Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T12:52:25.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary intake and digestion of ryegrass straw by llama × guanaco crossbreds and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. G. Warmington ,
G. F. Wilson  and
T. N. Barry
B. G. Warmington
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Batchelar Agriculture Centre, PO Box 1654, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
G. F. Wilson
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The voluntary feed and water intakes of five llama × guanaco crossbreds (New World camelids) and five sheep, and their abilities to digest various feed components and to utilize nitrogen, were compared using a diet of threshed ryegrass straw in New Zealand in 1987.

The camelids ate more than the sheep, but intakes were similar relative to metabolic live weight (mean 37·6 g dry matter/kg W0·75 per day). They drank 0·62 times as much water as sheep per kg W0·75, and 0·57 times as much per g DM intake (P < 0·05). Mean apparent digestibilities of dry matter (47.7%), energy (41·6%) and cell-wall fractions (48·4%) were similar in both species, in spite of the sheep selecting a higher-N component of the diet. Variation in digestibility (e.g. organic matter digestibility) among individual sheep was inversely associated with the percentage of cell-wall constituents consumed. The faeces of camelids contained a significantly higher proportion of particles longer than 0·5mm than those of the sheep (17 v. 11% total DM), indicating a slightly larger threshold to passage from the forestomachs in the camelids.

All animals were in negative N balance during the trial, but net loss of N was less in the camelids than in the sheep (27·6 and 49·5 g N/100 g N intake, respectively; P < 0·05), because of lower urinary N excretion (36·5 and 60·3 g N/100 g N intake, respectively; P < 0·05) of the camelids. The results suggest that camelids may be better suited than ruminants for production from poor-quality feeds, especially if water supply is limited.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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 (1984). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, Supplement No. 1. Report of the Protein Group of the Agricultural Research Council Working Party on the Nutrient Requirements of Ruminants. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alam, M. R. (1985). Forage utilisation by kids and lambs. PhD thesis, Lincoln College, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1970). Methods of Analysis. Washington, DC: AOAC.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1970). Pasture quality and ruminant nutrition. II. Carbohydrate and lignin composition of detergent-extracted residues from pasture grasses and legumes. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlken, H. (1960). Remarks on the stomach and the systematic position of the Tylopoda. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 134, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, W. & Engelhardt, W. Von (1976). Diminished renal urea excretion in the llama at reduced food intake. In Tracer Studies on Non-protein for Ruminants III, pp. 61–72. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W., Pearce, G. R., Burnett, J. & Pillinger, S. L. (1973). Changes in some physical characteristics of the digesta in the recticulo-rumen of cows fed once daily. British Journal of Nutrition 29, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foose, T. J. (1982). Trophic strategies of ruminant versus nonruminant ungulates. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Cited in van SOEST, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Covallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Hintz, H. F., Schryver, H. F. & Halbert, M. (1973). A note on the comparison of digestion by New World camels, sheep and ponies. Animal Production 16, 303–305.Google Scholar
Hintz, H. F., Sedgewick, C. J. & Schryver, H. F. (1976). Some observations on digestion of a pelleted diet by ruminants and non-ruminants. International Zoological Yearbook 16, 54–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., Macrae, J. C., Spence, A. M., & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mousa, H. M., Ali, K. E. & Hume, I. D. (1983). Effects of water deprivation on urea metabolism in camels, desert sheep and desert goats fed dry desert grass. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 74A, 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubsamen, K. & Engelhardt, W. Von (1975). Water metabolism in the llama. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 52A, 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Martin, F., Huasasquiche, A., Del Valle, O., Holgado, D., Arbaiza, T., Navas, M. & Farfan, R. (1983 a). Consumo y digestibilidad comparativa de pasto natural en dos épocas del año entre alpaca y ovino. In Resumenes de Proyectos de Investigation Realizados por la UNMSM, Tomo III, pp. 254–255. Lima, Peru: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.Google Scholar
San Martin, F., Huasasquiche, A., Farfan, R., Del Valle, O., Holgado, D., Arbaiza, T., Navas, M. & Villaroel, C. (1983 b). Consumo y digestibilidad comparativa de pastos cultivados entre alpacas y ovinos. In Resúmenes de Proyectos de Investigación Realizados por la UNMSM, Tomo III, ppp. 255–256. Lima, Peru: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.Google Scholar
San Martin, F., Valdivia, R. & Farfan, R. (1985). Consumo comparative entre alpacas y ovinos. In IV Convención Internacional sobre Camélidos Sudamericanos. 16–21 June 1985, Cuzco, Peru, p. 93. La Raya, Peru: IVITA–COTESU.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1984). Contribution of chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the ruminorecticulum. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dobson, A. A.). Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Reston Book, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar