Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T09:07:00.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feed comminution, particle composition and distribution between the four compartments of the stomach in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay at two feeding frequencies and intake levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Waghorn ,
C. S. W. Reid ,
M. J. Ulyatt  and
A. John
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
C. S. W. Reid
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
M. J. Ulyatt
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A. John
Affiliation:
DSIR, Applied Biochemistry Division, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Chaffed lucerne hay was fed to wether sheep at two feeding frequencies (once a day (daily) and once an hour (hourly)) and at two levels of dry matter (D.M.) intake (700 (L) and 1020 (H) g/day). Sheep fed daily were slaughtered either prior to eating, immediately after eating ceased or 10 h after eating ceased to compare rumen, reticulum, omasum and abomasum pool sizes and particle size distributions within pools.

Effects of level of intake, feeding frequency and time after feeding were confined mainly to the rumen which contained 77–91% of stomach D.M. Once-daily feeding resulted in a 2·6 fold variation in rumen D.M. pool size. Sheep fed hourly had a relatively small rumen and comparatively large reticulum D.M. pool. Diurnal changes in reticulo-rumen particle size pools are discussed in relation to the effectiveness of chewing.

Particle size distribution in digesta was estimated by wet sieving. On average the proportion of D.M. retained on a sieve 1 mm or larger comprised 35, 28, 4 and 4% of D.M. in the rumen, reticulum, omasum and abomasum, respectively, D.M. passing a 0·25 mm sieve comprised 40, 46, 57 and 61% of D.M. in the respective organs.

The reticulum usually contained significantly less D.M. retained on a 4 mm sieve than the rumen, and reticulum D.M. percentage was usually 3–5 units lower than rumen D.M. percentage. Reticulum digesta composition is discussed in relation to the efflux of particulate D.M. to the omasum.

Chemical composition of rumen particulate D.M. retained on sieves > 0·25 mm was comparatively unaffected by intake level and feeding frequency. Analyses of particle composition showed a rapid loss of non cell wall constituents after feeding and an increasing contribution of rumination toward particle size reduction.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Balch, C. C. (1971). Proposal to use time spent chewing as an index of the extent to which diets for ruminants processes the physical property of fibrousness characteristic of roughages. British Journal of Nutrition 26, 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R. L., Koong, L. J. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1977). A dynamic model of ruminant digestion for evaluation of factors affecting nutritive value. Agricultural Systems 2, 255–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biokoff, E. M., Kohler, G. O. & Smith, D. (1972). Chemical composition of herbage. Agronomy 15, 247–282.Google Scholar
Bost, J. (1970). Omasal physiology. Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 52–65. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Bueno, L. (1972). Movements of water across the wall of the omasum in sheep. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 3, 651–663.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. & Osbourn, D. F. (1972). Factors influencing the total time spent chewing by sheep given diets containing long, dried forages. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 63A.Google Scholar
Deswysen, A. G. & Ehrlein, H. J. (1981). Silage intake, rumination and pseudo-rumination activity in sheep studied by radiography and jaw movement recordings. British Journal of Nutrition 46, 327–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, R. M., Kennelly, J. J. & Milligan, L. P. (1983). Kinetics of [103Ru] phenanthroline and dysprosium particulate markers in the rumen of steers. British Journal of Nutrition 49, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlein, H. J. (1980). Forestomach motility in ruminants. Publikationen zu Wissenschaftlichen Filmen, Section Medizin, Series 5, Number 9, Film, Cl 328, pp. 1–29. Gottingen: Institut für den Wissenschaftlichen Film.Google Scholar
Ehrlein, H.-J. & Lebzien, P. (1976). Endoscopic studies of the reticulo-omasal opening and of the flow of ingesta between reticulum and omasum in sheep. In Proceedings of 20th World Veterinary Congress 1975 in Thessaloniki, VI, pp. 300–302.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
Gordon, J. G. (1968). Rumination and its significance. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 9, 251–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauffe, R. & Engelhardt, W. (1976). Omasal function in small domestic ruminants. I. Inflow and retention time of solid particles and fluid. Zentralblatt für Veterinarmedizin A 22, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A. (1984). Effects of feeding frequency and level of feed intake on chemical composition of rumen bacteria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. R., Baldwin, R. L., Ulyatt, M. J. & Koong, L. J. (1983). A quantitative analysis of rumination patterns. Journal of Dairy Science 56, 1236–1240.Google ScholarPubMed
Oyaert, W. & Bouckaert, J. H. (1961). A study of the passage of fluid through the sheep's omasum. Research in Veterinary Science 2, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. (1967). Changes in particle size in the reticulo-rumen of sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Ash, R. W. (1965). Physiological mechanisms affecting the flow of digesta in ruminants. In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant (ed. Dougherty, R. W.), pp. 97–107. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 a). Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. II. Factors controlling the retention of feed in the reticulo-rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Science 32, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 b). Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. III. The retention time in the rumen of large feed particles. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W. (1984). The progress of solid feed residues through the rumino-reticulum: the ins and outs of particles. In Ruminant Physiology: Concepts and Consequences (ed. Baker, S. K.), pp. 79–84. Perth: University of Western Austalia.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & Munro, J. A. (1977). The physical breakdown of feed during digestion in the rumen. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 37, 173–175.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J.. (1980). The detergent system of analyses and its application to to human foods. In Basic and Clinical Nutrition, vol. 3 (ed. James, W. P. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. & Campbell, J. B. (1968). Voluntary consumption of forage by sheep and its relation to the size and shape of particles in the digestive tract. Animal Production 10, 289–296.Google Scholar
Uden, P. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). The determination of digesta particle size in some herbivores. Animal Feed Science and Technology 7, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. (1983). Plant fibre and regulation of digestion in the ruminant. In Fibre in Human and Animal Nutrition (ed. Wallace, G. and Bell, L.), p. 103–107. Wellington: The Royal Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Baldwin, R. L. & Koong, L. J. (1976). The basis of nutritive value – a modelling approach. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 36, 140–149.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1985). The contribution of chewing, during eating and rumination, to the clearance of digesta from the rumino-reticulum. Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. Milligan, L. P., Dobson, A. and Grovum, W. L.). New York: Reston Press.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Monro, J. (1984). Effect of intake and feeding frequency on feeding behaviour and quantitative aspects of digestion in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. & Reid, C. S. W. (1977). Rumen motility in sheep and cattle as affected by feeds and feeding. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 37, 176–181.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. & Reid, C. S. W. (1983). Rumen motility in sheep and cattle fed different diets. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, J. G. & Smith, A. M. (1970). Forage quality and rumination time in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 53, 797–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyburn, R. S. (1980). The mixing and propulsion of the stomach contents of ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 35–51. Westport: AVI Publishing Company Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar