Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T17:55:07.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding medusahead low intake and palatability through in vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

J. J. Montes-Sánchez  and
J. J. Villalba
J. J. Montes-Sánchez*
Affiliation:
Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
J. J. Villalba
Affiliation:
Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
*
†E-mail: jmontes@cibnor.mx
Get access

Abstract

The low intake of medusahead grass (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum) by sheep is attributed to the high silica content of the plant and its negative impact on digestibility, making this weed a successful competitor in grazed plant communities. The goals of this study were to determine the influence of (1) plant maturity stage (from late vegetative stage to beginning of senescence and thatch), (2) particle size (1, 5, 10 and 20 mm), and (3) high-quality feeds (alfalfa hay and a high-energy concentrate) on fermentation kinetics and apparent digestibility of medusahead relative to palatable feeds (alfalfa and tall fescue hays, and high-energy concentrates). In vitro gas production was estimated and apparent digestible organic matter (DOM) of the substrates was assessed after incubation. Medusahead from late vegetative to senescence stage had greater DOM (65% to 71%; P<0.05) than alfalfa hay (53%), similar to tall fescue hay (67%; P>0.05), and lower than the high-energy concentrates assayed (77% to 79%; P<0.05). Fermentation kinetics showed slow fermentation rates for medusahead relative to alfalfa (P<0.05), and a decline in fermentation rates with plant maturity (P<0.05). Fermentation rates of the substrates were reduced with particle sizes ⩾5 mm (P<0.05), and apparent DOM for medusahead declined as particle size increased, a relationship not found for alfalfa or tall fescue hays (P<0.05). No effects (P>0.05) on digestibility parameters were observed by the addition of high-quality feeds to medusahead. Slow fermentation kinetics and a significant inhibitory effect of particle size on apparent digestibility of organic matter contribute to explain the low use of medusahead by sheep. Such inhibitory effect may also underlie the lack of positive associative effects observed during the study.

Keywords

apparent digestibilityepidermal silicagas productionparticle size
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 1930 - 1938
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Agricultura en Zonas Áridas, CONACYT-CIBNOR Unidad Guerrero Negro, Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur, 23940, Mexico.

References

Allen, MS 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3063–3075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, SE 1989. Chemical analysis of ecological materials, 2nd revised edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
Bae, HD, McAllister, TA, Kokko, EG, Leggett, FL, Yanke, LJ, Jakober, KD, Ha, HT and Chen, K-J 1997. Effect of silica on the colonization of rice straw by ruminal bacteria. Animal Feed Science and Technology 65, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümmel, M, Cone, JW, Van Gelder, AH, Nshalai, I, Umunna, NN, Makkar, HPS and Becker, K 2005. Prediction of forage intake using in vitro gas production methods: comparison of multiphase fermentation kinetics measured in an automated gas test, and combined gas volume and substrate degradability measurements in a manual syringe system. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123-124, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, CL and Clark, JK 2005. Invasive plants of range and wildlands and their environmental economic, and social impact. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, KS, USA.Google Scholar
Frutos, P, Hervás, G, Ramos, G, Giráldez, FJ and Mantecón, AR 2002. Condensed tannins content of several shrubs species from a mountain area in northern Spain, and its relationship to various indicators of nutritive value. Animal Feed Science and Technology 95, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, JCJ, Cone, JW, Williams, BA, Debersaques, FMA and Lantinga, EA 1996. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T, Burritt, EA and Villalba, JJ 2015. Assessing the impact of supplements, food aversion, and silica on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusa (L.) Nevski) use by sheep. Small Ruminant Research 124, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, JW, Dean, AP, Webster, RE, Johnson, GN and Ennos, AR 2008. A novel mechanism by which silica defends grasses against herbivory. Annals of Botany 102, 653–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenney, PA and Black, JL 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. 1. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Crop and Pasture Science 35, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, FP and Hartley, SE 2006. Experimental demonstration of the antiherbivore effects of silica in grasses: impact of foliage digestibility and vole growth rates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273, 2299–2304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayland, HF and Shewmaker, GE 2001. Animal health problems caused by silicon and other mineral imbalances. Journal of Range Management 54, 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, KH, Raab, L, Salewski, A, Steingass, H, Fritz, D and Schneider, W 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, KH and Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Montes-Sánchez, JJ, Van Miegroet, H and Villalba, JJ 2017. Effects energy supplementation and time on use of medusahead by grazing ewes and their lambs. Rangeland Ecology & Management. Retrieved on 14 January 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutch, RW and Philpot, CW 1970. Relation of silica content to flammability in grasses. Forest Science 16, 64–65.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2007. Nutrient Requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, and New World camelids. The National Academic Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Dziba, LE, Atwood, SB and Banner, RE 2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J 2003. Cycling silicon-the role of accumulation in plants. New Phytologist 158, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shawrang, P and Nikkhah, A 2005. Chemical composition, in vitro DM and OM digestibility of ten pasture species. In Book of abstracts of the 56th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (ed. E Strandberg, E Cenkvári, E Von Borell, B Kemp, C Lazzaroni, M Gauly, C Wenk, W Martin-Rosset, A Bernéus Jal and C Thomas), pp. 64. Wageningen Academic Publications, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smith, GA, Nelson, AB and Boggino, EJA 1971. Digestibility of forages in vitro as affected by content of silica. Journal of Animal Science 3, 466–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbendreck, J, Hatch, SL and Landholt, LM 2003. North American wildland plants: a field guide, 6th edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Swenson, CF, Tourneau, DL and Erickson, LC 1964. Silica in medusahead. Weeds 12, 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Wiiliams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllan, AB and France, J 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetic of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyne, GM 1962. Micro-methods for nutritive evaluation of range forages. Journal of Range Management 25, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1993. Cell wall matrix interactions and degradation. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. HG Jung, DR Buxton, RD Hatfield and J Ralph), pp. 377–396. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ and Jones, LHP 1968. Effect of silica in forages upon digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 51, 1644–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, JJ and Burritt, EA 2015. Control of medusahead by sheep: Influence of supplements, silica and individual animal variation. Invasive Plant Science and Management 8, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadman, KV 2012. Ecological site: mountain stony loam (mountain big sagebrush). Retrieved on 13 October 2015 from https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ESDReport/fsReportPrt.aspx?id=R047XA461UT&rptLevel=all&approved=yes&repType=regular&scrns=&comm.Google Scholar
Welch, JG 1967. Appetite control in sheep by indigestible fibers. Journal of Animal Science 26, 849–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiles, PG, Gray, IK and Kissling, RC 1998. Routine analysis of proteins by Kjeldahl and Dumas methods: review and interlaboratory study using dairy products. Journal of AOAC International 81, 620–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, JA 1992. Ecology and management of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ssp. asperum [Simk.] Melderis). Great Basin Naturalist 52, 245–252.Google Scholar