Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:31:30.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The grazing preferences of cattle and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. J. Cowlishaw  and
F. E. Alder
S. J. Cowlishaw
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
F. E. Alder
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Factors affecting the grazing habits of ruminants are discussed in relation to the attractiveness and nutritive value of herbages and the observed preferences of cattle and sheep at different times.

Methods of measuring stock preferences are considered and it is concluded that, while frequent eye estimates of the quantity of each species appear to provide an adequate method, continuous observations and herbage sampling are useful adjuncts to it.

The results of five experiments are given. Four were carried out in 3 years' winter grazing and one on spring, summer and autumn grazing over 2 years. In the latter experiment herbage samples were chemically analysed and a relationship with the observed preferences was calculated.

In the winter grazing trials the greener grasses tended to be selected first, i.e. timothy, white clover, rough-stalked meadow grass, perennial and Italian rye-grass. Cocksfoot, Phalaris, red fescue and meadow fescue were not generally relished. Meadow foxtail, smooth-stalked meadow grass, tall fescue and sometimes the different varieties of rye-grass and timothy varied in rank from year to year as a result of differential frost damage and fungal attacks.

In the summer grazing trials lucerne and white clover were found palatable in all the 1956 trials; in 1957 lucerne remained so, but white clover was less well liked, especially in June and July. The amount of grass growing with the clover seemed to affect attractiveness, mixtures being preferred to either species by itself. Meadow fescue and timothy were always ranked high, perennial rye-grass and cocksfoot usually next. Agrostis and red fescue were lowest. For the grasses, preference rank was positively correlated in 1957 with water-soluble dry matter, water-soluble ash, water-soluble carbohydrate and negatively correlated with lignin content.

Results are compared with those of other investigators and they show a marked degree of similarity. Variability in the data for sheep is possibly due to limitations in technique. The results for sheep and for cattle are compared; and it was generally found that cattle were fonder of meadow fescue than sheep, and less fond of cocksfoot.

Stock appear to graze those plants which will most readily supply their requirements for salts and energy (carbohydrates). Factors like dung, fungal attack, accessibility, density and toughness may interfere with this relationship.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 257 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Archibald, J. G., Bennett, E. & Ritchie, W. S. (1943). J. Agric. Res. 66, 341.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S. F. (1945). British Grasses and their Employment in Agriculture. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaumont, A. B., Stitt, R. E. & Snell, R. S. (1933). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 25, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, W. R. T. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, G. W., Southwell, B. L. & Johnson, J. C. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockayne, L. (1919). N. Z. J. Agric. 18, 321.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. McG., (1956). Proc. 18th Gonf. N.Z. Grassl. Ass., p. 161.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1957). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 12, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. (1925). J. Minist. Agric. 32, 106.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1952 a). Vet. Rec. 64, 463.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1952 b). The Grass Crop, its Development, Use and Maintenance, pp. 173–5. London: E. and F. N. Spon Ltd.Google Scholar
Davies, W. & Thomas, M. T. (1928). Welsh J. Agric. 4, 206.Google Scholar
Elofson, A. (1927). Svenska Betes-o Vallfören. Årsskr. 9, 64.Google Scholar
Ivins, J. D. (1952). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 7, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivins, J. D. (1955). Herb. Abstr. 25, 75.Google Scholar
Kannenberg, H. (1932). Dtsch. Landw. Tierz. Beil. Weidew. u. Futterb, 7, 1.Google Scholar
Koenekamp, A. (1929). Fortschr. Landw. 4, 519.Google Scholar
Milton, W. E. J. (1934). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 2, 51.Google Scholar
Norman, M. J. T. (1957). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 12, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, R. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plice, M. J. (1951). Agron. J. 43, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, J. & Hood, A. E. M. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. (1951). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 6, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, D. E. & Hawk, V. B. (1945). Bull. Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. 431.Google Scholar
Sampson, K. & Western, J. H. (1942). Diseases of British Grasses and Herbage Legumes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider-Kleeberg, K. (1932). Dtsch. Landw. Tierz. Beil. Weidew. u. Futterb. 7, 13.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. (1927). J. Minist. Agric. 33, 1083.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. (1934). J. Minist. Agric. 41, 321.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. (1947). J. Minist. Agric. 53, 428.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. (1948). J. Minist. Agric. 55, 231.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G., Fagan, T. W. & Williams, R. D. (1924). Bull. Welsh PI. Breed. Sla. H. 3, p. 159.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. & Milton, W. E. J. (1932). Bull. Welsh PI. Breed. Sta. H. 13, p. 1.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. H. (1949). The Grazing Animal, p. 158. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. H. (1957). The Grassland Handbook, ch. 17. London: Farmer and Stockbreeder.Google Scholar
Tiemann, A. & Mueller, G. (1933). Arch. Tierernähr. Tierz. 9, 253.Google Scholar
Tribe, D. E. (1950 a). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 5, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribe, D. E. (1950 b). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 5, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribe, D. E. & Gordon, J. G. (1950). Agric. Prog. 25, 94.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1951). Grassland and Grassland Products. London: E. Arnold and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P. J., Roberts, I. P. & Warren, G. F. (1910). Bull. N. Y. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. 280.Google Scholar
Wilkins, F. S. & Hughes, H. D. (1932). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 24, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, P. T. (1948). Psychol. Bull. 45, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar