Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:52:14.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the effects on voluntary intake by sheep of either dietary or intra-ruminal addition of silage juices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N.W. Offer
N.W. Offer*
Affiliation:
Food Systems Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
Get access

Abstract

Two silages were made from a regrowth of perennial ryegr ass following a 24-h wilt using either 2·5 l/t (LF) or 5·5 l/t (HF) of Add Safe (an aqueous solution of ammonium tetraformate, Trouw Nutrition, Cheshire, UK). Composition of silages LF and HF respectively were for dry matter (DM, g/kg) 205, 217; crude protein (g/kg DM) 106, 104; digestible organic matter (g/kg DM) 665, 692, pH 3·8, 3·9; lactic acid (g/kg DM) 103, 84; neutralizing value (meq/kg DM) 1051, 892; acetic acid (g/kg DM) 18·4, 14·0. Experiment A measured the intakes of the two silages using 12 Scottish Blackface wether lambs (mean live weight 25 kg) using a cross-over design with periods of 21 days. Intakes (g DM per day) were significantly greater (P < 0·05) for silage HF (329) than for LF (268). Experiment B measured the voluntary intakes of dried silage residues following juice extraction using the same protocol as for experiment A, except that only six lambs were used. There were no significant differences in composition or intake (P > 0·05) of the dried residues from the two silages. Experiment C used a 5 × 5 Latin-square design to measure the effects on voluntary intake of adding juices from the two silages to unmolassed sugar-beet nuts (SBN) pre-feeding or administered directly into the rumen in two discrete doses per day. Sheep on treatments LED and HFD received juices added to SBN (1·5 l/kg) and water added into the rumen in equal volume to the juice consumed with the previous day’s SBN. Treatments LFR and HFR received water added to the SBN (1·5 l/kg) and juice into the rumen in equal volume to the water consumed with the previous day’s SBN. The control treatment (W) was water added both to the SBN and into the rumen. Total mean daily intakes (g/day) were 1930,1954,1296, 2034 and 1703 (s.e.d. 179) for treatments LED, HFD, LFR, HFR and W respectively. Treatment LFR gave significantly lower mean daily intakes (P < 0·05) than all other treatments. Values for pH, volatile fatty acids and ammonia in the rumen fluid were not significantly affected by treatment (P > 0·05). Differences in voluntary intake for the two silages made from the same crop using different ensilage methods were attributed to differences in the silage liquid and volatile phases and not to the non-volatile solid phase. The effects of juice composition on intake were greater when added directly to the rumen than when added to the diet suggesting that effects on taste or smell were relatively unimportant.

