Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T02:18:09.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the effect of forage type and level of feeding on the digestibility and gastrointestinal mean retention time of dry forages given to cattle, sheep, ponies and donkeys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2007

R. A. Pearson ,
R. F. Archibald  and
R. H. Muirhead
R. A. Pearson*
Affiliation:
Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
R. F. Archibald
Affiliation:
Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
R. H. Muirhead
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr R. Anne Pearson, fax +44 131 651 3903, email anne.pearson@ed.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Four cattle, sheep, ponies and donkeys were fed dehydrated lucerne, early-cut hay, later-cut hay or barley straw in a Latin square-based design for four periods of 35d. In the first sub-period animals were fed the diets ad libitum (1–21d) and in the second sub-period they were fed the same diet restricted to 0·75 of ad libitum intake (days 22–35). Measurements of forage intake, apparent digestibilities and gastrointestinal mean retention times (MRT) were made in the last 7d of each sub-period. Differences between species in voluntary DM intake (VDMI; g/kg live weight LW)0·75 and g/LW) were greatest on the lucerne and least on barley straw. Cattle VDMI (g/kg LW0·75) compared with intake of the other species was > ponies > sheep > donkeys on lucerne. On barley straw VDMI (g/kg LW0·75) of cattle compared with intake of the other species was = donkey = ponies > sheep. VDMI of hays were intermediate between the lucerne and straw forages. Apparent digestibilities of DM, organic matter (OM), neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) and acid-detergent fibre (ADF) of the lucerne and hays were higher in the ruminants than in the equids. Effect of feeding level was not significant. Gastrointestinal MRT was shorter in the equids than in the ruminants. On straw diets donkeys showed similar apparent digestibilities of feed components to those of the cattle, whilst apparent digestibility of the straw diet by the ponies was lowest. Results are discussed in relation to evolutionary differences in feeding and digestion strategy associated with fore- or hind-gut fermentation in ruminants and equids.

Keywords

Apparent digestibilityForage intakeEquidsRuminants
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 88 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2006

References

Allen, MSEffects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating cattle. J Dairy Sci (2000) 83 1598–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. ArlingtonVA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (1990)Google Scholar
Baile, CA & Della-Fera, MAThe nature of the control of feed intake and regulation of energy balance: recent advances. Rec Res Dev Endocr (2001) 2 387–395Google Scholar
Batista, HAMAutrey, KM & Von Tiesenhausen, IMEVComparative in vitro digestibility of forages by buffalo, zebu and Friesian cattle. J Dairy Sci (1982) 65 746–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KLGraham, NMc & Wainman, FWSome observations on the digestibility of food by sheep and on related problems. Br J Nutr (1956) 10 69–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crozier, JAAllen, VGJack, NEFontenot, JP & Cochran, MADigestibility, apparent mineral absorption and voluntary intake by horses fed lucerne, tall fescue and caucasian bluestem. J Anim Sci (1997) 75 1651–1658CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddeford, DVoluntary food intake by horses In Nutrition of the Performance Horse EAAP Publication Wageningen, The NetherlandsAcademic Press (2002) 111 89–100Google Scholar
Cuddeford, D & Hyslop, JJ Intake and digestibility of a high fibre concentrate offered ad libitum to ponies and donkeys. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of EAAP, Lillehammer, Norway (1996) 296 [van Arendoct, JAM, editor].Google Scholar
Cuddeford, DPearson, RAArchibald, RF & Muirhead, RHDigestibility and gastro-intestinal transit time of diets containing different proportions of lucerne and oat straw given to thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys Anim Sci (1995) 61 407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cymbaluk, NFComparison of forage digestion by cattle and horses. J Anim Sci (1990) 70 601–610Google Scholar
de Vega, AGasa, JGuada, JA & Castrillo, CFrequency of feeding and form of lucerne hay as factors affecting voluntary intake, digestibility, feeding behaviour, and marker kinetics in ewes. Aust J Agric Res (2000) 51 801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JPJouany, JPMartin-Rosset, W & Theriez, MComparative study of intake and digestibility of forages in herbivores — a review. Ann Zootech (1994) 43 11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JPMartin-Rosset, WDubroeucq, HBallet, JMDetour, A & Jailler, MCompared feeding patterns in ad libitum intake of dry forages by horses and sheep. Livest Prod Sci (1997) 52 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, PFoose, TJGordon, IJGakahu, CG & Lloyd, MComparative nutrient extraction from forages by grazing bovids and equids: a test of the nutritional model of equid/bovid competition and coexistence Oecologia (1990) 84 411–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, AD & Hill, JNutritional Physiology of the Horse Nottingham, UKNottingham University Press. (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonnesbeck, PVPartitioning the nutrients of forages for horses. J Anim Sci (1969) 28 624–633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL & Williams, VJRate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces Br J Nutr (1973) 30 313–329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haenlein, GFWHoldren, RD & Yoon, YMComparative response of horses and sheep to different physical forms of lucerne hay hay. J Anim Sci (1966) 25 740–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, LEKearl, LC & Fonnesbeck, PVUse of regression equations in predicting availability of energy and protein. J Anim Sci (1972) 35 658–680CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, RREvolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system Oecologia (1989) 78 443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, JJJessop, NSStefansdottir, GJ & Cuddeford, DComparative degradation in situ of four concentrate feeds in the caecum of ponies and the rumen of steers. In Proceedings of the 15th Equine Nutrition and Physiology Symposium, Ramada Plaza, Fort Worth Texas, USAThe Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society. (1997) 116–117Google Scholar
Illius, AW & Gordon, IConstraints on diet selection and foraging behaviour in mammalian herbivores.In Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection BerlinSpringer-Verlag. (1990) 157–181Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL & Andersen, JBIntegration of metabolism and intake regulation: a review focusing on periparturient animals. J Dairy Sci (2000) 830 1573–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isac, MDGarcia, MAAguilera, JF & Alcaide, EMComparative study of nutrient digestibility, kinetics of digestion and passage and rumen fermentation pattern in goats and sheep offered medium quality forages at the maintenance level of feeding. Arch Anim Nutr (1994) 46 37–50Google ScholarPubMed
Izraely, HChosniak, IStevens, CE & Shkolnik, AEnergy digestion and nitrogen economy of the domestic donkeys (Equus asinus asinus) in relation to food quality. J Arid Env (1989) 17 97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, ACStLawrence, LM & Coleman, RJUsing an empirical equation to predict voluntary intake of grass hays by mature equids. In Proceedings of the 17th Equine Nutrition and Physiology Symposium Kentucky USA Lexington, Kentucky, USA: The Equire Nutrition and Physiology Society. (2001) 99–100Google Scholar
Mathers, JCBaber, RP & Archibald, RFIntake, digestion and gastrointestinal transit time in Asiatic buffaloes and Ayrshire cattle given two contrasting diets and housed at 20 and 33 C. C. J Agric Sci (Camb) (1989) 113 211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menard, CDuncan, PFleurance, GGeorges, JY & Lila, MComparative foraging and nutrition of horses and cattle in European wetlands. J Appl Ecology (2002) 39 120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miner, JLRecently identified signals for feed intake regulation. J Anim Sci (1998) 81 Suppl1–123Google Scholar
Mueller, PJHintz, HFPearson, RALawrence, PR & van Soest, PJVoluntary intake of roughage diets by donkeys. In Working Equids Rabat, Morocco:Actes Editions.[M Bakkoury and A Prentis, editors]. 1994 137–148Google Scholar
Ouedraogo, T & Tisserand, JLComparative study of forage utilisation between donkeys and sheep. Ann Zootech (1996) 45 437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, RAArchibald, RF & Muirhead, RHThe effect of forage quality and level of feeding on digestibility and gastrointestinal transit time of oat straw and lucerne given to ponies and donkeys Br J Nutr (2001) 85 599–606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, RA & Merritt, JBIntake, digestion and gastro-intestinal transit time in resting donkeys and ponies and exercised donkeys given ad libitum hay and straw diets. Equine Vet J (1991) 23 339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, HVSeoane, JR & Filpot, PMDigestibility and voluntary intake of forages fed as hay or wilted silage to beef steers. Can J Anim Sci (1985) 65 879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhind, SMArcher, ZA & Adam, CLSeasonality of food intake in ruminants: recent developments in understanding Nutr Res Rev (2002) 15 43–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, DG The impact of grazing time allowance on the dry matter intake and foraging behaviour of cattle and donkeys managed under traditional african grazing systems. PhD Thesis, Centre For Tropical Veterinary Medicine University of Edinburgh. (1999)Google Scholar
Smith, DG& Pearson, RAFactors affecting the survival of donkeys in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa.In Fourth International Colloquium on Working Equids, Proceedings of an International Colloquium, Al Baath University, Hama, Syria LondonSociety for the Protection of Animals Abroad.[RA Pearson, D Fielding and D Tabbaa, editors]. (2003) 284–295Google Scholar
Taylor, SCSMoore, AJ & Thiessen, RBVoluntary food intake in relation to body weight among British breeds of cattle. Anim Prod (1986) 42 11–18Google Scholar
Tisserand, JLFaurie, F & Toure, ToureA comparative study of donkey and pony digestive physiology. In Donkeys, Mules and Horses in Tropical Agricultural Development University of Edinburgh.Edinburgh: Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine[D Fielding and RA Pearson, editors]. (1991) 67–72Google Scholar
Todd, LKSauer, WCChristopherson, RJColeman, RJ & Caine, WRThe effect of feeding different forms of lucerne on nutrient digestibility and voluntary intake in horses. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (1995) 73 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, PRounsaville, TRWiggans, GR & van Soest, PJThe measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equids and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay. Br J Nutr (1982) 48 329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P & van Soest, PJComparative digestion of timothy (Phleum pratense) fibre by ruminants, equines and rabbits. Br J Nutr (1982) 47 267–272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vall, EAbakar, O & Lhoste, PAdjusting the feed supply of draught donkeys to the intensity of their work. In Working Animals in Agriculture and Transport. EAAP Technical Series, no. The Netherlands:Academic Press[RA Pearson, P Lhoste, M Saastamoinen and W Martin-Rosset, editors] Wageningen (2003) 79–91Google Scholar
van Soest, PJDevelopment of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages J Anim Sci (1967) 26 119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Soest, PJNutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.yy (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbjerg, MRHvelplund, T & Søegaard, KPrediction of digestibility of nutrient detergent solubles using the Lucas principle. J Anim Feed Sci (2004) 13 Suppl.239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar