Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T03:13:52.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of chewing during eating and ruminating in goats and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. M. FranÇoise domingue ,
D. W. DELLOW  and
T. N. BARRY
B. M. FranÇoise domingue
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
D. W. DELLOW
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
T. N. BARRY
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
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.

The total amounts of time spent eating and ruminating per 24 h by goats and sheep were determined. The efficiencies of chewing during eating (<C.EAT>) and chewing during ruminating (<C.RUM>) on the breakdown of feed particles to below the critical size required to leave the rumen (< 1.0 mm) were investigated. All studies were done with the animals fed on a chaffed lucerne (Medicago sativa) hay diet. Goats spent more time eating (+3.1 h; P < 0.01), and less time ruminating (-2.2 h; P < 0.05) per 24 h, than sheep, when fed hourly at ad lib. intake. The efficiency of chewing during eating (<C.EAT>) in breaking down feed particles to < 1.0 mm was greater in goats (85%; P < 0.01) than sheep (48%). The process of rumination in sheep served to reduce the feed particles which were > 1.0 mm in the rumen to < 1.0 mm. Sheep tended to be more efficient in this process than goats (59 ν 48%), with the difference not attaining significance (P > 0.1). The greater frequency of chews (number of total jaw movements/min) during eating in goats (P < 0.01), or during ruminating in sheep (P < 0.001), was the major component explaining differences in efficiency between the two species in both the eating and rumination processes. When corrected for the number of chews/min, the differences in <C.RUM> and <C.EAT> were not significant between goats and sheep. During eating goats had greater apparent rates of total salivary secretion (P < 0.1), and greater apparent rates of salivary nitrogen secretion (P < 0.05) than sheep. The results help explain the greater fibre digestibility and rumen ammonia irreversible loss rates in goats than sheep, when both species were fed on lucerne chaff.

Keywords

RuminatingChewingSheepGoats
Type
The Efficiency of Mastication
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , May 1991 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1991

References

REFERENCES

Akin, D. E. (1976). Ultrastructure of rumen bacterial attachment to forage cell walls. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 31, 562–568.Google Scholar
Akin, D. E. (1979). Microscopic evaluation of forage digestion by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Animal Science 41, 701–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgardt, B. R., Taylor, M. W. & Cason, J. L. (1962). Evaluation of forages in the laboratory. 2. Simplified artificial rumen procedure for obtaining repeatable estimates of forage nutritive value. Journal of Dairy Science 45, 62–68.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. & Kenny, P. A. (1984). Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. II. Height and density of pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 565–578.Google Scholar
Chai, K., Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1984). Reduction in particle size during rumination in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 339–340.Google Scholar
Cheng, K. J., Akin, D. E. & Costerton, J. W. (1977). Rumen bacteria: interaction with dietary components and response to dietary variation. Federation Proceedings 36, 193–197.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F. (1989). A comparative study of voluntary intake and rumen digestion by deer, goats and sheep. PhD Thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991). Utilisation of a low quality roughage by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge (In the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Remond, B. & Theriez, M. (1980). Ingestive behaviour and related activities in ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 103–122 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. & Norton, B. W. (1985). In vivo colonisation of grass cell walls by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 279–283.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W., Burnett, J. & Bines, J. A. (1974). A study of the effect of exposure in the reticulo-rumen of the cow on the strength of cotton, grass, hay and straw. British Journal of Nutrition 31, 273–284.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W., Pearce, G. R., Burnett, J. & Pillinger, S. L. (1973). Changes in some physical characteristics of the digesta in the reticulo-rumen of cows fed once daily. British Journal of Nutrition 29, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geoffroy, F. (1974). Etude comparée du comportement alimentaire et mérycique de deux petits ruminants: le chèvre et le mouton. (Comparative study of feeding and ruminating behaviour of two small ruminants, goat and sheep.) Annales de Zootechnie 23, 63–73.Google Scholar
Gill, J., Campling, R. C. & Westgarth, D. R. (1966). A study of chewing during eating in the cow. British Journal of Nutrition 20, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grenet, E. (1970). Size and structure of plant particles in the abomasum and faeces of cattle. Annales de Biologic Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 10, 643–657.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1966). The influence of saliva on digestion in ruminants. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 6, 292–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, P. M., Lirette, A., Chai, K. & Milligan, L. P. (1986). Forage particle size breakdown and movement in the reticulo-rumen of cattle. In Nuclear and Related Techniques in Animal Production and Health. Proceedings of an International Symposium, pp. 639–640. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. R. & Moir, R. J. (1964). Rumination in sheep. 1. The influence of rumination and grinding upon the passage and digestion of food. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 635–644.Google Scholar
Penning, P. D., Steel, G. L. & Johnson, R. H. (1984). Further development and use of an automatic recording system in sheep grazing studies. Grass & Forage Science 39, 345–351.Google Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. & Hendricksen, R. E. (1980). The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., John, A., Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C. & Milligan, L. P. (1979). Chewing and physical breakdown of feed in sheep. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 10, 205–207.Google Scholar
Seth, O. N., Rai, G. S., Yadav, P. C. & Pandey, M. D. (1976). A note on the rate of secretion and chemical composition of parotid saliva in sheep and goats. Indian Journal of Animal Science 46, 660–663.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. (1983). Plant fibre and regulation of digestion in the ruminant. In Fibre in Human and Animal Nutrition, pp. 103–107 [Wallace, G. and Bell, L., editors]. The Royal Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1986). Contribution of chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the reticulorumen. In The Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, pp. 488–517 [Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A., editors]. New Jersey: Reston Books.Google Scholar