Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:01:23.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rumen degradation of the main forage species harvested from permanent mountain meadows in North-western Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. Lopez ,
M. D. Carro ,
J. S. Gonzalez  and
F. J. Ovejero
S. Lopez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 Leon, Spain
M. D. Carro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 Leon, Spain
J. S. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 Leon, Spain
F. J. Ovejero
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 Leon, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Herbage samples were collected in late June, and again in early September (1987) from permanent mountain meadows situated in North-western Spain (León). Botanical composition was determined by grouping the species into grasses, legumes and herbaceous ‘weeds’. Rumen degradability of the dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) of the botanical groups in each harvest season was determined by the nylon-bag technique.

Grasses and legumes differed in their degradation characteristics, and the comparisons between forage species were different for the two harvest seasons. There were no significant differences between September grasses, June legumes and September legumes in the potential degradabilities of the DM (86·9, 87·1 and 88·4%) and CP (94·2, 92·4 and 93·8%). The NDF of grasses harvested in September was degraded to a greater extent (80·6%) than that of legumes from both harvests (70·9 and 73·6% in June and September respectively). However, June grasses showed significantly lower potential degradabilities for the DM (77·0 %), CP (84·3%) and cell wall (65·9%). Legumes were degraded at a faster rate than grasses (mean DM degradation rates of 0·143 and 0·057 respectively), and lag times were longer for grasses (4·7 h) than for legumes (2·5 h). Rumen degradation characteristics of the herbaceous ‘weeds’ were estimated, but it should be remembered that many other factors may limit their utilization by ruminants.

It was concluded that the major constraint to the nutritive value of these permanent swards would be the maturity of the grasses harvested in June, which markedly reduced the rumen degradability of the forages.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 117 , Issue 3 , December 1991 , pp. 363 - 369
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

Aitchison, E. M., Gill, M., Dhanoa, M. S. & Osbourn, D. F. (1986). The effect of digestibility and forage species on the removal of digesta from the rumen and the voluntary intake of hay by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 56, 463–476.Google Scholar
Akin, D. E. & Chesson, A. (1989). Lignification as the major factor limiting feeding value, especially in warm conditions. In XVlth International Grassland Congress (Nice) Vol. III, pp. 1753–1760.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1980). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 13th edition. Washington DC: AOAC.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Cammell, S. B. & France, J. (1986). The effect of forage species and stage of harvest on the processes of digestion occurring in the rumen of cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 56, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, K. J., Stewart, C. S., Dinsdale, D. & Costerton, J. W. (1984). Electron microscopy of bacteria involved in the digestion of plant cell walls. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, A. (1988). Lignin-polysaccharide complexes of the plant cell wall and their effect on microbial degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21, 219–228.Google Scholar
Chesson, A. & Monro, J. A. (1982). Legume pectic substances and their degradation in the ovine rumen. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 852–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M. (1988). Composition and fibre digestion in morphological components of an alfalfa-timothy sward. Animal Feed Science and Technology 19, 135–143.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C., Grenet, E. & Andrieu, J. (1981). Les constituants azotés des fourrages et la prévision de la valeur azotée des fourrages. In Prévision de la Valeur Nutritive des Aliments des Ruminants (Ed. Demarquilly, C.), pp. 129–154. Versailles: INRA.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S. (1988). On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43, 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, A. H., Lomax, J. A. & Chesson, A. (1983). Glycosidic linkages of legume, grass and cereal straw cell walls before and after extensive degradation by rumen microorganisms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 1341–1350.Google Scholar
Grenet, E. (1989). A comparison of the digestion and reduction in particle size of lucerne hay (Medicago saliva) and Italian ryegrass hay (Lolium ilalicum) in the ovine digestive tract. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 493–507.Google Scholar
Grenet, E. & Demarquilly, C. (1987). Rappels sur la digestion des fourrages dans le rumen (parois) et ses consequences. In Les Fourrages Sees: Recolte, Traitement, Utilisation (Ed. Demarquilly, C.), pp. 141–162. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. (1981). A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 251–252.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. & Grant, A. L. (1987). Characterization of in situ nitrogen and fibre digestion and bacterial nitrogen contamination of hay crop forages preserved at different dry matter percentages. Journal of Animal Science 64, 552–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, B. W. (1982). Differences between species in forage quality. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures (Ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 89–110. Farnham Royal: CAB.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1981). The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The Analysis of Dietary Fibre in Food (Eds James, W. P. T. & Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Smith, L. W., Goering, H. K., Waldo, D. R. & Gordon, C. H. (1971). In vitro digestion rate of forage cell wall components. Journal of Diary Science 54, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, M. K., Austin, A. R. & Hitching, S. (1984). A comparison of steers fed on grass and on clover in relation to some microbiological aspects of bloat. In Forage Legumes (Ed. Thomson, D. J.), pp. 104–108. Hurley: Occasional Publication No 16 of the British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Oregon: O&B Books Inc.Google Scholar