Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:45:08.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of method of forage conservation and harvest season on the rumen degradation of forages harvested from permanent mountain meadows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. López ,
M. D. Carro ,
J. S. González  and
F. J. Ovejero
S. López
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
M. D. Carro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
J. S. González
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
F. J. Ovejero
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
Get access

Abstract

An irrigated permanent mountain meadow (Leon, Spain) was cut twice in 1987, in late June, and again in early September after the summer regrowth. Herbage harvested from each season was preserved by different methods, namely freezing (fresh), ensiling in plastic bags (silage) and sun-curing (hay). Rumen degradation characteristics were determined by the nylon bag technique. Forages harvested in September had a higher crude protein (CP) concentration (153 v. 104 g/kg dry matter (DM)) and a lower cell wall concentration (467 v. 599 g/kg DM) than those from the June cut, resulting in a greater DM potential degradability (0·856 v. 0·751) and a faster degradation rate (0·088 v. 0·057 per h). Method of conservation did not affect the CP concentration of the forages, but had a significant effect on their nitrogen (N) solubility and protein degradability. Hay had the lowest N solubility (0·388) and CP degradability. Ensiling led to an increase in the N solubility (0·668 v. 0·554) compared with the fresh control, resulting in a higher effective degradability of CP estimated for different rates of passage. Forage conservation caused a slight increase in the relative proportion of the cell wall in the total DM (mean neutral-detergent fibre concentrations for fresh forage, hay and silage were 510, 548 and 536 g/kg DM, respectively) presumably due to loss of cell contents. Potential DM degradabilities of fresh forage, hay and silage were similar (0·805, 0·813 and 0·791 respectively). Although hay seemed to be degraded to a greater extent and at a faster rate than the other two types of forages, the rumen degradation characteristics were not consistently affected by the method of conservation to an extent that could have important nutritional implications.

Keywords

degradationforageharvesting datepermanent grasslands
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Supplement no. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. and Wallace, A. S. 1978. The digestion of spring and autumn harvested perennial ryegrass by sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90: 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, M. D., López, S., González, J. S. and Ovejero, F. J. 1991. The use of the rumen degradation characteristics of hay as predictors of its voluntary intake by sheep. Animal Production 52: 133–139.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1987. La fenaison: évolution de la plante au champ entre la fauche et la récolte. Perte d'eau, métabolisme, modifications de la composition morphologique et chimique. In Les fourrages sees: récolte, traitement, utilisation (ed. Demarquilly, C.), pp. 23–46. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.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
Hovell, F. D. DeB., Ngambi, J. W. W., Barber, W. P. and Kyle, D. J. 1986. The voluntary intake of hay by sheep in relation to its degradability in the rumen as measured in nylon bags. Animal Production 42: 111–118.Google Scholar
Kraiem, K., Garrett, J. E., Meiske, J. C., Goodrich, R. D. and Marten, G. C. 1990. Influence of method of forage preservation on fibre and protein digestion in cattle given lucerne, birdsfoot trefoil and sainfoin. Animal Production 50: 221–230.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. 1981. The biochemistry of silage. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Merchen, N. R. and Satter, L. D. 1983. Changes in nitrogenous compounds and sites of digestion of alfalfa harvested at different moisture contents. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 789–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. and Harris, C. E. 1961. The digestibility of grass species and varieties. Proceedings of the VIIIth international grassland congress, Reading, 1960, pp. 470–474. British Grassland Society and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. and Grant, A. L. 1987. Characterization of in situ nitrogen and fiber digestion and bacterial nitrogen contamination of hay crop forages preserved at different dry matter percentages. Journal of Animal Science 64: 552–564.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
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analysis of dietary fibre in food (ed. James, W. P. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. and Beever, D. 1980. The effect of conservation and processing on the digestion of forages by ruminants. In Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 291–308. MTP Press, Lancaster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. 1988. The preservation of forages. In Feed science (ed. Ørskov, E. R.), pp. 231–251. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar