Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:26:00.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet on ruminal fermentation and digesta flow kinetics in sheep offered food at a fixed and restricted level of intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

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

Abstract

The effects of four diets differing in their for age: concentrate ratio (80:20, 60:40, 40: 60 and 20:80; g/100 g fresh matter) on rumen characteristics, digestibility and digesta flow kinetics were investigated. Alfalfa hay was used as forage and concentrate was composed of barley, soya-bean meal and maize. Diets were prepared by mixing all ingredients and offered to the animals as complete diets. Eight mature Merino sheep, each fitted with a rumen cannula, were offered 1·055 kg dry matter per day of the corresponding diet over two experimental periods. The daily evolution of ruminai pH, volatile fatty acids (VFA) and ammonia nitrogen (N) concentrations were measured. Digestibility was determined by total faecal collection and Cr and Co were used as markers to estimate digesta passage rates. Microbial nitrogen flow at the duodenum (MNDF) was estimated from the urinary excretion of purine derivatives (PD). The apparent digestibility of organic matter increased (P < 0·001) whereas that of all fibrous fractions decreased linearly (P < 0·05) as the proportion of concentrate in the diet increased. Rumen pH decreased linearly (P < 0·001) with increasing proportions of concentrate but total VFA concentrations were unaffected by changes in the diet (P > 0·05). Both liquid and solid digesta outflow rates from the rumen decreased quadratically (P < 0·01) as the proportion of concentrate in the diet increased. The urinary excretion of total N, urea-N and ammonia-N was unaffected (P > 0·05) by changes in the diet. In contrast, the daily urinary excretion of both allantoin and total PD increased quadratically (P < 0·05) with increasing proportions of concentrate. Consequently, the estimated MNDF increased linearly (P < 0·001) from 9·9 g/day on the high forage diet to 14·5 g/day on the high concentrate diet.

Keywords

concentratesdigestibilityforagepurinessheep
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 127 - 134
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 and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcells, J., Guada, J. A., Castrillo, C. and Gasa, J. 1993. Rumen digestion and urinary excretion of purine derivatives on response to urea supplementation of sodium-treated straw. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 721–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Chromatography 575: 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartocci, S., Amici, A., Verna, M., Terramoccia, S. and Martillotti, F. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X.B., Chen, Y. K., Franklin, M. F., Ørskov, E. R. and Shand, W. J. 1992. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Church, D. C. 1988. Salivary function and production. In The ruminant animal: digestive physiology and nutrition (ed. Church, D. C.), pp. 117–124. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., MacLeod, 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
Cook, D. I. 1995. Salivary secretion in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. Engelhardt, W. V. Leonhard-Marek, S., Breves, G and Giesecke, D.), pp. 153–170. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fawcet, J. K. and Scott, J. E. 1963. Rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. Journal of Clinical Pathology 13: 156–159.CrossRefGoogle 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
Goetsch, A. L. and Owens, F. N. 1985. Effects of level and diurnal variation of dietary concentrate on digestion and passage rate in beef steers. Livestock Production Science 13: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Huhtanen, P. and Khalili, H. 1990. The effect of sucrose supplements on microbial polysaccharidase activities associated with rumen particulate material. In The rumen ecosystem, the microbial metabolism and its regulation (ed. Hoshino, S. Onoderz, R. Minato, H. and Itabashi, H.), Proceedings of a satelite symposium of the seventh international symposium on ruminant physiology, pp. 121–128. Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Hume, I. D. 1970. Synthesis of microbial protein in the rumen. II. A response to higher volatile fatty acids. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21: 297–304.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, K., Harmon, D. L., Croom Jr, W. J. and Hagler Jr, W. M. 1989. Estimating salivary flow and ruminai water balance of intake, diet, feeding pattern and slaframine. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 443–452.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
Mathison, G. W., Okine, E. K., Vaage, A. S., Kaske, M. and Milligan, L. P. 1995. Current understanding of the contribution of the propulsive activities in the forestomach to the flow of digesta. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. Engelhardt, W. V. Leonhard-Marek, S. Breves, G. and Giesecke, D.), pp. 23–37. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. 1988. Associative effects of feeds. In Feed Science (ed. Ørskov, . R.), pp. 279–292. World Animal Science, B4. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. and Mann, S. O. 1983. Associative effects on mixed feeds. 1. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10: 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J. B. 1979. Complete diets for cattle and sheep. Farming Press, Ltd, Suffolk.Google Scholar
Ramanzin, M., Bailoni, L. and Schiavon, S. 1997. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio on comparative digestion in sheep, goat and fallow deer. Animal Science 64: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., Carro, M. D., Valdés, C, Giráldez, F. J. and López, S. 1997. A comparative study of ruminal activity in Churra and Merino sheep offered alfalfa hay. Animal Science 65: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranilla, M. J., López, S., Giráldez, F. J., Valdés, C. and Carro, M. D. 1998. Comparative digestibility and digesta flow kinetics in two breeds of sheep. Animal Science 66: 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J.B., O’Connor, J. D., Fox, D. G., Van Soest, P. J. and Sniffen, C. J. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets. I. Ruminai fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 70: 3551–3561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, L. D. and Slyter, L. L. 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1998. SAS companion for the Microsoft Windows environment, version. 6.12. SAS Institute Inc., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, C. S. 1977. Factors affecting cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied Environmental Microbiology 33: 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uden, 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
Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant {second edition). Cornell University Press, Ithaca.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatherburn, M. W. 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analytical Chemistry 39: 971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar