Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:16:52.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of supplementation with maize starch and level of intake of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Endura) hay on the removal of digesta from the rumen of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. M. Aitchison ,
M. Gill  and
D. F. Osbourb
E. M. Aitchison
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute‡, Hurky, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. Gill
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute‡, Hurky, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourb
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute‡, Hurky, 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. Eight wether sheep were offered a diet of perennial ryeigrass (Litum perenne cv. Endura) hay once daily at two levels of intake (11 and 16.5 g dry matter (DM)/kg live weight (LW)) with or without maize starch (175 g DM/kg hay DM). The experiment consisted of four periods. each lasting 32 d. Rates of digestion of the hay were measured by incubation in dacron bags and rates of passagc using chromium-mordanted hay. Rumen pool sizes of DM, organic matter and fibre were measured by emptying the rumen.

2. The inclusion of starch in the diet appeared to increase significantly (P < 0.01) the lag phase before the start of fibre digestion, as observed both in the dacron bag studies and in the slower initial disappearance of digestible neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) from the rumen recorded by emptying of rumen contents. However, there was no significant effect of starch on apparent digestibility of fibre in the whole tract.

3. The main effect of increasing the level of feeding wax, to increase the rate of passage with a consequent decrease in overall digestibility. The fractional rate of passage increased from 0.0318 to 0.0400 as the level of feeding increased, while apparent digestibility of NDF decreased from 0.755 to 0.724.

4. On all treatments the weight of indigestible fibre in the rumen remained more or less constant between 5, 10 and 15 h after feeding, but was significantly lower at 24 h. These results suggest that a high proportion of the outflow of material from the rumen not associated with feeding appears to occur during the second half of the feeding cycle.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , September 1986 , pp. 477 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Aitchison, E. M. (1985). A study of the removal of fibre from the rumen and voluntary intake of sheep eating hay diets. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Aitchison, E. M., Gill, M., Dhanoa, M. S. & Osbourn, D. F. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 56, 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1969). In Handbuch der Tiernahrung, pp. 554–579 [Lenkeit, W., Breirem, K. and Crasemann, E, editors]. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. & Johnson, R. R. (1961). Journal of Animal Science 20, 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. & Loften, J. R. (1980). Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1979). Research in Veterinary Science 27, 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Spooner, M. C. & Tetlow, R. M. (1981). Animal Feed Science & Technology 6, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penning, P. D. (1983). Grass and Forage Science 38, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, G. J. S. (1980). MLP: Maximum Likelihood Program. Harpenden, Herts: Rothamsted Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uden, P. (1984). Animal Feed Science and Technology 11, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uden, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Monro, J. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 351–365 [McDonald, I. W., and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale: University of New England.Google Scholar
Wyburn, R. S. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 35–52 [Ruckebusch, Y and Thivend, P, editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar