Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T14:39:40.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of forage species and stage of harvest on the processes of digestion occurring in the rumen of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. E. Beever ,
M. S. Dhanoa ,
H. R. Losada ,
R. T. Evans ,
S. B. Cammell  and
J. France
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
The Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. S. Dhanoa
Affiliation:
The Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
H. R. Losada
Affiliation:
The Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
R. T. Evans
Affiliation:
The Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
The Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
J. France
Affiliation:
The 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. Pure swards of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv. Melle) or white clover (Trifolium repens L. cv. Blanca) were harvested daily as either primary growth (May-June) or mid- (July) and late- (August-September) season 4-week regrowths and offered to Friesian steers at two levels of feed allowance (18 and 24 g dry matter (DM)/kg live weight), to examine the effect of forage species and stage of harvest on nutrient digestion and supply.

2. The early- and mid-season grasses had low nitrogen (23 g/kg DM) and high water-soluble carbohydrate (169 g/kg) contents whilst the late-season grass had a higher N content (28 g/kg). All clover diets had high N (average 45 g/kg) and low water-soluble carbohydrate (89 g/kg) contents, and DM digestibility on all diets ranged from 0.77 to 0.83 (mean of two feeding levels).

3. Mean total rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations were significantly (P < 0.001) higher on the clover diets, whilst on the grass diets molar proportions of propionate showed a slight but not significant decline with advancing season and tended to be higher than those on the clover diets. Mean rumen ammonia concentrations were significantly (P < 0.001) lower on the early- and mid-season grasses (59 mg NH3-N/1) than the late-season grass (242 mg/l) and early-season clover (283 mg/l) which were all significantly (P < 0.01) lower than the mid-and late-season clovers (372 and 590 mg/l) respectively.

4. Rates of organic matter (OM) and N digestion in the rumen were estimated using established nylon-bag techniques and found to be high on all diets, but significant effects due to forage species (clover > grass; P < 0.001) were detected, whilst overall potential degradability in the rumen exceeded 0.89 for both OM and N on all diets.

5. Significantly (P < 0.001) more OM entered the small intestine of calves fed on white clover (10.2 g/kg live weight) than those fed on ryegrass (8.33 g/kg) and similar effects due to level of feeding (g/kg; low 7.9, high 10.6; P < 0.05) and stage of harvest (g/kg; early 8.3 v. mid 10.0, late 9.50; P < 0.05) were also detected. Non-NH3-N (NAN) flow (g/kg) to the small intestine was increased by forage species (grass 0.56, clover 0.69; P < 0.05) and stage of harvest (early 0.59 v. mid 0.65, late 0.64; P > 0.05) whilst NAN flow/N intake ranged from 0.96 to 1.65 g/g (mean 1.25) on the grass diets and from 0.64 to 0.84 g/g (mean 0.75) on the clovers (P < 0001).

6. Microbial N flow to the small intestine averaged 0.72 of duodenal NAN (grass 0.76, clover 0.69). Efficiency of microbial N synthesis was high on all diets, (g/kg OM truly digested in the rumen; grass 33.5, clover 36.3), as was the estimated extent of in vivo feed N degradation (g/g N intake; grass 0.75, clover 0.79).

7. A model is described to simulate the progress curves of the ratio, degraded N:degraded OM in the rumen for the six diets, using indices obtained in the present study. The results are ratified with the in vivo observations of N utilization in the rumen for the grass and clover diets.

8. It is concluded that both forage species and stage of harvest can significantly influence the processes of rumen digestion and nutrient supply, but with the fresh forages examined in the present study, it would appear that the processes of digestion in the rumen greatly outweighed the passage of potentially digestible nutrients from the rumen.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , September 1986 , pp. 439 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. Farnham Royal, Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alvey, N. G. (1977). GENSTAT: A General Statistical Program. Harpenden, Herts: Rothamsted Experimental Station.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). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Losada, H. R., Cammell, S. B., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 56, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle 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
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981). Laboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1986). Proceedings of VI International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Banff (In the Press).Google Scholar
Harrop, C. J. F. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. (1981). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 82, 309–319.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Nolan, J. V. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 44, 377–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1980). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 67A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar