Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T11:23:44.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of sheep and goats under stall-feeding conditions: roughage intake and selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. A. Wahed  and
E. Owen
R. A. Wahed
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AT
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AT
Get access

Abstract

Three experiments measured intake and assessed quality of roughage refused by individually-fed castrated Saanen goats and Suffolk × Mule wethers, aged 21 months.

In experiment 1, in which long, lucerne hay was offered (10 animals per species; 14 days) goats ate more than sheep (33·2 v. 28·3 g dry matter (DM) per kg M daily; P < 0·05). In experiment 2, in which long, ammonia-treated barley straw was offered (eight animals per species; 21 days) consumption was also higher for goats (21·6 v. 16·4 g DM per kg M daily; P < 0·01). Freshly cut, chopped stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) was offered with treated straw in experiment 3 (eight animals per species). Over the 10 days, intake of nettle increased linearly and that of straw decreased, but nettle consumption was consistently higher for goats than sheep.

In each experiment, food refusals (0·2 of food offered) were of lower nutritive value (lower nitrogen, higher acid detergent fibre, lower digestibility in vitro) than food offered. Throughout, food refusals by goats were of slightly higher nutritive value than food refusals by sheep.

It is concluded that both sheep and goats are selective feeders under stall-feeding conditions, but the greater intake of roughage by goats cannot be attributed to their selection of more nutritive components.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 89 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. 1981. The utilisation of forages from cassava, pigeon pea, leucaena and groundnut by goats and sheep in Malaysia. Int. Symp. Nutrition and Systems of Goat Feeding, ITOV1C-INRA, Tours, France, pp. 338–345.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. and Burns, Marca. 1970. Goat production in the tropics. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Bur. Anim. Breed. Genet., No. 19. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
El hag, G. A. 1976. A comparative study between Desert goat and sheep efficiency of feed utilisation. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 12: (3), 43–48.Google Scholar
French, M. H. 1970. Observations on the goat. Agric. Stud., Fd Agric. Org., No. 80. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Gibb, M. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1976. The effect of herbage allowance on herbage intake and performance of lambs grazing perennial ryegrass and red clover swards. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 86: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gihad, E. A. 1976. Intake, digestibility and nitrogen utilization of tropical natural grass hay by goats and sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 879–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agric. Handb. U.S. Dep. Agric. No. 379.Google Scholar
Grant, Sheila A., Bolton, G. R. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984. The utilization of sown and indigenous plant species by sheep and goats grazing hill pastures. Grass Forage Sci. 39: 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louca, A., Antoniou, T. and Hadjipanayiotou, M. 1982. Comparative digestibility of feedstuffs by various ruminants, specifically goats. Proc. 3rd int. Conf. Goat Production and Disease, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 122–132.Google Scholar
McCammon-Feldman, B., Van soest, P. J., Harvatly, P. and McDowell, R. E. 1981. Feeding strategy of the goat. Cornell Int. Agric. Mimeo. 88. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1982. Lamb Carcase Production. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Mohammed, H. H. 1982. Energy requirements for maintenance and growth: comparison of goats and sheep. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Agric, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Mohammed, H. H. and Owen, E. 1982. Goats versus sheep: effect of coat thickness and body compositiion on maintenance energy requirement. Anim. Prod. 34: 391 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Ndosa, J. E. M. 1980. A comparative study of roughage utilization by sheep and goats. M.Phil. Thesis, Fac Agric, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Sundstol, F. and Coxworth, E. M. 1984. Ammonia treatment. In Straw and Other Fibrous By-products as Feed (ed. Sundstol, F. and Owen, E.), pp. 196–247. Elsevier, Amsterdam.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
Van soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. O. and B. Books, Corvallis, Ore.Google Scholar
Wahed, R. A. 1984. A comparative study of roughage selection and utilisation by sheep and goats under stall-feeding conditions. M.Phil. Thesis, Fac Agric, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar