Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:17:00.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in complete diets offered to sheep on voluntary food intake and some digestive parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C. Valdés ,
M. D. Carro ,
M. J. Ranilla  and
J. S. González
C. Valdés
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal l, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
M. D. Carro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal l, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
M. J. Ranilla
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal l, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
J. S. González
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal l, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
Get access

Abstract

Twelve mature ewes were used to study the effect of forage: concentrate ratio in complete diets on voluntary intake and some digestive characteristics. Diets consisted of four combinations of chopped lucerne hay and a concentrate (390 g cracked barley grains, 440 g cracked maize grains and 170 g soya-bean meal per kg of concentrate) in the following proportions (fresh matter basis): 0·8:0·2 (C20), 0·6:0·4 (C40), 0·4:0·6 (C60) and 0·2:0·8 (C80). Diets were offered over two 42-day periods and, in each of them, three sheep received one of the four diets, with the restriction that no animal received the same diet in both periods. Chromium Ill-mordanted fibre was used as a marker to estimate passage rate of digest a and microbial nitrogen supply (MNS) was estimated from the urinary excretion of purine derivatives. The increase in the proportion of concentrate affected linearly (P < 0·05) the voluntary intake of food, the mean values being 36·8, 37·9, 36·3 and 30·0 g dry matter (DM) per kg live weight per day for C20, C40, C60 and C80 diets, respectively. Apparent digestibility of DM, organic matter (OM) and crude protein increased linearly (P < 0·01) with the proportion of concentrate in the diet, whereas that of cellulose evolved auadratically (P < 0·05), reaching a minimum value in the C80 diet. Digestible OM intake was unaffected (P > 0·05) by the proportion of concentrate in the diet. Both particulate passage rate from the rumen and through the caecum and proximal colon decreased linearly (P < 0·05) as concentrate proportion in the diet increased. MNS (g/day) was not affected (P > 0·05) by the diet, whereas its efficiency (g/kg digestible OM intake) tended (P < 0·10) to increase with the proportion of concentrate in the diet.

Keywords

concentratesdigestibilityfood intakeforagesingle cell protein
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 119 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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
Andrade, H., Bernai, G. and Llamas, G. 1996. Influence of different lucerne: sorghum ratios in the diet of dairy goats on productivity and rumen turnover. Small Ruminant Research 21: 77–82.Google Scholar
Archimede, H., Sauvant, D. and Schmidely, P. 1997. Quantitative review of ruminai and total tract digestion of mixed diet organic matter and carbohydrates. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 37: 173–189.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Balcells, J., Guada, J. A., Castrillo, C. and Gasa, J. 1991. Urinary excretion of allantoin and allantoin precursors by sheep after different rates of purine infusion into the duodenum. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 116: 309–317.Google Scholar
Balcells, J., Guada, J. A., Peiró, J. M. and Parker, D. S. 1992. Simultaneous determination of allantoin and oxipurines in biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography Journal of Chromatograph/ 575: 153–157.Google Scholar
Bartocci, S., Amici, A., Verna, M., Terramoccia, S. and Martillotti, E 1997. Solid and fluid passage rate in buffalo, cattle and sheep fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. Livestock Production Science 52: 201–208.Google Scholar
Carro, M. D., Valdés, C, Gonzalez, J. S., Frutos, P. and Giráldez, F. J. 1998. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet on rumen fermentation in sheep. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1998, p. 91 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Chen, X.B., Abdulrazak, S. A., Shand, W. J. and Ørskov, E. R. 1992a. The effect of supplementing straw with barley or unmolassed sugar-beet pulp on microbial protein supply in sheep estimated from urinary purine derivative excretion. Animal Production 55: 413–417.Google Scholar
Chen, X.B., Chen, Y. K., Franklin, M.E, Ørskov, E. R. and Shand, W. J. 1992b. The effect of feed intake and body weight on purine derivative excretion and microbial protein supply in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1534–1542.Google Scholar
Chen, X.B., Hoveli, F. D.DeB., Ørskov, E. R. and Brown, D. S. 1990. Excretion of purine derivatives by ruminants: effect of exogenous nucleic acid supply on purine derivative excretion by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 63: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. H., Klusmayer, T. H. and Cameron, M. R. 1992. Microbial protein synthesis and flows of nitrogen fractions to the duodenum of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2304–2323.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Mcleod, G. K., Grovum, W. L., Canili, L. W. and McMillan, I. 1989. Comparative digestion in sheep and cattle fed different forage to concentrate ratios at high and low intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 1774–1785.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., McLeod, G. K., Grovum, W. L., Mcmillan, I. and Barney, D. J. 1990. Digesta kinetics in sheep and cattle fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios at high and low intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 2143–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulombe, J. J. and Fauvreau, L. 1963. A new simple semimicro method for colorimetrie determination of urea. Clinical Chemistry 9: 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Jailler, M. and L’Hôtelier, L. 1996. Fill effect of concentrates in the rumen of sheep. Annales de Zootechnie 45: 411–421.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. 1993. Digesta flow. In Quantitative aspects of ruminai digestion and metabolism (ed. Forbes, J. M. and France, J.), pp. 53–85. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Febei, H. and Fekete, S. 1996. Factors influencing microbial growth and the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis: a review. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica 44: 39–56.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Gomes, M. J., Hoveli, F. D. DeB., Chen, X. B., Nengomasha, E. M. and Frikremarian, D. 1994. The effect of starch supplementation of straw on microbial protein supply in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 49: 277–286.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 313–329.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. and Jaakkola, S. 1993. The effects of forage preservation method and proportion of concentrate on digestion of cell wall carbohydrates and rumen digesta pool size in cattle. Grass and Forage Science 48: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1993. The effects of forage preservation method and proportion of concentrate on nitrogen digestion and rumen fermentation in cattle. Grass and Forage Science 48: 146–154.Google Scholar
Matejovsky, K. M. and Sansón, D. W. 1995. Intake and digestion of low-, medium- and high-quality grass by lambs receiving increasing levels of maize supplementation. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2156–2163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J.C. and Miller, E. L. 1981. Quantitative studies of food protein degradation and the energetic efficiency of microbial protein synthesis in the rumen of sheep given chopped lucerne and rolled barley. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 587–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchen, N. R., Firkins, J. L. and Berger, L. L. 1986. Effect of intake and forage level on ruminai turnover rates, bacterial protein synthesis and duodenal amino acid flows in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 62: 216–225.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminai function. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1548–1558.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1998. Feed evaluation with emphasis on fibrous roughages and fluctuating supply of nutrients: a review. Small Ruminant Research 28: 1–8.Google Scholar
Pérez, J. F., Balcells, J., Guada, J. A. and Castrillo, C. 1997. Rumen microbial production estimated either from urinary purine derivative excretion or from direct measurements of 15N and purine bases as microbial markers: effect of protein source and rumen bacteria isolates. Animal Science 65: 225–236.Google Scholar
Ramanzin, M., Bailoni, L. and Schiavon, S. 1997. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on comparative digestion in sheep, goats and fallow deer. Animal Science 64: 163–170.Google Scholar
Reynolds, C. K., Sutton, J. D. and Beever, D. E. 1997. Effects of feeding starch to dairy cattle on nutrient availability and production. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garns, P. C. worthy and Wiseman, J.), pp. 105–134. Nottingam University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. The detergent system of analysis and its implications to human foods. In The analysis of dietary fiber in food (ed. James, W. P. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. Marcel Decker, New York.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 6, 4th edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. and De Langen, H. 1960. Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. VII. Modified wet digestion method for determination of chromic oxide in faeces. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 314–319.Google Scholar
Uden, P., Colucci, P. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, A. C.I. 1981. Rate of passage of digesta through the gut of mammals and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series ‘B’ 51: 789–820.Google Scholar
Yan, T., Offer, N. W. and Roberts, D. J. 1996.The effects of dietary nitrogen sources and levels on rumen fermentation, nutrient degradation and digestion and rumen microbial activity by wether sheep given a high level of molasses. Animal Science 63: 123–131.Google Scholar