Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:35:48.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of nutrition on fibre growth in the alpaca

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH
H. L. Redden
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH
Get access

Abstract

Twelve adult male alpacas were given either 0·67 (low) or 2·0 (high) × assumed maintenance requirements for a period of 6 weeks after which time each was transferred to the alternative level of nutrition for a further 6 weeks. Fibre samples were taken from two 10-cm2 areas on the mid-side position of each animal at 2, 6, 8 and 12 weeks, and measurements of fibre weight, yield (clean fibre weight/raw fibre weight), fibre diameter and fibre length made on the samples collected at weeks 6 and 12. The higher level of feeding resulted in higher clean fibre weight (low = 0·42 (s.e. 0·03); high = 0·53 (s.e. 0·04)mg/cm2 per day, P < 0·001) and fibre growth rate (low = 186 (s.e. 10); high = 223 (s.e. 14) yon/day, P < 0·05). Changes in yield (low = 0·917 (s.e. 0·006); high = 0·929 (s.e. 0·009)) and mean fibre diameter (low = 31·4 (s.e. 1·9); high = 32·1 (s.e. 1.6) \xm) were not statistically significant. Calculations showed that the increased weight of fibre attributed to the higher level of nutrition could be explained in terms of the observed increases in fibre-length and diameter but that, unlike the sheep in which the ratio fibre length: diameter remains relatively constant under varying nutritional regimes, the effect of nutrition in the alpaca has a proportionally larger effect on fibre length than on fibre diameter.

Type
Research Article
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

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, UK.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, W. von and Schneider, W. 1977. Energy and nitrogen metabolism in the llama. Animal Research and Development 5: 6872.Google Scholar
International Wool Textile Organisation. 1989. Specification IWTO-8-89(E). International Wool Secretariat, Ilkley, UK.Google Scholar
Newman, S.-A. N. and Paterson, D. J. 1994. Effect of level of nutrition and season on fibre growth in alpacas. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 54: 147150.Google Scholar
Pumayalla, A. and Leyva, C. 1988. Production and technology of the alpaca and vicuna fleece. Proceedings of the first international symposium on speciality fibres, DW1, Aachen, pp. 234241.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. 1992. Length growth and diameter relationships of Merino wool fibres. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 40: 52.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. and Sahlu, T. 1994. The nutritional control of the growth and properties of mohair and wool fibers: a comparative review. Journal of Animal Science 72: 18991907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, A. J. F. 1992. Fibre production from sheep and goats. In Progress in sheep and goat research (ed. Speedy, A. W.), pp. 235256. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Sumner, R. M. W. and Bigham, M. L. 1993. Biology of fibre growth and possible genetic and non-genetic means of influencing fibre growth in sheep and goats — a review. Livestock Production Science 33: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, R. M. W. and Wickham, G. A. 1969. Some effects of increased stocking level on wool growth. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 29: 208217.Google Scholar
Wuliji, T. 1993. Alpaca fibre production, fibre growth seasonality and fibre characteristics variation in a cool-temperate environment of New Zealand. Proceedings of the XVII International Grassland Congress, pp. 14941495.Google Scholar