Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:32:12.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The intake and performance of ewes offered concentrates and grass silage in late pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. J. Orr ,
J. E. Newton  and
Caroline A. Jackson
R. J. Orr
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
J. E. Newton
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Caroline A. Jackson
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

Masham ewes carrying single, twin or triplet foetuses were offered a ration of concentrates which increased from 200 to 650 g per ewe per day over the last 7 weeks of pregnancy in 2 years. Silage was offered ad libitum and the voluntary intake of each ewe was measured. In the first year, 30 ewes were offered a poorly-preserved, wet silage (A) which had a low digestibility, followed by a better-preserved silage (B) which had a higher digestibility and dry-matter concentration. There was an increase in silage intake when the change was made from A to B. In the following year, 32 ewes were offered silage (C) which was well preserved, similar in digestibility to B but with a lower dry-matter concentration. The ewes ate more silage organic matter (g/kg live weight) with C than A (12·77 v. 9·34) in weeks 15 to 17 of pregnancy but more of B than C (13·76 v. 10·38) in weeks 19 to 20. Ewes carrying single lambs ate more silage and had a slower rate of decrease in silage intake when the concentrate ration was increased as pregnancy progressed. As litter size increased there-was either greater loss or smaller gain in body condition score.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 21 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Spooner, M. C. and Thomson, D. J. 1979. A note on the use of electronic doors for individual feeding of group-housed lambs. Anim. Prod. 28:407–410.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proc. 10th int Grassld Congr. Helsinki, pp. 445–453.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1973. [Chemical composition, fermentation characteristics, digestibility and voluntary intake of forage silages: changes compared to the initial green forage.] Annls Zootech. 22: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and Mcdonald, P. 1964. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarquilly, C. 1973. [Effect of type of forage harvester and chopping fineness on the feeding value of silages.] Annls Zootech. 22: 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. R. and Gibson, Q. H. 1954. The estimation of lactic acid using eerie sulphate. Biochem. J. 58: 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1967. Factors affecting gestation length in sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68: 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1970. The voluntary food intake of pregnant and lactating ruminants: a review. Br. vet. J. 126: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, J. M., Rees, J. K. S. and Boaz, T. G. 1967. Silage as a feed for pregnant ewes. Anim. Prod. 9:399–408.Google Scholar
Geisler, Pamela A. and Jones, C. Merryl 1979. A model for calculation of the energy requirements of the pregnant ewe. Anim. Prod. 29: 339–355.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Feeding the Ewe. Sheep Improvement Services, Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1964. Some factors affecting the intake of roughage by sheep. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19:316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, J. E. and Fenlon, J. S. 1979. The performance of Masham ewes. Anim. Prod. 29:69–79.Google Scholar
Newton, J. E. and Orr, R. J. 1981. The intake of silage and grazed herbage by Masham ewes with single or twin lambs and its repeatability during pregnancy, lactation and after weaning. Anim. Prod. 33: 121–127.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F. 1967. The intake of conserved forages. In Fodder Conservation (ed. Wilkins, R. J.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 3, pp. 20–28.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F. 1980. The feeding value of grass and grass products. In Grass — Its Production and Utilization (ed. Holmes, W.), pp. 70–124. The British Grassland Society: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72:451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, W., Broadbent, P. J. and Laird, T. R. 1976. A note on the pattern of concentrate feeding to ewes in late pregnancy. Anim. Prod. 23: 421–424.Google Scholar
Sheehan, W. and Lawlor, M. J. 1972. Energy supplementation of silage for ewes in late pregnancy. Anim. Prod. 15: 29–37.Google Scholar
Shevah, Y., Black, W. J. M. and Land, R. B. 1975. Differences in feed intake and the performance of Finn × Dorset ewes during late pregnancy. Anim. Prod. 20: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Wilkins, R. J. 1976. Conserved forage — complement or competitor to concentrates. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), pp. 343–364. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Tetlow, R. M. and Wilkins, R. J. 1980. The intake of silages differing in digestibility when offered to sheep alone and with supplements of dried grass pellets and barley. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 359–362.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tissier, M. and Brelurut, A. 1979. [Utilization of mediumquality grass silage by ewes in late pregnancy and early lactation.] Bull. Techn. C.R.Z.V. Theix — I.N.R.A., 35: 59–65.Google Scholar
Tissier, M., Theriez, M. and Molenat, G. 1975. [Variation in the voluntary feed intake of ewes during late pregnancy and early lactation: incidences on their performances. I. Study of two hay diets of different quality.] Annls Zootech. 24: 711–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tissier, M., Theriez, M. and Molenat, G. 1977. [Variation in the voluntary feed intake of ewes during late pregnancy and early lactation. Incidences on their performance. II. Maize silage and hay offered ad libitum.] Annls Zootech. 26: 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46: 829–835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Useofdetergentsinthe analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 50: 50–51.Google Scholar