Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:51:48.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of voluntary intake and in vivo digestion in guanacos (Lama guanicoe) and sheep given fresh grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. D. Fraser  and
D. H. Baker
M. D. Fraser
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB
D. H. Baker
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to compare the voluntary intake and in vivo digestion for guanacos and sheep when offered perennial ryegrass at three different growth stages: vegetative growth (VG), emerging inflorescence (El) and mature inflorescence (MI). Dry-matter (DM) intake ranged from 1·19 to 2·12 kg/day for the guanacos and 0·79 to 1·52 kg/day for the sheep. When expressed on a metabolic live-weight (M0·75) basis, the intake of the guanacos (55·8, 43·1 and 44·1 g DM per kg M0·75 daily on the VG, El and MI grasses respectively) and the sheep (54·4, 45·7 and 47·4g DM per kg M0·75 daily respectively) were similar (s.e.d. = 3·70). Apparent digestibilities of all food constituents were also similar. In terms of food choice, the response of the two species to grass stem differed; the guanacos selected (El) or tolerated (MI) this fraction, while the sheep tolerated (El) or avoided (MI) it.

Keywords

camelidaedigestibilityfood preferencesLoliumsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , December 1998 , pp. 567 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Aitchison, E. M., Gill, M., Dhanoa, M. S. and Osbourn, D. F. 1986. The effect of digestibility and forage species on the removal of digesta from the rumen and the voluntary intake of hay by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition. 56: 463–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, G. W. 1960. The effect of the quantity and quality of pasture available to sheep on their grazing behaviour. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 11: 1034–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W. and Dudzinski, M. L. 1978. Ethology offree-ranging domestic animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bradstreet, R. B. 1969. The Kjeldahl method for organic nitrogen. Academic Press Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. T. and Stevens, C. E. 1980. A comparison of gastrointestinal transit time in ten species of mammal. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94: 735–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordesse, R., Inesta, M. and Gaubert, J. L. 1992. Intake and digestibility of four forages by llamas and sheep. Annales de Zootechnie 41: 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowlishaw, S. J. and Alder, F. E. 1960. The grazing preferences of cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge. 54: 257–265.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W., Wilson, P. R. and Barry, T. N. 1991. Comparative digestion in deer, goats and sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 34: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarquilly, C. 1994. The regulation and prediction of feed intake in ruminants in relation to feed characteristics. Livestock Production Science. 39: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M. D. 1998. Diet composition of guanacos (Lama guanicoe) and sheep (Ovis aries) grazing on grassland communities typical of UK uplands. Small Ruminant Research. 29: 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M. D. and Gordon, I. J. 1997a. The diet of goats, red deer and South American camelids feeding on three contrasting Scottish upland vegetation communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 34: 668–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M. D. and Gordon, I. J. 1997b. Organic matter intake, diet digestibility and feeding behaviour of goats, red deer and South American camelids feeding on three contrasting Scottish vegetation communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 34: 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, V. and Dupuis, G. 1988. Effect of structural and chemical factors of forages on potentially digestible fibre, intake and true digestibility by ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 68: 787–799.Google Scholar
Heller, R., Gregory, P. C. and Engelhardt, W. v. 1984. Pattern of motility and flow of digesta in the forestomach of the llama (Lama guanacoe f. glama). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 154: 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintz, H. F., Schryver, H. F. and Halbert, M. 1973. A note on the comparison of digestion by New World camels, sheep and ponies. Animal Production. 16: 303–305.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., Forbes, T. D. A., Armstrong, R. H., Beattie, M. M. and Hunter, E. A. 1991. Comparative studies of the ingestive behaviour and herbage intake of sheep and cattle grazing indigenous hill plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 28: 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iason, G. R., Sim, D. A., Foreman, E., Fenn, P. and Elston, D. A. 1994. Seasonal variation of voluntary food intake and metabolic rate in three contrasting breeds of sheep. Animal Production. 58: 381–387.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection. A modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev's electivity index. Oecologia. 14: 413–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, D. L., Goode, L. and Pond, K. R. 1987. Voluntary intake, gain, digestibility, rate of passage and gastrointestinal tract fill in tropical and temperate breeds of sheep. Journal of Animal Science. 64: 880–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandra, K. S., Hendry, A. and Dobos, R. C. 1993. A study of voluntary intake and digestibility of roughages in relation to their degradation characteristics and retention time in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43: 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasha, T. N., Prigge, E. C., Russell, R. W. and Bryan, W. B. 1994. Influence of moisture content of forage diets on intake and digestion by sheep. Journal of Animal Science. 72: 2455–2463.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. 1993. The role of fibre producing animals in European agriculture. Fine Fibre News. 2: 1–7.Google Scholar
San Martin, F. and Bryant, F. C. 1989. Nutrition of domesticated South American llamas and alpacas. Small Ruminant Research. 2: 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, J. R., Cote, M. and Visser, S. A. 1982. The relationship between voluntary intake and the physical properties of forages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 62: 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R. F. and Minson, D. J. 1972. The relationship between voluntary intake and mean retention time in the rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 23: 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallenas, A., Cummings, J. F. and Munnell, J. F. 1971. A gross study of the compartmentalised stomach of two New World camelids, the llama and the guanaco. Journal of Morphology. 134: 339–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Chemists. 46: 829–835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant and cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Analytical Chemists. 50: 50–55.Google Scholar
Warmington, B. G., Wilson, G. F. and Barry, T. N. 1989. Voluntary intake and digestion of ryegrass straw by llama × guanaco crossbreds and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge. 113: 87–91.Google Scholar