Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:18:39.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of intake and feeding frequency on feeding behaviour and quantitative aspects of digestion in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Ulyatt
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A. John
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
C. S. W. Reid
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
J. Monro
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Summary

Chaffed lucerne hay of 64% apparent organic matter (OM) digestibility was fed to wether sheep under four feeding regimens: two levels of dry matter (D.M.) intake (700 (L) and 1050 (H) g/day) and within each level two feeding frequencies (once a day (daily) and once an hour (hourly)). Three separate groups of sheep were used concurrently: a slaughter group was used to obtain feeding behaviour data and to measure pool sizes and obtain samples from the reticulo-rumen; a digestion group, in which each sheep was prepared with a rumen and a duodenal cannula, was used to measure duodenal digesta flow, rumen microbial growth and reticulo-rumen motility; a balance group was used to measure digestibility and nutrient balances.

High D.M. intake increased reticulo-rumen pool sizes and flow rates but it did not affect apparent digestibilities or the proportions of OM, fibre, cellulose, hemicellulose, lipid and nitrogen digested in the stomach and intestines. Increased feeding frequency had a major effect on reticulo-rumen pool sizes but did not affect apparent digestibilities or partition of digestion of non-nitrogenous constituents. Daily feeding resulted in increased total-N flow to the duodenum; however, N retention was significantly greater with frequent feeding. It is suggested that this was due to a more efficient tissue utilization of N.

The kinetics of digesta flow within the reticulo-rumen, expressed as fractional flow rates, were studied with data from sheep fed hourly. The fractional inflow, outflow and disappearance rates for OM, fibre, cellulose and hemicellulose did not change with an increase in intake because of an equivalent increase in reticulo-rumen volume. Increasing D.M. intake by 50% resulted in a 24% increase in water intake, a 19% increase in reticulo-rumen water volume, and a 49% increase in water outflow rate. The data suggest that the increased outflow of water was achieved by increasing the net flow of water across the mucosa into the reticulo-rumen, rather than by increasing salivation.

There was no difference between treatments in the frequency of reticulo-rumen contractions. It was calculated that for each A sequence contraction, OM flow was 0·26 and 0·37 g and water flow was 4·38 and 0·36 g on L and H intakes respectively. A 50% increase in intake resulted in a 42% increase in OM passage per A sequence contraction. This increased passage with intake was not accompanied by an increase in reticulorumen contraction frequency.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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 Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, pp. 121181. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Asplund, J. M. (1975). The determination and significance of biological values of proteins for ruminants. In Protein and Nutritional Quality of Foods and Feeds. Part 1. Assay Methods – Biological, Biochemical (ed. Friedman, M.), pp. 3749. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1965). Rate of passage of digesta through the ruminant digestive tract. In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant (ed. Dougherty, R. W., Allen, R. S., Burroughs, W., Jacobson, N. L. and McGilliard, A. D.), pp. 108123. Washington, D.C.: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Kelly, A. & Heim, G. (1951). Factors affecting the utilization of food by dairy cows. 4. The action of the reticulo-omasal orifice. British Journal of Nutrition 5, 207216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, R. L., Koong, L. J. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1977). A dynamic model of ruminant digestion for evaluation of factors affecting nutritive value. Agricultural Systems 2, 255288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R. L., Lucas, H. L. & Cabrera, R. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 319334. Newcastle- upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Beever, D. E., Faichney, G. J., Howarth, B. R. & Graham, N. MCC. (1981). Simulation of the effects of rumen function on the flow of nutrients from the stomach of sheep. 1. Description of a computer program. Agricultural Systems 6, 195219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bost, J. (1970). Omasal physiology. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 5265. Newoastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Bueno, L. & Ruckebusch, Y. (1974). The cyclic motility of the omasum and its control in sheep. Journal of Physiology 238, 295312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, A. W. A. & Dunton, C. R. (1967). Effect of frequency of feeding upon food utilization by ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 26, 181190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faichney, G. J. (1980). Measurement in sheep of the quantity and composition of rumen digesta and of the fractional outflow rates of digesta constituents. A ustralian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 11291137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M. & Campling, R. C. (1965). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 7. The behaviour and reticular motility of cows given diets of hay, dried grass, concentrates and ground, pelleted hay. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 195207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freer, M., Campling, R. C. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 4. The behaviour and reticular motility of cows receiving diets of hay, oat straw and oat straw with urea. British Journal of Nutrition 16, 279295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, J. G. & Tribe, D. E. (1952). The importance to sheep of frequent feeding. British Journal of Nutrition 6, 8993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1977). Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 6. The effect of level of food intake on mathematical predictions of the kinetics of digesta in the reticulorumen and intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 38, 425436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). Quantitative aspects of microbial protein synthesis. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 474485. Newcastle-upon-Tyno: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
John, A. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1984). Measurement of protozoa, using phosphatidyl choline, and of bacteria, using nucleic acids, in the duodenal digesta of sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay (Medicago sativa L.) diets. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 3344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. & Ely, L. O. (1979). A dynamic model of fiber digestion and passage in the ruminant for evaluating forage quality. Journal of Animal Science 49, 10851095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W. (1963). Diet and the motility of the forestomachs of the sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 23, 169188.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1975). Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen and the composition and nutritive value of nitrogen compounds entering the duodenum. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 399415. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. E., Sellars, A. F. & Spurrell, F. A. (1960). Function of the bovine omasum in ingesta transfer. American Journal of Physiology 198, 449455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, G. R. & Morrison, I. M. (1983). The effect of saponification, reduction and mild acid hydrolysis on the cell walls and cellulase-troated cell walls of Lolium perenne. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34 137144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. (1971). Studies on the causes of the differences in pasture quality between perennial ryegrass, short-rotation ryegrass, and white clover. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 352367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., Reid, C. S. W. & Bauchop, T. (1975). Structure and function of the large intestine of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 119133. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Quantitative digestion of fresh herbage by sheep. V. The digestion of four herbages and prediction of sites of digestion Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Quantitative digestion of fresh herbage by sheep. I. The sites of digestion of organic matter, energy, readily fermentable carbohydrate, structural carbohydrate, and lipid. Journal of Agricultuial Science, Cambridge 82, 295307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. & Reid, C. S. W. (1983). Rumen motility in sheep and cattle given different diets. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 289295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W. & Cox, E. L. (1972). Model of cellulose disappearance from the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 55, 125129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyburn, R. S. (1980). The mixing and propulsion of the stomach contents of ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 3551. Lancaster: MTP Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar