Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:48:04.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of lambs offered fixed amounts of roughage and concentrate either simultaneously or sequentially

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. G. Wilkinson  and
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
R. G. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 IUD, UK
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 IUD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two experiments were carried out in Scotland 1984 to study the efficiency of energy utilization by Suffolk × Blackface lambs. In the first experiment, a digestibility trial, the lambs were fed three diets: roughage (R) consisting of chopped dried grass; concentrate (C) containing 700 g whole barley, 225 g ground barley and 75 g fishmeal/kg dry matter (DM); and a mixed diet (M) containing 500 g of roughage and 500 g of concentrate/kg DM. The DM and organic matter digestibility coefficients of diet M were lower than the ‘expected’ values calculated by summation of the separately determined digestibility coefficients of the component feeds. Similarly, the metabolizable energy (ME) value was 4·0% lower than expected.

In the second experiment, 40 lambs of c. 20 kg live weight (LW) were offered 50 kg roughage DM (ME 9·74 MJ/kg DM) and 50 kg concentrate DM (ME 12·21 MJ/kg DM) either as a mixture (treatment M) or sequentially (treatment S). Lambs on treatment S took 33 days longer to consume their allocation of food than those on treatment M, but achieved a similar final empty body weight and empty body composition. This contrasts with results predicted by a feeding standards model for lambs of a similar LW offered diets of the same ME content. The longer feeding period, and hence greater overall maintenance requirement, of lambs on treatment S was partly offset by associated effects causing a reduction in the total ME available to lambs on treatment M, and partly to improved efficiency of energy utilization for gain and/or a lower daily maintenance requirement of lambs on treatment S. Allowing for associated effects and the adoption of a variable maintenance requirement in current feeding standards would result in a more accurate prediction of animal performance.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 116 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 125 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1974). Metabolisable energy and feeding systems for ruminants. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers (Eds Swan, H. & Lewis, D.), pp. 3–20. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Boyne, A. W. (1978). The estimation of the nutritive value of feeds as energy sources for ruminants and the derivation of feeding systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, F. M., Johnson, D. G. & Mitsushima, J. K. (1976). Associative effects between corn and corn silage on energy partitioning by steers. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Energy Metabolism (Ed. Vermorel, M.), pp. 253–260. Vichy, France: European Association of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1966). The effect of concentrate on the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract of cows given hay. Journal of Dairy Research 33, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crabtree, R. M. (1976). Studies of the body composition of beef cattle as affected by type of food and the efficiency of energy utilisation. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
El-Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. & Johnson, R. R. (1961). Effects of starch on the digestion of cellulose in vitro and in vivo by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of Animal Science 20, 268–273.Google Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, M. & Stanley, G. H. (1957). A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissue. Journal of Biological Chemistry 49, 497–509.Google Scholar
Fox, D. G., Johnson, R. R., Preston, R. L., Dockerty, T. R. & Klosterman, E. U. (1972). Protein and energy utilisation during compensatory growth in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 34, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC. & Searle, T. W. (1975). Studies of weaner sheep during and after periods of weight stasis. 1. Energy and nitrogen utilisation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Science 26, 343–353.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. (1977). Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood program. In User Guide for LSML 76. Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953). The effects of quality and quantity of carbohydrate and protein in the ration of sheep on the digestibility of cellulose and other constituents of the ration, with a note on the effect of adding vitamins of the B-complex on the digestibility and retention of the nutrients of a hay ration. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 43, 281–293.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. N. (1979). Polysaccharide degradation in the rumen. In Microbial Polysaccharides and Polysaccharases (Ed. Berkeley, R. C. W.), pp. 377–397. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ledger, H. P. & Sayers, A. R. (1977). The utilisation of dietary energy by steers during periods of restricted food intake and subsequent realimentation. 1. The effects of time on the maintenance requirement of steers held at constant liveweight. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin No. 33, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. (1982). Associative effects of mixed feeds for ruminants. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Gauld, S. A. (1983). Associative effects of mixed feeds. 2. The effect of dietary additions of bicarbonate salts on the voluntary intake and digestibility of diets containing various proportions of hay and barley. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Barnes, B. J., Macdearmid, A., Williams, P. E. V. & Innes, G. M. (1981). Utilisation of alkalitreated grain. 3. Utilisation by steers of NaOH-treated and rolled barley in silage-based diets. Animal Feed Sicence and Technology 6, 335–365.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S. (1977). Factors affecting the cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied Environmental Microbiology 33, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Effects of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.Google Scholar
Thomson, E. F., Bickel, H. & Schurch, A. (1982). Growth performance and metabolic changes in lambs and steers after mild nutritional restriction. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Taylor, C. S. (1983). Dynamic factors in models of energy utilisation with particular reference to maintenance requirements of cattle. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42, 135–190.Google Scholar
Vadiveloo, R. & Holmes, W. (1979). The effect of forage digestibility and concentrate supplementation on the nutritive value of a diet and performance of finishing cattle. Animal Production 21, 121–129.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Dewey, P. J. S. (1975). First Report of the Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit. Aberdeen: Rowett Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. & Boyne, A. W. (1978). Second Report of the Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit. Aberdeen: Rowett Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. & Boyne, A. W. (1981). Third Report of the Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit. Aberdeen: Rowett Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. & Brewer, A. C. (1984). Fourth Report of the Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit. Aberdeen: Rowett Research Institute.Google 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, 127–139.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., Macdearmid, A., Innes, G. M. & Gauld, S. A. (1984). Ammonia-treated barley straw and rolled barley offered either together in a mixed ration, or successively to beef steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 247–255.Google Scholar