Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T19:49:14.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the nutritive value of the diet selected by grazing sheep. I. Differences in composition between herbage consumed and material collected from oesophageal fistulae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. P. Langlands
J. P. Langlands
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Pastoral Research Laboratory, Armidale, N.S.W.
Get access

Extract

Freshly-cut forages and lucerne chaff were given to penned sheep fistulated at the oesophagus. The feed given and the samples obtained through the fistula were analysed for in vitro digestibility, nitrogen, ash, phosphorus, sodium, potassium and calcium. Organic matter digestibility was predicted from the in vitro determination.

Three regression equations were calculated relating predicted organic matter digestibility of the feed to the digestibility of the extrusa sample. The most precise of these equations had a residual standard deviation of ±3·4 units.

The relationship between the nitrogen contents of the feed and sample was calculated. The equation did not pass through the origin but the differences in nitrogen content between feed and extrusa were small over the range 4·69 to 1·28% N included in this study. The nitrogen and calcium contents of the feed could be estimated from the sample with errors of ±7·5 and 9% respectively. The sodium, potassium and ash contents of the diet could not be reliably estimated from an oesophageal sample.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 253 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1966

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

Alexander, R. H., & McGowan, M., 1961. A filtration procedure for the in-vitro determination of digestibility of herbage. J. Br. Grassld Soc., 16: 16–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W., McManus, W. R., Bush, I. G., & Ball, J., 1964. The use of sheep fitted with oesophageal fistulas to measure diet quality. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Hush., 4: 4–71.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., & Greenhalgh, J. F. D., 1960. Measurement of the quantities of herbage consumed by grazing animals. In Production and Use of Grass. Monograph (9) Soc. Chem. Ind. Lond., pp. 167–180.Google Scholar
Fogg, D. N., & Wilkinson, N. T., 1958. The colorimetrie determination of phosphorus. Analyst, 83: 83–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Corbett, J. L., & McDonald, I., 1960. The indirect estimation of the digestibility of pasture herbage. II. Regressions of digestibility on faecal nitrogen concentration; their determination in continuous digestibility trials and the effect of various factors on their accuracy. J. agric. Sci., 55: 55–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambourne, L. J., & Reardon, T. F., 1962. Use of ‘seasonal’ regressions in measuring feed intake of grazing animals. Nature, Land., 196: 196–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, R. J., 1954. Measurement of feed intake of grazing cattle and sheep. V. Estimation of the feed-to-faeces ratio from the nitrogen content of the faeces of pasture fed cattle. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech., A36: 15–20.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P., 1965. Diurnal variation in the diet selected by free-grazing sheep. Nature, Land., 207: 207–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesperance, A. L., Bohman, V. R., & Marble, D. W., 1960. Development of techniques for evaluating grazed forage. J. Dairy Sci., 43: 43–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, P. E., & Van Schalkwyk, A., 1963. Changes in the composition of feedstuffs during sampling by means of an oesophageal fistula. S. Afr. J. agric. Sci., 6: 6–205.Google Scholar
McManus, W. R., 1961. Properties of roughage feedstuffs collected from oesophageal fistulas. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Hush., 1: 1–159.Google Scholar
McManus, W. R., Arnold, G. W., & Hamilton, F. J., 1962. Improved techniques in oesophageal fistulation of sheep. Aust. Vet. J., 38: 38–275.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., & Raymond, W. F., 1958. Sources of error in the use of faecal index relationships. Exps. Prog. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley, 10: 10–92.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C., & Deriaz, R. E., 1963. The use of rumen fistulated steers in the direct determination of nutritive value of ingested herbage in grazing experiments. J. Br. Grassld Soc., 18: 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A., & Terry, R. A., 1963. A two-stage technique for the in-vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassld Soc., 18: 18–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torell, D. T., 1954. An oesophageal fistula for animal nutrition studies. J. Anim. Sci., 13: 13–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyne, O. M., & Torell, D. T., 1964. Development and use of the oesophageal fistula: A review. J. Range Mgt, 17: 17–7.Google Scholar