Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T17:40:27.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage species and season on nutrient digestion and supply in grazing cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. E. Beever ,
H. R. Losada ,
S. B. Cammell ,
R. T. Evans  and
M. J. Haines
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
H. R. Losada
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
R. T. Evans
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. J. Haines
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
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.

1. A total of twenty Friesian steers were grazed on pure swards of either perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) or white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca) from May to late August to examine the effect of forage species and season on nutrient digestion and supply. Within each forage species, two daily allowances of forage (i.e. 30 and 60 g dry matter (DM)/kg live weight) were given, and nutrient flow into the small intestine was measured on thirteen separate occasions (viz. seven grasses and six clovers).

2. Total nitrogen content of the grasses varied between 28 (early season), 19 (mid-) and 33 (late) g/kg DM, whilst the clovers showed a much narrower range and all values were higher (39–45 g/kg DM). In vitro organic matter (OM) digestibilities of plucked samples ranged from 742 to 809 g/kg OM (grass) and 712 to 790 g/kg OM (clover), the lowest values being noted in late June (grass) and mid-July (clover).

3. OM intakes calculated from estimated faecal OM output (using unlabelled ruthenium) and predicted OM digestibility of the consumed forage indicated mean values of 20.9 (grass) and 26.0 (clover) g/kg live weight ( P <0.001), whilst the higher forage allowances increased OM intake by approximately 8% on both grass and clover (P < 0.01) compared with the low allowance. OM intake was significantly ( P < 0.01) lower on the two primary growths of grass examined in May (mean 16.8g/kg live weight) than the other five grass diets.

4. Rumen molar propionate levels declined with season but were at all times higher on the grass than on the clover diets, whilst acetate levels were unaffected by forage species. Apart from the late-season grass, mean rumen ammonia concentration was less than 100 mg NH3-N/I on all grass diets, whilst values on the clover diets ranged from 200–350 mg/l.

5. Daily duodenal OM flows in relation to animal live weight were approximately 20% higher on the clover than on the grass diets (grass 9.2, clover 11.2 g/kg live weight, P < 0.001), but estimates of the proportion of digestible OM apparently digested in the rumen were not significantly influenced by forage species (grass 0.69, clover 0.71).

6. Non-NH3-N (NAN) flow to the small intestine varied from 0.41 to 0.76 g/kg live weight on the grass diets in response to season and forage allowance compared with values of 0.6W.94 g/kg on the clover diets, with the overall forage species effect being statistically (P < 0.001) significant (grass 0.60, clover 0.76 g/kg live weight). In relation to estimated N intakes, however, these findings revealed a considerable loss of N between mouth and duodenum on the clover diets equivalent to approximately 35% of N intake.

7. A significant regression of NAN flow/unit N intake (NI) (g/g) on N content in the forage OM (g/kg) was obtained for all forages examined: NAN/NI = 1.507–0.0185 [N/OM], residual SD 0.007, r 0.929, indicating that efficiency of utilization of the N in fresh forages in the rumen was more closely related to forage N content than forage species per se.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , July 1986 , pp. 209 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, R. W. (1964). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 7, 496–507.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, S. R., Davis, S. R. & Redekopp, C. (1982). In Forage protein in ruminant animal production, occasional publication of the british society of animal production no. 6, pp. 146–148 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames ditton: British society of animal production.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. (1980). In Forage conservation in the 80'S, pp. 131–143. [Thomas, C., editor]. Brighton: British glassland society.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1974). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 73A.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978 a). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E. & Siddons, R. C. (1986). Proceedings of VIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Banff, September 1984 (In the Press).Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1978 b). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Cammell, S. B. (1976). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 26, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Ulyatt, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Spooner, M. C. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 163–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L., Dawes, S. T., Colebrook, W. F. & James, K. J. (1979). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 4, 126..Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Technical report no. 24. Hurley: Grassland research institute.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Austin, A. R., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Spooner, M. C. & Terry, R. A. (1983). Animal Production 36, 501..Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, M. J., Dhanoa, M. S. & Spooner, M. C. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A 36, 328–330.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. & Byrne, A. (1933). Biochemical Journal 27, 491–496.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Furnival, E. P., Inskip, M. W. & Picketing, F. S. (1982). Forage protein in Ruminant animal production. Occasional publication of the british society of animal production no. 6, pp. 141–143 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames ditton: British society of animal production.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Lynch, J. J., Nicol, G.R. & Beeston, J. W. V. (1976). Laboratory Practice 25, 458–462.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, R. A. (1938). Journal of Nutrition 15, 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. C., MacRae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.Google Scholar
Evans, R. T., Hayes, D. G. & Beever, D. E. (1981 a). Laboratory Practice 30, 591–593.Google Scholar
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981 b). Laboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). Digestion and metabolism in the ruminant, pp. 217–224 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, australia: University of new england publishing unit.Google Scholar
Green, J. O. & Baker, R. D. (1981). Grassland in the british economy, paper no. 10 pp. 237–247 [Jollans, J. L., editor]. Reading: Centre for agricultural strategy.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). Physiology of digestion and metabolism in the ruminant, pp. 474–485 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon tyne: Oriel press.Google Scholar
Losada, H. R., Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1982). In Forage protein in ruminant animal production, occasional publication of the british society of animal production no. 6, pp. 144–145 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames ditton: British society of animal production.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 82, 309–312.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, N. H., Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1971). International Journal of Applied Radiation & Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Haines, M. J., Austin, A. R., Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S. & Barnes, R. L. (1983). Animal Production 36, 501.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1981). Proceedings of Nutrition Society 39, 67A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal ofAgricultura1 Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Journal of the Association of Oficial Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar