Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:20:06.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens L. cv. Blanca) by growing cattle fed indoors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

D. E. Beever ,
D. J. Thomson ,
M. J. Ulyatt ,
S. B. Cammell  and
M. C. Spooner
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute*, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
D. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute*, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
M. J. Ulyatt
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute*, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute*, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
M. C. Spooner
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute*, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Pure swards of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv. Melle) or white clover (Trifolium repens L.cv. Blanca) were harvested daily at three and two stages of growth respectively, and offered to housed cattle. The grass diets comprised primary growth (May) and two later regrowths of contrasting morphology (i.e. leaf: stem values of 1.54 and 2.84 respectively), and were characterized by high contents of water-soluble carbohydrate and neutral- detergent fibre and comparable in vitro dry matter (DM) digestibilities (mean 0.80). Total nitrogen content was higher on primary growth grass (34 g/kg DM) than on regrowths (23 g/kg DM) but lower than values obtained for the two clover diets (38 and 43 g/kg DM, respectively). The clover diets had lower water-soluble carbohydrate contents than the grasses, comparable cellulose, but lower neutral-detergent fibre contents and in vitro DM digestibilities of 0.70 and 0.77 respectively.

2. The experiment lasted from May until August, during which time a total of twenty-one young Friesian steers (initial average live weight 130 kg) were used to determine both nutrient supply to the small intestine (twelve animals) and apparent digestibility (nine animals). Each diet was offered at three levels of DM intake (i.e. 18, 22 and 26 g/kg live weight). A further six steers, all fed at the rate of 22 g DM/kg live weight, were used to determine the metabolizable energy contents of the five diets by means of open-circuit calorimetry.

3. The three grass diets and the later-cut clover had, as intended, quite similar in vivo organic matter digestibilities, but that of the earlier-cut clover was lower, and this was associated with a large number of flower heads in this crop at the time of feeding.

4. On the clover diets, proportionately less of the ingested organic matter appeared to be digested in the rumen (0.40) compared with the grass diets (0.58) (P < 0.001). On the high-N primary grass and the clover diets, substantial rumen losses of N were detected (P < 0.01) compared with regrowth grasses.

5. The metabolizable energy content of the primary growth of grass was 12.2 MJ/kg DM, whilst the values for the other two grass diets were lower (11.6 MJ/kg DM), despite no marked decline in overall energy digestibility. Values for the two clover diets (mean 10.5 MJ/kg DM) were considerably lower than all values noted for the grasses.

6. The amount of absorbed non-ammonia-N expressed per MJ metabolizable energy averaged 1.24 g/MJ on the grass diets, with no apparent seasonal effects, compared with 1.79 g/MJ on the two clover diets.

7. Reasons for variations in nutrient supply and the consequence of considerable rumen losses of ingested N on the high-N diets are discussed, and the contribution that white clover can make to overall protein supply in grazing ruminants is established.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , November 1985 , pp. 763 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1974). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 73A.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E. & Siddons, R. C. (1985). In Proceedings of VIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Banff (In the Press).Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thompson, D. J. & Cammell, S. B. (1976). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 26, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Ulyatt, M. J., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B., Austin, A. R. & Spooner, M. C. (1981). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 66A.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Skelton, K. V. & Spooner, M. C. (1981). Laboratory Practice 30, 115–119.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Austin, A. R., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Spooner, M. C. & Terry, R. A. (1983). Animal Production 36, 501.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A36, 328–330.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Furnival, E. P., Inskip, M. W. & Pickering, F. S. (1982). In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production, pp. 141–143. [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Occasional Publication of the British Society of Animal Production no. 6.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, R. A. (1938). Journal of Nutrition 15, 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekern, A., Blaxter, K. L. & Sawers, D. (1965). In Energy Metabolism pp. 217–224 [Blaxter, K. L., editor]. European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 11. London and New york: Academic press.Google Scholar
Evans, C. C., MacRae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981). Laboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Gehrke, G. W., Kaiser, F. E. & Ussary, J. P. (1968). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 51, 200–211.Google Scholar
McComb, E. A. & McReady, R. M. (1952). Analytical Chemistry 24, 1630–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 82, 309–319.Google Scholar
Mangan, J. L. (1982). In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production, pp. 25–40 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Occasonal Publication of British Society of Animal Production no. 6.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon Instrument Co. Ltd (1969). Technical Methodology Sheet N9B. Basingstoke: Technicon Instruments Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. & Beever, D. E. (1980). In Digestive Physiology & Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 291–308. [Ruckebush, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A,Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1985). In Proceedings of VIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Banff (In the Press).Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 82, 295–307.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Verite, R., Remond, B. & Journet, M. (1984). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, Suppl.328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar