Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T20:42:13.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of underfeeding and of fish meal supplementation on forage digestion in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. Kabré ,
M. Doreau  and
B. Michalet-Doreau
P. Kabré
Affiliation:
1Station de Recherches sur la Nutrition des HerbivoresINRA – Theix63122 Saint-Genès-ChampanelleFrance
M. Doreau
Affiliation:
2Laboratoire de Recherches sur la Sous-Nutrition des Ruminants, INRA – Theix63122 Saint-Genès-ChampanelleFrance
B. Michalet-Doreau
Affiliation:
1Station de Recherches sur la Nutrition des HerbivoresINRA – Theix63122 Saint-Genès-ChampanelleFrance
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects of severe food restriction and of protein supplementation on the apparent digestibility of a forage were studied on 12 wethers in 1992 at INRA, Theix. Ruminal digestion of the forage cell walls was studied in a second experiment carried out on four ewes fitted with rumen and duodenal cannulas, receiving the same diets as the wethers. The animals were fed on two different hay-based diets: hay only (58 or 25 g/kg BW0·75 per day) or hay supplemented with fish meal (48 or 20 g hay with 6·5 and 3·0 g fish meal respectively per kg BW0·75). The effects of fish meal supplementation on apparent digestibility of the hay cell walls were small, + 1·8 and + 2·3 units for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) respectively. In contrast, NDF and ADF digestibility was respectively 4·0 and 4·7 units higher at low than at high intake. Rumen fluid volume decreased by 2·4 1 with decreasing intake, while water concentration in rumen content increased slightly from 89·8 to 91·8%. The mean retention time of the hay particles in the foreguts increased concomitantly from 39·5 to 55·1 h. This was achieved by a higher retention time to a similar extent in both slow and fast compartments. The calculated in situ degradability of NDF and ADF increased respectively by 12·1 and 13·1 units with decreasing intake. This reflected the lower fractional outflow rate recorded at low intake. If a fractional outflow rate value of 4·1%/h (as measured in high intake diets) was applied to all dietary treatments, NDF and ADF in situ degradability would be greater at low than at high intake (31·7 v. 26·6% for NDF; 27·9 v. 22·1 % for ADF), indicating a higher microbial activity in restricted diets. Interactions between intake and fish meal supply were detected for in situ degradation parameters, indicating principally a reduction of the cell wall undegraded fraction in supplemented diets when intake declined. Ruminal fermentation was modified by the dietary treatments, the acetate: propionate ratio being higher at low intake. Fish meal increased concentrations of ammonia and of isoacids in rumen liquid. The relationship between apparent digestibility and in situ degradability of plant particles is discussed.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 119 - 127
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

Alwash, A. H. & Thomas, P. C. (1971). The effect of the physical form of the diet and the level of feeding on the digestion of dried grass by sheep. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 611–615.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Gill, M., Dawson, J. M. & Buttery, P. J. (1990). The effect of fishmeal on the digestion of grass silage by growing cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 63, 489–502.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. T. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Macleod, G. K., Grovum, W. L., Cahill, L. W. & McMillan, I. (1989). Comparative digestion in sheep and cattle fed different forage to concentrate at high and low intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 1774–1785.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1962). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error, 5th edition. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S. (1988). On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43, 441–444.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C., France, J. & Gale, D. L. (1985). A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53, 663–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dukstra, J., Boer, H., van Bruchem, J., Bruining, M. & Tamminga, S. (1993). Absorption of volatile fatty acids from the rumen of lactating dairy cows as influenced by volatile fatty acid concentration, pH and rumen liquid volume. British Journal of Nutrition 69, 385–396.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Lascano, C., Teeter, R. & Owens, F. N. (1982). Solute and paniculate flow markers. In Protein Requirements for Cattle (Ed. Owens, F. N.), pp. 37–56. Stillwater, USA: Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
Firkins, J. L., Berger, L. L., Merchen, N. R. & Fahey, G. C. Jr, (1986). Effects of forage particle size, level of feed intake and supplemental protein degradability on microbial protein synthesis and site of nutrient digestion in steers. Journal of Animal Science 62, 1081–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, M. J. & Baker, R. D. (1992). The use offish meal and monensin as supplements to grass silage and their effect on body composition changes in steers from 5 months of age to slaughter. Animal Production 55, 47–57.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analyses (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications). Agricultural Handbook, No. 379, Washington: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1977). Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 6. The effect of level of food intake on mathematical predictions of the kinetics of digesta in the reticulorumen and intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 38, 425–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, W. H. (1986). Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2755–2766.Google Scholar
