Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T23:13:45.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of intake and digestibility of fresh Digitaria decumbens grass fed to sheep, indoors or at pasture, at two different stages of regrowth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2011

A. Fanchone ,
H. Archimede ,
R. Delagarde  and
M. Boval
A. Fanchone*
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR143, Zootechnic Research Unit, F-97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, France
H. Archimede
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR143, Zootechnic Research Unit, F-97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, France
R. Delagarde
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR1080 Dairy Production, F-35590 St-Gilles, France
M. Boval
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR143, Zootechnic Research Unit, F-97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, France
*
†E-mail: Audrey.Fanchone@antilles.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

The effect of two feeding systems (indoors and at pasture) on intake and digestion of fresh grass was studied at two stages of regrowth (21 and 35 days of regrowth) in two parallel experiments. In Experiment 1, 10 adult Martinik rams weighing, on average, 50.5 (±0.9) kg, including four fitted with rumen cannula, were randomly allocated to two groups according to a 2 × 2 Latin Square design. These rams consumed a 21-day regrowth of Digitaria decumbens grass diet during two successive 28-day periods, indoors (five rams) or at pasture (five tethered rams). In Experiment 2, 10 other Martinik rams weighing, on average, 45.5 (±0.9) kg, including four fitted with rumen cannula, were randomly allocated to two groups according to a 2 × 2 Latin Square design. These rams consumed a 35-day regrowth of D. decumbens grass diet during two successive 28-day periods, either indoors (five rams) or at pasture (five tethered rams). For the indoors groups, in vivo organic matter digestibility (OMD) was measured by total collection of feces. In addition, OMD was estimated indoors and at pasture using the fecal CP (CPf) method (OMDCPf). Organic matter intake (OMI) was then estimated using OMDCPf and fecal organic matter output (OMICPf). Correlations of 0.49 and 0.77 were found between in vivo OMD and OMDCPf (P < 0.05) and between OMI and OMICPf (P < 0.001), respectively. OMDCPf was 1.8% (P < 0.05) and 2.7% (P < 0.01) lower indoors than at pasture at 21 and 35 days of regrowth, respectively, whereas OMICPf indoors was 1.1 and 1.16 times that registered at pasture at 21 and 35 days of regrowth, respectively. The higher OMDCPf at pasture was linked to the higher selective behavior of rams at pasture, whereas the differences in OMICPf between the two feeding systems were linked to differences in the total bulk density of the grass. These studies show that differences in OMDCPf and OMICPf exist between animals fed indoors and at pasture with the same forage and that these differences may vary according to the stage of regrowth of the grass offered.

Keywords

ingestiondigestibilitygrazingin stallram
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , 28 May 2012 , pp. 1108 - 1114
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Archimede, H, Boval, M, Alexandre, G, Xande, A, Aumont, G, Poncet, C 2000. Effect of regrowth age on intake and digestion of Digitaria decumbens consumed by Black-belly sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 87, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Assoumaya, C, Boval, M, Weisbecker, JL, Saminadin, G, Archimede, H 2007. Limits of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to improve digestion and intake of a tropical grass. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 20, 914–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumont, G, Caudron, I, Saminadin, G, Xande, A 1995. Sources of variation in nutritive values of tropical forages from the Caribbean. Animal Feed Science and Technology 51, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boval, M, Archimede, H, Fleury, J, Xande, A 2003. The ability of faecal nitrogen to predict digestibility for goats and sheep fed with tropical herbage. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boval, M, Archimede, H, Cruz, P, Duru, M 2007. Intake and digestibility in heifers grazing a Dichanthium spp. dominated pasture, at 14 and 28 days of regrowth. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, DF, Parsons, AJ, Cosgrove, GP, Barker, DJ, Marotti, DM, Venning, KJ, Rutter, SM, Hill, J, Thompson, AN 2007. Impacts of spatial patterns in pasture on animal grazing behavior, intake, and performance. Crop Science 47, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, RC, Galyean, ML 1994. Measurement of in vivo forage digestion by ruminants. In Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization (ed. GC Fahey Jr, M Collins, DR Mertens and LE Moser), pp. 613–643. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Fanchone, A, Archimede, H, Boval, M 2009. Comparison of fecal crude protein and fecal near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to predict digestibility of fresh grass consumed by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 87, 236–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchone, A, Archimede, H, Baumont, R, Boval, M 2010. Intake and digestibility of fresh grass fed to sheep indoors or at pasture, at two herbage allowances. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, RA, Muntifering, RB, Bradley, NW, Wahab, AA, Dougherty, CT 1990. Forage composition and intake by steers grazing vegetative regrowth in low endophyte tall fescue pasture. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2848–2851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, J 1982. Ingestive behaviour. In Herbage intake handbook (ed. JD Leaver), pp. 113–138. British Grassland Society, Hurley, Berks, UK.Google Scholar
Hutchings, NJ, Gordon, IJ 2001. A dynamic model of herbivore–plant interactions on grasslands. Ecological Modelling 136, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, MG, Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaars, JJMH, Tolkamp, BJ 1992. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. 1. Causes of differences in voluntary feed intake: critique of current views. Livestock Production Science 30, 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leng, RA 1990. Factors affecting the utilization of ‘poor-quality’ forages by ruminants particularly under tropical conditions. Nutrition Research Reviews 3, 277–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lukas, M, Südekum, K-H, Rave, G, Friedel, K, Susenbeth, A 2005. Relationship between fecal crude protein concentration and diet organic matter digestibility. Journal of Animal Sciences 83, 1332–1344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marais, JP 2001. Factors affecting the nutritive value of kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) – a review. Tropical Grasslands 35, 65–84.Google Scholar
Michell, P 1982. Value of a rising-plate meter for estimating herbage mass of grazed perennial ryegrass–white clover swards. Grass and Forage Science 37, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, DJ 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Moniruzzaman, M, Hashem, MA, Akhter, S, Hossain, MM 2002. Effect of feeding systems on feed intake, eating behavior, growth, reproductive performance and parasitic infestation of Black Bengal goat. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 15, 1453–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, FB, Prado, IN, Cecato, U, Wada, FY, Mizubuti, IY 2004. Forage evaluation, chemical composition, and in vitro digestibility of continuously grazed star grass. Animal Feed Science and Technology 113, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Thornley, JHM, Newman, J, Penning, PD 1994. A mechanistic model of some physical determinants of intake rate and diet selection in a two-species temperate grassland sward. Functional Ecology 8, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghuvansi, SKS, Prasad, R, Tripathi, MK, Mishra, AS, Chaturvedi, OH, Misra, AK, Saraswat, BL, Jakhmola, RC 2007. Effect of complete feed blocks or grazing and supplementation of lambs on performance, nutrient utilisation, rumen fermentation and rumen microbial enzymes. Animal 1, 221–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, JB, Van Soest, PJ 1981. The detergent system of analysis. In The analysis of dietary fibre in food (ed. WPT James and O Theander), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Schlecht, E, Susenbeth, A 2006. Estimating the digestibility of Sahelian roughages from faecal crude protein concentration of cattle and small ruminants. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 90, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, Haan, Cd 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Streeter, CL 1969. A review of techniques used to estimate the in vivo digestibility of grazed forage. Journal of Animal Science 29, 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornley, JHM, Parsons, AJ, Newman, J, Penning, PD 1994. A cost–benefit model of grazing intake and diet selection in a two-species temperate grassland sward. Functional Ecology 8, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1996. Allometry and ecology of feeding behavior and digestive capacity in herbivores: a review. Zoo Biology 15, 455–479.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, SL, Kerley, GIH 2003. Bite diameter selection by thicket browsers: the effect of body size and plant morphology on forage intake and quality. Forest Ecology and Management 181, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zervas, G, Hadjigeorgiou, I, Zabeli, G, Koutsotolis, K, Tziala, C 1999. Comparison of a grazing- with an indoor-system of lamb fattening in Greece. Livestock Production Science 61, 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar