digested in the rumen. The molar proportion of propionic acid in the rumen tended to be reduced and there were increases in the proportions of butyric acid (P < 0.01) and acetic acid.

In Expt 2, the digestibility of organic matter, gross energy and cellulose in the early-cut silage was higher (P < 0.01) than in the late-cut silage but there were no significant (P < 0.05) differences between silages in the sites of digestion of these constituents. However, the molar proportion of acetic acid in the rumen was higher (P < 0.01) and the molar proportion of propionic acid was lower (P < 0.01) with the late-cut silage than with the early-cut silage.

The results are discussed in relation to the voluntary intake and utilization of high-digestibility silages.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , May 1980 , pp. 481 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants, London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, p. 217. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Campbell, R. M., Davidson, J. & Cuthbertson, D. P. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1975). J. Er. Grassld Soc. 30, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1976). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 31, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G. & Thomas, P. C. (1979). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 30, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Thomas, P. C. & Wilson, A. G. (1976). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 27, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, W. A. & McDonald, P. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhan, S. M. A. & Thomas, P. C. (1978). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 33, 1st.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes, p. 269. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, N. C. & Thomas, P. C. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maki, L. R. & Picard, K. (1965). J. Bacf. 89, 124.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Kelly, N. C. & Wait, M. K. (1976). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 31, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Coelho da Silva, J. F. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar