Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T13:20:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the digestion and reduction in particle size of lucerne hay (Medicago sativa) and Italian ryegrass hay (Loliurn italicurn) in the ovine digestive tract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. Grenet
E. Grenet
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches sur la Nutrition des Herbivores, Unitè de l'lngestion, INRA, Centre de Recherches de Clermont-Ferrandl/Theix, 63122 Ceyrat, France
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Four types of hay were used: an early-cut and a late-cut lucerne (Medicago sativa) and an early-cut and a late-cut ryegrass (Lolium italicum). Digestibility and voluntary intake were measured on six adult sheep maintained in metabolism crates and fed 10% above the previous day's consumption, in equal portions at 08.00 and 16.30 hours. Lucerne intake was higher than that of ryegrass at similar digestibilities. The rate of digestion of the four hays was measured using nylon bags and the rates of digestion of dry matter for late-cut lucerne were faster than those for the late-cut ryegrass. Eleven adult sheep fitted with oesophageal (four), rumen (four) or duodenal (three) fistulas were used for collecting digesta samples at the different sites. They were fed successively with the four hay types. Each was offered to appetite, once daily, in a meal taken over 4 h. The rumen of rumen-fistulated sheep was completely emptied by hand once before feeding (08.00 hours) and once after removal of refusals (12.00 hours). The number of times the ingested hay was chewed during the meal and the time spent masticating was greater for the late-cut hays and greater for the ryegrass compared with the lucerne hays. The particle size of the boluses was greater than that of the rumen contents, which in turn was greater than that of the duodenal contents and faeces. The percentage of particles > 8 mm in the boluses from the ryegrass was higher than that of lucerne, and that of the early-cut ryegrass was greater than that of the late-cut ryegrass. This was also the case for the percentage of particles > 1.6 mm in the rumen contents after the meal. The rate at which dry matter disappeared from the rumen was greatest during the meal except with late-cut ryegrass; it was particularly high with late-cut lucerne, a little less with early-cut ryegrass and much lower with the other two hays. When nylon bags containing food boluses were placed in the rumen, it was apparent that without rumination, with the exception of the very digestible early-cut ryegrass, microbial degradation alone did not reduce the particle size.

Keywords

DigestionRumen emptyingSheep
Type
Rumen Physiology and Digestion
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , September 1989 , pp. 493 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1989

References

REFERENCES

Aitchison, E. M. (1985). A study of the removal of fibre from the rumen and voluntary intake of sheep eating hay diets. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Aitchison, E. M., Gill, M., Dhanoa, M. S. & Osbourn, D. F. (1986). The effect of digestibility and forage species on the removal of digesta from the rumen and the voluntary intake of hay by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 56, 463–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akin, D. E. (1979). Microscopic evaluation of forage digestion by rumen microorganisms. A review. Journal of Animal Science 48, 701–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumont, R., Dulphy, J. P. & Andrieu, J. P. (1988). Comportement alimentaire et état de réplétion du reticulorumen chez le mouton nourri à volonté de foin de prairie ou de luzerne, avec accès continu ou limité: incidences sur le contrôle physique de l'ingestion. Reproduction, Nutrition, Développement 28, 573–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisonnave, A. Cirio, Boivin, R. & Bost, J. (1981). Stimulation prandiale de la motricité réticulaire chez le mouton: phase céphalique et réflexe oral. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 12, 291–302.Google Scholar
Colvin, H. W. Jr, Digesti, R. D. & Louvier, J. A. (1978). Effect of succulent and nonsucculent diets on rumen motility and pressure before, during and after eating. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 1414–1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demarquilly, C. & Chenost, M. (1969). Etude de la digestion des fourrages dans le rumen par la méthode des sachets de nylon. Liaison avec la valeur alimentaire. Annales de Zootechnie 18, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. & Weiss, P. (1970). Tableaux de la valeur alimentaire des Fourrages Verts. Etude S.E.I. no. 42. Versailles: INRA.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. (1971). Influence du poids vif'et du niveau d'ingestion sur le comportement alimentaire et mérycique du mouton. Annales de Zootechnie 20, 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. S. (1967). Leaf strength studies of pasture grasses. II. Strength, cellulose content and sclerenchyma tissue proportions of eight grasses grown as single plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 69, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analyses. Agricultural Handbook no. 379. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Grenet, E. (1970). Taille et structure des particules végétales au niveau du feuillet et des fèces chez les bovins. Annales de Biologie Animale, de Biochimie et de Biophysique 10, 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenet, E. (1984). Wet sieving technique for estimating particle size in herbivore digesta. In Techniques in Particle Size Analysis of Feed and Digesta in Ruminants, p. 167 [Kennedy, P. M. editor]. Edmonton: Canadian Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Grenet, E. (1987). Etude comparée de la vitesse de vidange du rumen chez le mouton alimenté avec des foins de graminées et de légumineuses. Reproduction, Nutrition, Développement 27, 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenet, E. & Demarquilly, C. (1987). Rappels sur la digestion des fourrages dans le rumen (parois) et ses conséquences. In Les Fourrages Secs: Récolte, Traitement, Utilisation, pp. 141–162 [Demarquilly, C. geditor]. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1985). Effect of rumination on reduction of particle size in rumen digesta by cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. A. & Pearce, G. R. (1984). The effectiveness of chewing during eating on particle size reduction of roughages by cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 609–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1984). The physical digestion of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and white clover (Trifolium repens) in the foregut of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 52, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, K. R., Burns, J. C. & Tate, L. P. (1985). Particle size distribution from masticated switch grass of different maturities. Journal of Animal Science 61, Suppl, 350.Google Scholar
Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C. & Akin, D. E. (1984). Ingestion, mastication and fragmentation of forages. Journal of Animal Science 58, 1567–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. & Hendricksen, R. E. (1980). The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y. (1963). Recherches sur la régulation centrale du comportement alimentaire chez les ruminants. Thèse de Doctorat de Sciences, Université de Lyon.Google Scholar
SAS (1985). Stat Guide for Personal Computer. Cary N. C.: Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1986). The contribution of chewing, during eating and rumination, to the clearance of digesta from the rumino-reticulum. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 498–515 [Milligan, L. P.Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A. editors]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. & Reid, C. S. W. (1983). Rumen motility in sheep and cattle fed different diets. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar