Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T09:46:22.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion and chewing behaviour of young sambar and red deer consuming a low quality roughage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Howse ,
G. Semiadi ,
K. J. Stafford ,
T. N. Barry  and
P. D. Muir
A. J. Howse
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science
G. Semiadi
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science Departments of Ag Research, Flock House, Bulls, New Zealand
K. J. Stafford
Affiliation:
Departments of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science
P. D. Muir
Affiliation:
Departments of Ag Research, Flock House, Bulls, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Low quality chaffed meadow hay, containing 10·5 g N/kg dry matter (DM), was fed to four artificially reared sambar (tropical) deer (Cervus unicolor) and four red (temperate) deer (Cervus elaphus) confined indoors in metabolism crates at Palmerston North, New Zealand, during March and April 1994. Measurements were made of DM intake (DMI), apparent digestibility, nitrogen (N) retention and the time spent eating and ruminating. Voluntary food intake (VFI), measured over days 7–11, was substantially greater for red deer than for sambar deer (67 v. 36 gDM/kgW0·75/day). Dry matter intake of red deer was then restricted, so that apparent digestibility could be better compared between the two species. Eating and ruminating time/gDMI and chews during eating/gDMI were all greater for sambar deer than for red deer. Apparent digestibility of DM, organic matter (OM) and energy were low (c. 0·42) and not different between deer species. Apparent digestibility of neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and cellulose were highest for red deer, but lignin apparent digestibility was highest for sambar deer. Both deer species lost weight and were in negative N balance. However, despite their lower N intake, sambar deer lost significantly less N and liveweight per day (– 5·6 g and – 118 g) than red deer (– 12·2 g and – 258 g). It was concluded that red deer responded to a diet of low quality roughage by increasing VFI and cellulose digestion, whilst sambar deer responded with a lower VFI but greater chewing activity, improved lignin digestion and better N conservation. Rumen mean retention time should be measured in future experiments with sambar deer and red deer fed on low quality forage diets.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 399 - 405
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

Akin, D. E. (1976). Ultrastructure of rumen bacterial attachment to forage cell walls. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 31, 562–568.Google Scholar
Akin, D. E. (1979). Microscopic evaluation of forage digestion by rumen microorganisms – a review. Journal of Animal Science 48, 701–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, K.-J., Akin, D. E. & Costerton, J. W. (1977). Rumen bacteria: interaction with particulate dietary components and response to dietary variation. Federation Proceedings 36, 193–197.Google ScholarPubMed
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991 a). The efficiency of chewing during eating and ruminating in goats and sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 355–363.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991 b). Voluntary intake and rumen digestion of a lowquality roughage by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W., Wilson, P. R. & Barry, T. N. (1991 c). Comparative digestion in deer, goats, and sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R., Norton, B. W. & Ford, C. W. (1985). In vivo colonization of grass cell walls by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 279–283.Google Scholar
Freudenberger, D. O., Toyakawa, K., Barry, T. N., Ball, A. J. & Suttie, J. M. (1994). Seasonality in digestion and rumen metabolism in red deer (Cervus elaphus) fed on a forage diet. British Journal of Nutrition 71, 489–499.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fibre analysis. USDA Agricultural Research Service 379, 20.Google Scholar
Hoskin, S. O., Stafford, K. J. & Barry, T. N. (1995). Digestion, rumen fermentation and chewing behaviour of red deer fed fresh chicory and perennial ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minson, D. J. (1981). Nutritional differences between tropical and temperate pastures. In World Animal Science, Bl. Grazing Animals (Ed. Morley, F. H. W.), pp. 143–157. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N., Stafford, K. J., Muir, P. D. & Reid, C. S. W. (1994 a). Comparison of digestive and chewing efficiency and time spent eating and ruminating in sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 123, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semiadi, G., Muir, P. D. & Barry, T. N. (1994 b). General biology of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in captivity. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 37, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N., Muir, P. D. & Hodgson, J. (1995 a). Dietary preferences of sambar (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) offered browse, forage legume and grass species. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 125, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N. & Muir, P. D. (1995 b). Comparison of seasonal patterns of growth, voluntary feed intake and plasma hormone concentrations in young sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 125, 109–124.Google Scholar
Stafford, K. J., Reid, C. S. W., Barry, T. N. & Suttie, J. M. (1993). Rumino-reticular motility in red deer (Cervus elaphus) fed chaffed lucerne hay during winter and summer. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (1987). SAS/STAT Guide, Version 6.0. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Terrill, T. H., Rowan, A. M., Douglas, G B. & Barry, T. N. (1992). Determination of extractable and bound condensed tannin concentrations in forage plants, protein concentrate meals and cereal grains. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 58, 321–329.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Quantitativedigestion of fresh herbage by sheep. I. The sites of digestion of organic matter, energy, readily fermentable carbo-hydrate, structural carbohydrate, and lipid. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1986). Contribution of chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the ruminoreticulum. In Control of Digestion and Metabolismin Ruminants (Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dobson, A.), pp. 498–515. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar