Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:06:20.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of ruminal activity in Churra and Merino sheep offered alfalfa hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. J. Ranilla ,
M. D. Carro ,
C. Valdés ,
F. J. Giráldez  and
S. López
M. J. Ranilla
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal I.Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
M. D. Carro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal I.Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
C. Valdés
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal I.Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
F. J. Giráldez
Affiliation:
EAE, CSIC Apartado 788, 24080 León, Spain
S. López
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal I.Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
Get access

Abstract

A study was carried out to compare the fermentation parameters and kinetics of digestion of a range of different foods in the rumen of two breeds of sheep (Churra and Merino). Ten mature sheep (five Churra and five Merino), each fitted with a rumen cannula, were used in this study. In situ rumen degradability of both dry matter (DM) and cell wall was greater in Churra than in Merino sheep, the breed differences being significant for most of the foods used in the study (P < 0·05). These differences were greater when the foods had a higher cell wall concentration and this could be related to differences in the ruminal environment. However, when the foods were incubated with rumen fluid their in vitro organic matter (OM) degradability was similar in both breeds. Rumen pH was higher (P < 0·05) and ammonia concentrations were lower (P < 0·05) in Churra than in Merino sheep. Rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations tended to be higher in Merino than in Churra sheep, though differences were only significant just before feeding (P < 0·05). The ratio acetate: propionate was higher in the Churra than Merino breed before and 12 h after feeding (P < 0·05). Protozoa numbers in rumen liquid were similar for both genotypes. The greater degradation of forages in the rumen of Churra sheep is discussed in relation to the possible higher activity of fibre-degrading micro-organisms and the greater buffering capacity of the rumen contents against fermentation acids, which could result in more favourable conditions for the microbial degradation of foods in the rumen.

Keywords

fermentationin vitro digestibilityrumen digestionsheep breeds
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , August 1997 , pp. 121 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Amor, J. J. 1994. [Diurnal patterns of intake and rumination in sheep as affected by different factors]. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Leon.Google Scholar
Ash, R. H. and Dobson, A. 1963. The effect of absorption on the activity of rumen contents. Journal of Physiology 169: 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods for analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S. 1988. On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43: 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J., Thornley, J. H. M., López, S., Siddons, R. C., Dhanoa, M. S., Van Soest, P. J. and Gill, M. 1990. On the two-compartment model for estimating the rate and extent of feed degradation in the rumen. Journal of Theoretical Biology 146: 269–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frutos, P., Revesado, P. R., Mantecón, A. R., González, J. S. and Carro, M. D. 1992. Proportion of digestive tract: a comparison of two Spanish sheep genotypes (Churra vs. Merina). Nutrition Clinique et Métabolisme 6:173–174.Google Scholar
Giráldez, F. J., López, S., González, J. S. and Mantecón, A. R. 1994. Comparative digestibility of fresh herbage cut at two maturity stages by two breeds of sheep. Animal Production 58: 452–453.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I. and Moss, A. R. 1994. Effect of breed, age and body condition of sheep on the measurements of apparent digestibility of dried grass. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46:155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural handbook no. 379, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 3. Differential rates of passage of water and dry matter from the reticulo-rumen, abomasum and caecum and proximal colon. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 231–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harmeyer, J. 1965. Zur Methodik experimenteller Untersuchungen an Pansenprotozoen. Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedezin 9: 841–880.Google Scholar
Hart, S. P., Sahlu, T. and Fernandez, J. M. 1993. Efficiency of utilization of high and low quality forage by three goat breeds. Small Ruminant Research 10:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E., Phillips, G. D., Hungate, D. P. and Macgregor, A. 1960. A comparison of the rumen fermentation in European and Zebu cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 54:196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. A. and Siebert, B. D. 1985. Utilization of low-quality roughage by Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. 1. Rumen digestion. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 637–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayouli, C.Jouany, J. P. and Ben Amor, J. 1991. Comparison of microbial activity in the forestomachs of the dromedary and sheep measured in vitro and in sacco on Mediterranean roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 33: 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayouli, C.Jouany, J. P., Demeyer, D. I., Ali-Ali, , Taoueb, H. and Dardillat, C. 1993. Comparative studies on the degradation and mean retention time of solid and liquid phases in the forestomachs of dromedaries and sheep fed on low-quality roughages from Tunisia. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40: 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Stirling, A. C.Henderson, A. R., Dewar, W. A., Stark, G. H., Davie, W. G., Macpherson, H. T., Reid, A. M. and Slater, J. 1960. Studies on ensilage. Technical bulletin no. 24, Edinburgh School of Agriculture, pp. 1–83.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemistry Journal 43: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, D. L., Goode, L. and Pond, K. R. 1987. Voluntary intake, gain, digestibility, rate of passage and gastrointestinal fill in tropical and temperate breeds of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 64:880–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Ottenstein, D. M. and Bartley, D. A. 1971. Separation of free acids C2-C5 in dilute aqueous solution column technology. Journal of Chromatographic Science 9:673–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., López, S., Giráldez, F. J., Valdés, C. and Carro, M. D. 1995. Water kinetics in the rumen of two breeds of sheep. Annales de Zootechnie 44: (supplement) 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revesado, P. R., Mantecon, A. R., Frutos, P. and Gonzalez, J. S. 1994. Comparative studies of diet selection by Churra and Merino genotypes grazing on a hill shrub community. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J., Parker, D. S. and Rowlinson, P.) occasional publication of the British Society of Animal Production, no. 18, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar
Sahlu, T., Hart, S. P. and Fernandez, J. M. 1993. Nitrogen metabolism and blood metabolites in three goat breeds fed increasing amounts of protein. Small Ruminant Research 10: 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D. and Milgen, J. van. 1995. Dynamic aspects of carbohydrate and protein breakdown and the associated microbial matter synthesis. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. Engelhardt, W.v., Leonhard-Marek, S., Breves, G. and Giesecke, D.), pp. 71–94. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N., Tagari, H. and Shkolnik, A. 1993. Comparison of rate of passage, fermentation rate and efficiency of digestion of high fiber diet in desert Bedouin goats compared to Swiss Saanen goats. Small Ruminant Research 12: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smet, A. M. de, Boever, J. L. de, Brabander, D. L. de, Vanacker, J. M. and Boucque, Ch. V. 1995. Investigation of dry matter degradation and acidotic effect of some feedstuffs by means of in sacco and in vitro incubations. Animal Feed Science and Technology 51: 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS companion for the Microsoft Windows Environment, version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. C. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics, second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S. 1977. Factors affecting cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied Environmental Microbiology 33: 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rates of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar