Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:25:41.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary intake and rumen digestion of a low-quality roughage by goats and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. M. F. Domingue ,
D. W. Dellow  and
T. N. Barry
B. M. F. Domingue
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
D. W. Dellow
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Prairie grass (Bromus catharticus) straw (13·7 g N/kg DM) was fed ad libitum to six goats and seven sheep kept in metabolism cages at Palmerston North, New Zealand in 1986 and 1987.

Goats had greater voluntary feed intake (VFI) (56 v. 36 g DM/kg W0·75 per day), greater apparent DM digestibility (36·8 v. 32·6%) and a larger rumen pool of DM and liquid (W0·75) than sheep. Goats also had greater apparent digestibility of fibre, especially of lignin, and greater rumen fractional degradation rates (FDR) of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Goats had a higher rumen ammonia concentration (115 v. 80 mg N/l), lower rumen pH (6·73 v. 6·90), a smaller proportion of large particles and greater proportion of small particles in rumen contents than sheep. Passage through a 1 mm sieve was established as the threshold particle size to have a high probability of leaving the rumen in both goats and sheep. Voluntary water intake/unit DM consumed was lower in goats than in sheep and, whilst rumen fractional outflow rate (FOR) of water and particulate matter also tended to be lower in goats, the difference was not significant. Irreversible loss rate of rumen NH3 and the amount of N calculated as recycled to the rumen, both expressed as mg N/kg W0·75 per day, were greater for goats than for sheep.

It was concluded that the ability of goats to maintain a higher rumen NH3, concentration than sheep, their larger rumen pool and the higher proportion of small particles in rumen contents were all contributing factors to their greater VFI and fibre digestion of this low-quality roughage.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 117 , Issue 1 , August 1991 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alam, M. R., Poppi, D. P. & Sykes, A. R. (1983). Intake, digestibility and retention time of 2 forages by kids and lambs. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 43, 119–121.Google Scholar
Alam, M. R., Borens, F., Poppi, D. P. & Sykes, A. R. (1984). Comparative digestion in sheep and goats. In Ruminant Physiology. Concepts and Consequences (Eds Baker, S. K., Gawthorne, j. M., Mackintosh, J. B. & Purser, D. B.), p. 184. Symposium held at University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1967). Quantitative studies of ruminant digestion. II. Loss of ingested plant carbohydrates from the rcticulo-rumen. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. T. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Cheng, K. J. & Costerton, J. W. (1979). Adherent rumen bacteria: their role in the digestion of plant material, urea and epithelial cells. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Ruckebusch, Y. & Thivend, P.), pp. 227–250. Westport, Connecticut: AVI Publishing Co, Inc.Google ScholarPubMed
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991). The efficiency of chewing during eating and ruminating in goats and sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, P. T., Egan, J. K. & Thalen, A. J. (1984). Intake, digestion and sulfur retention in Angora goals and Merino sheep fed herbage diets. Australian Journal of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 24, 165–169.Google Scholar
El-Hag, G. A. (1976). A comparative study between desert goat and sheep efficiency of feed utilisation. World Review of Animal Production 13, 43–48.Google Scholar
Evans, C. C., Macrae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). Determination of ruthenium and chromium by X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry and the use of inert ruthenium (II) phenanthroline as a solid phase marker in sheep digestion studies. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1980). Measurement in sheep of the quantity and composition of rumen digesta and of the fractional outflow rates of digesta constituents. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 1129–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P., Weston, R. H. & Lindsay, J. R. (1970). The effects of ruminal digestion of forages on the quantities of amino acids supplied to the sheep. In Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress (Ed. Norman, M. J. T.), pp. 706–709. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. W. & Moore, Y. F. (1981). Metabolisable energy required by feral goats for maintenance and the effects of cold climatic conditions on their heat production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41, 163–166.Google Scholar
Howe, J. C., Barry, T. N. & Popay, A. I. (1988). Voluntary intake and digestion of gorse (Ulex europaeus) by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McMeniman, N. P. & Elliott, R. (1984). The influence of urea infusions on the intake of roughages by sheep. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 15, 719.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z., ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1977). Rates of rumen fermentation in relation to ammonia concentration. British Journal of Nutrition 38, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Dynamic aspects of ammonia and urea metabolism in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 27, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, J. V. & Stachiw, S. (1979). Fermentation and nitrogen dynamics in Merino sheep given a low-quality roughage diet. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. & Hendricksen, R. E. (1980). The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & Munro, J. A. (1977). The physical breakdown of feed during digestion in the rumen. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 37, 173–175.Google Scholar
Satter, L. D. & Slyter, L. L. (1974). Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seth, O. N., Rai, G. S., Yadov, P. C. & Pandey, M. D. (1976). A note on the rate of secretion and chemical composition of paratid saliva in sheep and goats. Indian Journal of Animal Science 46, 660–663.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Nolan, J. V., Beever, D. E. & Macrae, J. C. (1985). Nitrogen digestion and metabolism in sheep consuming diets containing contrasting forms and levels of N. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Use of 103Ru-labelled tris (1,10-phenanthroline) ruthenium (II) chloride as a marker in digestion studies with sheep. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, R. F. & Minson, D. J. (1973). The relationship between apparent retention time in the rumen, voluntary intake, and apparent digestibility of legume and grass diets in sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, OR: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Watson, C. & Norton, B. W. (1982). The utilisation of pangola grass hay by sheep and Angora goats. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 467–470.Google Scholar