Keywords

food intakegrass silagesheep
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 325 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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 and Food Research Council. 1991. Voluntary intake of cattle. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, report no. 8. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews {Series B) 61: 815–823.Google Scholar
Apolant, S.M. and Chestnutt, D.M.B. 1985. The effect of mechanical treatment of silage on intake and production of sheep. Animal Production 40: 287–296.Google Scholar
Buchanan-Smith, J.G. 1990. An investigation into palatability as a factor responsible for reduced intake of silage by sheep. Animal Production 50: 253–260.Google Scholar
Cushnahan, A. and Gordon, F.J. 1995. The effects of grass preservation on intake, digestibility and rumen degradation characteristics. Animal Science 60: 429–438.Google Scholar
Cushnahan, A., Gordon, F.J., Ferris, C.P.W., Chestnutt, D.M.B. and Mayne, C.S. 1994. The use of sheep as a model to predict the relative intakes of silages by dairy cattle. Animal Production 59: 415–420.Google Scholar
Dawson, L.E.R. and Mayne, C.S. 1995. The effects of either dietary addition or intraruminal infusion of amines and juice extracted from grass silage on the voluntary intake of steers offered grass silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 56: 119–131.Google Scholar
Dewar, W.A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 790–795.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J.P., Michalet-Doreau, B. and Demarquilly, C. 1984. Etude comparee des quantités ingérées et du comportment alimentaire et merycique d’ovins et de bovins recevant des ensilages d’herbe réalisés selon différentes techniques. Annales de Zootechnie 33: 291–320.Google Scholar
Farningham, D.A.H. and Whyte, C.C. 1993. The role of propionate and acetate in the control of food intake in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 70: 37–46.Google Scholar
Forbes, J.M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Gordon, F.J. 1982. The effects of degree of chopping grass for silage and method of concentrate allocation on the performance of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 37: 59–65.Google Scholar
Gordon, F.J. 1989. An evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 44: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, P.M. 1991. The effect of an acid salt-type additive on the fermentation of grass silages made in bunkers on commercial farms in Wales 1990. Proceedings of a conference on forage conservation towards 2000, European Grassland Federation, Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 328–329.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, S., Rinne, M., Heikkla, T., Toivonen, V. and Huhtanen, P. 1996. Effects of restriction of silage fermentation with formic acid on milk production. Proceedings of the 11th international silage conference, University of Wales, Aherystwyth, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
Jackson, D.A., Johnson, C.L. and Forbes, J.M. 1991. The effect of compound composition and silage characteristics on silage intake, feeding behaviour, production of milk and live-weight change in lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 52: 11–19.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McLeod, D.S., Wilkins, R.J. and Raymond, R.F. 1970. The voluntary intake by sheep and cattle of silages differing in free-acid content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75: 311–319.Google Scholar
Mbanya, J.M., Anil, M.H. and Forbes, J.M. 1993. The voluntary intake of hay and silage by lactating cows in response to ruminal infusion of acetate or propionate or both with or without distension of the rumen by balloon. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 713–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1993. Prediction of the energy value of compound feeding stuffs for farm animals. MAFF Publications, London.Google Scholar
Neumark, H., Bondi, A. and Volcani, R. 1964. Amines, aldehydes and keto-acids in silages and their effects on food intake in ruminants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 15: 487–492.Google Scholar
Offer, N.W. 1997. A comparison of the effects on voluntary intake by sheep of dietary addition of either silage juices or lactic acid solutions of the same neutralizing value. Animal Science 64 : 331–337.Google Scholar
Offer, N.W., Cottrill, B.R. and Thomas, C. 1996. The relationship between silage evaluation and animal response. In Proceedings of the 11th international silage conference, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, pp. 26–38.Google Scholar
Offer, N.W., Percival, D.S., Dewhurst, R.J. and Thomas, C. 1998. Prediction of the voluntary intake potential of grass silage by sheep and dairy cows from laboratory silage measurements. Animal Science 66: 357–367.Google Scholar
Offer, N.W., Rooke, J.A., Dewhurst, R.J. and Thomas, C. 1993. Rapid assessment of silage fermentation characteristics by electrometric titration. Animal Production 56: 423 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Phillip, L.E., Buchanan-Smith, J.G. and Grovum, W.L. 1981a. Effects of infusing the rumen with acetic acid and nitrogenous constituents in maize silage extracts on food intake, ruminai osmolality and blood acid-base balance in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 429–438.Google Scholar
Phillip, L.E., Buchanan-Smith, J.G. and Grovum, W.L. 1981b. Food intake and rumen osmolarity in sheep: differentiation of the effect of osmolality from that of the products of maize fermentation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 439–445.Google Scholar
Rooke, J.A. 1995. The effect of increasing the acidity or osmolality of grass silage by the addition of free or partially neutralized lactic acid on silage intake by sheep and upon osmolality and acid-base balance. Animal Science 61: 285–292.Google Scholar
Rooke, J.A., Borman, A.J. and Armstrong, D.G. 1990. The effect of inoculation with Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation in laboratory silos of herbage low in water soluble carbohydrate. Grass and Forage Science 45: 143–152.Google Scholar
Sabri, M.S., Offer, N.W. and Roberts, D.J. 1988. Effects of fodder beet on rumen metabolism. Animal Production 47: 429–434.Google Scholar
Steen, R.W.J., Gordon, F.J., Dawson, L.E.R., Park, R.S., Mayne, C.S., Agnew, R.E., Kilpatrick, D.J. and Porter, M.G. 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science, 66: 115–127.Google Scholar
Steen, R.J.W., Gordon, F.J., Mayne, C.S., Poots, R.E., Kilpatrick, D.J., Unsworth, E.F., Barnes, R.J., Porter, M.G. and Pippard, C.J. 1995. Prediction of the intake of grass silage by cattle. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P.C. and Cole, D.J.A.), pp. 67–89. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. and Wilkinson, J.M. 1975. The utilisation of maize silage for intensive beef production. 3. Nitrogen and acidity as factors affecting the nutritive value of ensiled maize. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85: 255–261.Google Scholar