Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:27:05.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In situ degradability of dry matter and neutral-detergent fibre of thorn scrubland forage consumed by goats in the semi-arid region of north Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. A. S. Juárez ,
E. R. Montoya ,
C. G. Nevarez ,
S. M. A. Cerrillo  and
F. L. Mould
R. A. S. Juárez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Facultad deMedicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, División de Estudios de Posgrado, Carretera Durango-Mezquitalkm 11-5 Durango, Dgo, Mexico
E. R. Montoya
Affiliation:
Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Facultad deMedicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, División de Estudios de Posgrado, Carretera Durango-Mezquitalkm 11-5 Durango, Dgo, Mexico
C. G. Nevarez
Affiliation:
Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Facultad deMedicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, División de Estudios de Posgrado, Carretera Durango-Mezquitalkm 11-5 Durango, Dgo, Mexico
S. M. A. Cerrillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Facultad deMedicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, División de Estudios de Posgrado, Carretera Durango-Mezquitalkm 11-5 Durango, Dgo, Mexico
F. L. Mould
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Three goats provided with oesophageal and ruminal cannulae were used to determine variations in dry matter (DM) and neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) degradability of the forage consumed when grazing thorn scrubland in the semi-arid region of north Mexico, during two consecutive dry and wet periods. Ingesta samples were incubated intraruminally, the data were fitted to the exponential equation P = a + b (l - e-ct) and statistically analysed using a randomized-block design. Organic matter and crude protein (CP) contents were higher (P < 0.05) in the wet seasons. Values of NDF were similar in dry and wet season of both years whereas higher numerical values of acid-detergent fibre (ADF), lignin and cellulose were registered in the dry seasons. DM and NDF degradabilities after 24 and 48 h of ruminal incubation were higher (P < 0.05) in the wet seasons. Higher values (P < 0.05) in DM and NDF bag losses at zero time (A fraction) were registered in the two wet seasons. The insoluble but fermentable DM and NDF (B fractions) were higher (P < 0.05) in the 1999 wet season and variable in the rest of the studied period. Numerically higher values of DM and NDF c fraction were found in wet periods, whereas DM and NDF potential degradabilities were higher (P < 0.05) in the wet season in 1999 and similar across seasons in 2000. Lowest (P < 0.05) contents of CP in grazed forage, DM and NDF degradabilities after 48 h of ruminal incubation, and A, and B, and c fractions were observed in the dry seasons. Thus, these results may be related to both the lower feeding value of forage consumed by the animals and lower performance of livestock during this period. Then, the DM and NDF degradability after 48 h, together with the insoluble but fermentable matter and the c fraction permit the nutritive value of the forage consumed by grazing goats to be accurately described.

Keywords

goatsgrazingMexicorumen digestionsemi-desert scrub
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 505 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1985. Official methods of analysis, 12th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bruno-Soares, A. M., Abreu, J. M. E., Guedes, C. V. M. and Dias-da-Silva, A. A. 2000. Chemical composition, DM and NDF degradation kinetics in rumen of seven legume straws. Animal Feed Science and Technology 83: 75–80.Google Scholar
Coblentz, W. K., Coffey, K. P., Turner, J. E., Scarbrough, D. A., Skinner, J. V., Kellog, D. W. and Humphry, J. B. 2002. Comparisons of in situ dry matter disappearance kinetics of wheat forages harvested by various techniques and evaluated in confined and grazing steers. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 854–865.Google Scholar
COTECOCA. 1979. [Types of vegetation, forage production and stocking rates in the State of Durango, México.] Calypso. México D. F.Google Scholar
Cushnahan, A. and Gordon, F. J. 1995. The effects of grass preservation on intake, apparent digestibility and rumen degradation characteristics. Animal Science 60: 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A. and Benjamin, R. W. 2003. Milk intake and growth rate of Awassi lambs sucking ewes grazing on natural pasture in the semi-arid Negev. Animal Science 76: 455–460.Google Scholar
Dorinha, M. S. S., Vitti, L., Adballa, A., Silva, F. J., Del Mastro, N. C., Rogeiro, M., Owen, E. and Mould, F. 1999. Misleading relationships between in situ rumen dry matter disappearance, chemical analyses and in vitro gas production and digestibility, of sugarcane bagasse treated with varying levels of electron irradiation and ammonia. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79: 145–153.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, A. E. and Garcia, A. J. S. 1998. [Energy and protein intake by goats grazing a thorn shrubland.] Thesis, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango.Google Scholar
Hecker, J. F. 1969. A simple rapid method for inserting rumen cannulae in sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 45: 293–294.Google Scholar
Holecheck, J. L., Vavra, M. and Pieper, R. D. E. 1982. Methods for determining the nutritive quality of range ruminants diets: a review. Journal of Animal Science 54: 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, J. A. and Givens, D. I. 1995. The in situ technique for studying the rumen degradation of feeds: a review of the procedure. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 65: 63–93.Google Scholar
Hussein, H. S., Cameron, M. R., Fahey , G. C. Jr, Merchen, N. R. and Clark, J. H. 1995. Influence of altering ruminal degradation of soybean meal protein on in situ ruminal fiber disappearance of forages and fibrous byproducts. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2428–2437.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, K. L. 1994. Models of voluntary feed intake in cattle. Livestock Production Science 39: 19–38.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R. 1981. [Carbohydrate components of forages: variations, digestibility and analyses.] In Prévision de la valeur nutritive des aliments des ruminants, pp. 13–40. INRA publications, Route de St-Cyr, 78000 Versailles.Google Scholar
Jung, H. G. 1989. Forage lignins and their effects on fiber digestibility. Agronomy Journal 81: 33–38.Google Scholar
Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M. T., Ribeiro, J. M. and Ørskov, E. R. 1995. Prediction of apparent digestibility and voluntary intake of hays fed to sheep: comparison between using fibre components, in vitro digestibility or characteristics of gas production or nylon bag degradation. Animal Science 61: 527–538.Google Scholar
Kibon, A. and Ørskov, E. R. 1993. The use of degradation characteristics of browse plants to predict intake and digestibility by goats. Animal Production 57: 247–251.Google Scholar
Michalet-Doreau, B. and Noziére, P. 1999. [Advantages and limitations of the utilization of the in situ technique for rumen digestion studies.] INRA Productions Animales 12: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moya-Rodriguez, J. G., Ramirez, R. G. and Foroughbakhch, R. 2002. Nutritional value and effective degradability of crude protein in browse species from northeastern Mexico. Livestock Research for Rural Development 14: 1.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, L. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to the rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and Shand, W. J. 1997. Use of the nylon bag technique for protein and energy evaluation and for rumen environment studies in ruminants. Livestock Research for Rural Development 9: 5.Google Scholar
Pfister, J. A. and Malechek, J. C. 1986. Dietary selection by goats and sheep in a deciduous woodland of northeastern Brazil. Journal of Range Management 39: 24–28.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Leng, R. A.. 1989. [Adapting production systems to available resources. Applied and basic aspects of the new concept of ruminant nutrition in the tropics.] CONDRIT, Ltda, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
Ramirez, L. R. G. 1999. Feed resources and feeding techniques of small ruminants under extensive management conditions. Small Ruminant Research 34: 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, L. R. G. 1989. [Nutritional goat studies in north México. Part II.] Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, San Nicolás de los Garza, N. L.Google Scholar
Ramirez, L. R. G., Carlos, R. J. L. and Garcia, G. G. J. 1988. [Botanical composition of the diet selected by goats in a scrubland.] Memoria del IV Congreso Nacional de Manejo de Pastizales, Zacatecas, Zac, pp. 34.Google Scholar
Schacht, W. H. 1992. Shrub ecology, nutritive value, and palatability. Proceedings of the international conference on meat goat production, management and marketing, Laredo, Texas (ed. Paschal, J. C. and Hanselka, C. W.), pp. 92–102.Google Scholar
Shem, M. N., Ørskov, E. R. and Kimambo, A. E. 1995. Prediction of voluntary dry-matter intake, digestible dry-matter intake and growth rate of cattle from the degradation characteristics of tropical foods. Animal Science 60: 65–74.Google Scholar
Singh, B., Makkar, H. P. S. and Negi, S. S. 1989. Rate and extent of digestion and potentially digestible dry matter and cell wall of various tree leaves. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 3223–3239.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1997. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language, fourth edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Stensig, T., Weisbjerg, M. R., Madsen, J. and Hvelplund, T. 1994. Estimation of voluntary feed intake from in sacco degradation and rate of passage of DM or NDF. Livestock Production Science 39: 49–52.Google Scholar
Stevens, E. J., Thomson, G. G. and O'Connor, K. F. 1985. A modified procedure for esophageal fistulation of sheep. Journal of Range Management 38: 88–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susmel, P., Spanghero, M. and Stefanon, B. 1999. Interpretation of rumen degradability of concentrate feeds with a Gompertz model. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79: 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, second edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary neutral detergent fiber, and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism, and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.Google Scholar