Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:35:16.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of feedblocks as a means of providing supplementary nutrients to ewes grazing upland/hill pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. J. Ducker ,
P. T. Kendall ,
R. G. Hemingway  and
T. H. McClelland
M. J. Ducker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Glasgow University Veterinary School, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
P. T. Kendall
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Glasgow University Veterinary School, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
R. G. Hemingway
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Glasgow University Veterinary School, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
T. H. McClelland
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Department, West of Scotland Agricultural College, Beechwood, Stirling FK8 2AE
Get access

Abstract

A series of trials was conducted to measure the extent of individual variation in feedblock intake for ewes on upland/hill farms. From 15 flocks on nine farms 4284 ewes were selected with a range of environmental conditions and levels of performance. Ewes were given either Rumevite, Norbloc or Wintawell feedblocks containing chromic oxide. Faecal grab samples were taken per rectum from individual ewes and analysed for their chromium content to obtain estimates of feedblock consumption.

The results showed that provision of feedblocks does not ensure a uniform intake of supplementary nutrients by sheep in upland/hill situations. On average, 19% of the 2931 ewes sampled had not eaten the feedblock on offer. The proportion of ewes not consuming feedblock varied from flock to flock (0 to 67%). The coefficient of variation of faecal chromium concentrations varied between flocks (46 to 231%). The reasons for the large variation in intakes observed are discussed. Feedblock intake was significantly affected by the grazing area per ewe (P<0·01) and the age of ewes (P<0·05 to P< 0·001).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , August 1981 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

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

Ducker, M. J. and Fraser, J. 1975. Some initial observations on the effect of weather on the consumption of feeding blocks. Expl. Husb., No. 29, pp. 113–117.Google Scholar
Ducker, M. J. and Kendall, P. T. 1977. The true value of feed blocks. Fmrs' Wkly 87(10): ix–xii.Google Scholar
Kendall, P. T. 1977. Studies in the use of feedblocks for ruminants. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Kendall, P. T., Ducker, M. J. and Hemingway, R. G. 1980. Individual intake variation by cattle given self-help feed blocks or cubed concentrate fed in troughs. Anim. Prod. 30: 485 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kendall, P. T., Hemingway, R. G. and Ducker, M. J. 1980. Variation in probable feed intake of ewes given concentrates with varying trough-space allowance or self-help feedblocks. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39: 16A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1973. Feeding the ewe. Sheep Improvement Service: Tech. Rep. Meat Livest. Commn, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, No. 2.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V., Ball, F. M., Murray, R. M., Norton, B. W. and Leng, R. A. 1974. Evaluation of a urea-molasses supplement for grazing cattle. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 10: 91–94.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V., Norton, B. W., Murray, R. M., Ball, F. M., Roseby, F. B., Rohan-Jones, W., Hill, M. K. and Leng, R. A. 1975. Body weight and wool production in grazing sheep given access to a supplement of urea and molasses: intake of supplement/response relationships. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 39–48.Google Scholar
Stern, E. 1973. Upsurge in block feeding expected as more turn to low-cost roughage. Livest. Fmg 10(10): 34.Google Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 59: 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar