Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T08:32:53.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of two feeding levels of diets containing field-cured or frozen Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), on digestibility and rumen metabolites in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. Tagari ,
D. Ben Ghedalia  and
Y. Shtern
H. Tagari
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
D. Ben Ghedalia
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
Y. Shtern
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A digestibility and metabolism experiment was carried out to study the effect of two levels of feeding Rhodes grass-concentrate mixed diets when the grass had been preserved as hay or as frozen grass. Twenty Awassi lambs were used.

The method of preserving the Rhodes grass did not affect the digestibility of dry matter, crude protein or nitrogen-free extract. However, the digestibility of energy and crude fibre was lower with the hay treatments.

A consistent trend towards higher digestibility of the diets' constituents was observed with the high level of feeding.

Acetic acid concentration in the rumen was lower with the hay than with frozen grass. Feeding the high level resulted in higher concentrations of volatile fatty acids in the rumen.

A highly significant effect of the level of feeding on the C2/C3 ratio was observed; the high level of feeding resulted in a lower C2/C3 ratio

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , August 1977 , pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Agricultural Research Council (A.R.C.) (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. Technical Reviews. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. II. The energy value of cocksfoot, timothy and two strains of Rye grass at varying stages of maturity. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L. & Waite, R. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. III. The prediction of nutritive value from chemical and biological measurements. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1962). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, pp. 231, 258. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1974). Metabolizable energy and feeding systems for ruminants. Proceedings of Feed Manufacturers Conference, University of Nottingham, pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H. (1972). Effect on milk yield of the cow of the level of feeding during lactation. Dairy Science Abstracts 34, 265–88.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis. Agriculture Handbook no. 379, Jacket no. 387–598. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Huhtaken, C. N. & Saunders, R. K. (1954). Fiber digestion, using the miniature artificial rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 37, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishaque, M., Thomas, P. C. & Rook, J. A. F. (1971). Relationship between the pattern of ruminal fermentation and the flow to the duodenum of sheep receiving a diet of barley, flaked maize and ground hay. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 1A–2A.Google Scholar
Tagari, H. (1969). Comparison of the efficiency of proteins contained in lucerne hay and soyabean meal for sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 23, 455–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagari, H. & Ben Ghedalia, D. (1977). The digestibility of Rhodes grass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 181–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). The influence of levels of protein and starch in rations of sheep on the utilization of protein. British Journal of Nutrition 18, 333–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagari, H., Levy, D., Holzer, Z. & Ilan, D. (1976). Poultry litter for intensive beef production. Animal Production 23, 317–27.Google Scholar
Wagner, D. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1967). Studies on the energy requirements of high-producing dairy cows. Cornell University, Agricultural Experimental Station, New York State College of Agriculture Memoir 400.Google Scholar
Waite, R., Johnston, M. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. I. The effect of stage of maturity on the apparent digestibility of rye-grass, cocksfoot and timothy. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. & Smith, J. S. (1974). Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 1. The irrelevance of fasting metabolism. Animal Production 19, 127–39.Google Scholar