Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:38:34.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of food allowance on diet selectivity and intake of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) stover leaves by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

S. Fernández-Rivera ,
A. Midou  and
H. Marichatou
S. Fernández-Rivera
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Semi-arid Zone Programme, ILCA/ICRISAT, BP 12404, Niamey, Niger
A. Midou
Affiliation:
Université Abdou Moumouni Diofo de Niamey, Faculté d'Agronomie, BP 10960, Naimey, Niger
H. Marichatou
Affiliation:
Université Abdou Moumouni Diofo de Niamey, Faculté d'Agronomie, BP 10960, Naimey, Niger
Get access

Abstract

The influence of food allowance or level of food excess on diet selectivity and intake by sheep given pearl millet stover leaves, and the potential feeding value of the food leftovers (not eaten) (L) were studied. Animals were given food at four levels of L (100, 300, 500 and 700 g dry matter (DM) per day). All sheep received different food allowances (A, g DM per day) and had different L/A and A/M (g DM per kg M) ratios. An additional treatment consisted of feeding the leftovers from the two highest levels of food excess to six rams to have 300 g DM of L per day. A diet supplement was given to provide sufficient rumen degradable protein and sulphur to sustain microbial activity. Variances of organic matter (OM) digestibility (OMD, g/kg) and intake (g/kg M0·75) of both DM (DMI) and digestible OM (DOMI) of the original millet leaves were analysed using L, L/A, A/M and A/M0·75 as independent variables. Variation accounted for was highest when OMD was analysed as a function of L/A (R2 = 0·34) and when DMI was analysed as a function of A/M (R2 = 0·79) or A/M0·75 (R2 = 0·80). The response in OMD to varying L/A was best described by the equation OMD = 457 (s.e. 16) + 157 (s.e. 48) L/A. As L/A or A/M increased, L had a lower concentration of acid-detergent fibre and a higher in sacco OM disappearance. As A/M increased, DOMI and L/A increased following a diminishing return pattern. However, when A/M fell below 31·1 (s.e. 0·9) g DM per kg M, DOMI decreased linearly. No differences (P > 0·33) were observed for OMD between the original food (505 (s.e. 8) g/kg) and the re-fed leftovers (489 (s.e. 15) g/kg), but DOMI was lower with the latter (22•4 (s.e. 0·4) v. 20·3 (s.e. 0·8) g/kg M0˙75, P < 0·03). Results suggest that DOMI of millet stover should be determined at L/A much higher than the traditionally recommended (0·15), and support the hypothesis that farmers could benefit from feeding millet stover at high allowances to animals of high economic value and give the leftovers to less valuable or less selective stock.

Keywords

crop residuesdigestibilityfood intakePennisetum americanumsheep.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 249 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Aboud, A. A. O. 1991. Strategies for utilization of sorhgum stover as feed for cattle, sheep and goats. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Bhargava, P. K., Ørskov, E. R. and Walii, T. K. 1988. Rumen degradation of straw. 4. Selection and degradation of morphological components of barley straw by sheep. Animal Production 47: 105–110.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. and Wilson, R. S. 1961. The regulation of food intake by sheep. Animal Production 3: 51–62.Google Scholar
Fernández-Rivera, S. 1981. [Effects of level of feeding, physical form and nitrogen supplementation on the utilization of maize stover by sheep.] M.Sc. thesis, Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. B. and Minson, D. J. 1981. The digestibility of plant parts. Herbage Abstracts 51: 459–482.Google Scholar
Höfs, S. 1992. Evaluation of various indigenous supplements in millet leaves based diets for sheep in the Sahel. Dr. sc. agr. thesis, Technischen Universität Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Hamilton, B. A., Hutchinson, K. J., Annis, P. C. and Donnelly, J. B. 1973. Relationships between the diet selected by grazing sheep and the herbage on offer. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24: 271–277.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference book 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. 1981. The measurement of digestibility and voluntary intake of forages and confined animals. In Forage evaluation: concepts and techniques (ed. Wheeler, J. L. and Mochrie, R. D.), pp. 159–175. CSIRO, Australia, East Melbourne, and American Forage and Grassland Council, Lexington.Google Scholar
Owen, E. and Aboud, A. A. O. 1988. Practical problems of feeding crop residues. In Plant breeding and the nutritive value of crop residues, proceedings of a workshop, International Livestock Centre for Africa (ed. Reed, J. D., Capper, B. S. and Neate, P. J. H.), pp. 133–135. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Robbins, K. R., Norton, H. W. and Baker, D. H. 1979. Estimation of nutrient requirements from growth data. Journal of Nutrition 109: 1710–1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, B. H. and Flatt, W. P. 1975. The evaluation of feeds through digestibility experiments. University of Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1987. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wahed, R. A., Owen, E., Naate, M. and Hosking, B. J. 1990. Feeding straw to small ruminants: effect of amount offered on intake and selection of barley straw by goats and sheep. Animal Production 51: 283–289.Google Scholar