Institut National De La Recherche Agronomique (1989). Ruminant Nutrition. Recommended Allowances and Feed Tables (Ed. Jarrige, R.). London: John Libbey Eurotext.Google Scholar
Jouany, J.-P. (1982). Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sciences des Aliments, 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Kabré, P. & Petit, M. (1994). Fish-meal supplement for severely undernourished ewes: effects on apparent digestibility and utilization of the diet. Animal Production 58, 127–133.Google Scholar
Kabré, P., Martin, C. & Michalet-Doreau, B. (1994). Enzyme activities of rumen solid-adherent microorganisms in chronically underfed ewes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 65, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaver, J. D., Campling, R. C. & Holmes, W. (1969). The effect of level of feeding on the digestibility of diets for sheep and cattle. Animal Production 11, 11–18.Google Scholar
MacKie, R. I. & White, B A. (1990). Recent advances in rumen microbial ecology and metabolism: potential impact on nutrient output. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2971–2995.Google Scholar
Maeng, W. J. & Baldwin, R. L. (1976). Factors influencing rumen microbial growth rates and yields: effect of amino acid additions to a purified diet with nitrogen from urea. Journal of Dairy Science 59, 648–655.Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B. (1991). Carbohydrate and nitrogen metabolism in the forestomach of steers given untreated or ammonia treated barley straw diets supplemented with urea or urea plus fishmeal. Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okine, E. K. & Mathison, G. W. (1991). Effects of feed intake on particle distribution, passage of digesta, and extent of digestion in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3435–3445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortigues, I., Smith, T., Oldham, J. D., McAllan, A. B. & Siviter, J. W. (1989). Nutrient supply and growth of cattle offered straw-based diets. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 601–619.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1975). A note on digestibility in sheep as influenced by level of intake. Animal Production 21, 89–92.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Fadel, J. G. & Tamminga, S. (1986). Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Tamminga, S. & Van Vuuren, A. M. (1987 a). Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate on milk production and whole tract digestibility in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 17, 19–35.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Tamminga, S. & van Vuuren, A. M. (1987 b). Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate on rumen ingesta quantity, composition and kinetics of ingesta turnover in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 17, 37–62.Google Scholar
Sanderson, R., Thomas, C. & McAllan, A. B. (1992). Fish-meal supplementation of grass silage given to young growing steers: effect on intake, apparent digestibility and live-weight gains. Animal Production 55, 389–396.Google Scholar
Shaver, R. D., Nytes, A. J., Satter, L. D. & Jorgensen, N. A. (1986). Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 1545–1559.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (1988). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6·03. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. R., Goetsch, A. L., Jones, A. L. & Landis, K. M. (1988). Feed intake and digestion by beef cows fed prairie hay with different levels of soybean meal and receiving postruminal administration of antibiotics. Journal of Animal Science 66, 1778–1789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B. & Piasentier, E. (1989). Effect of forage and concentrate intake level on rumen degradability of protein sources having different in vitro rates of N solubilisation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, P. V. & Bryant, M. J. (1991). A note on the response of store lambs to isonitrogenous diets containing rapeseed meal or fish meal. Animal Production 52, 395–399.Google Scholar
Thomsen, K. V. (1985). The specific nitrogen requirements of rumen microorganisms. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica, Supplement 25, 125–131.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Latham, M. J., Sharpe, M. E. & Terry, R. A. (1978). The effect of inclusion of mineral salts in the diet on dilution rate, the pattern of rumen fermentation and the composition of the rumen microflora. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 1–7.Google Scholar
Van Milgen, J., Berger, L. L. & Murphy, M. R. (1992). Fractionation of substrate as an intrinsic characteristic of feedstuffs fed to ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J. Y., Shimojo, M. & Goto, I. (1993). The effects of feeding level and roughage/concentrate ratio on the measurement of protein degradability of two typical forages in the rumen of goats, using the nylon bag technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 41, 261–269.Google Scholar