Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:11:52.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the weight gain and the composition of blood and saliva in sheep grazing timothy and ryegrass swards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. B. Sinclair  and
D. I. H. Jones
K. B. Sinclair
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Unit
D. I. H. Jones
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
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.

1. After a preliminary period of 2 weeks indoor feeding on hay, two groups of wethers grazed either a timothy pasture or a ryegrass-dominant pasture for 12 weeks. The timothy was particularly low in sodium and chlorine.

2. Within a week of turning out, saliva sodium fell and potassium increased in the timothy group, and by the end of the experiment, the sodium: potassium ratio was 1.9:1. The changes in saliva were not reflected in blood composition. The rate of live-weight gain was similar in both groups of sheep.

3. The results confirm those of a previous indoor experiment and show that timothy supplies insufficient sodium to maintain the normal saliva composition of sheep.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1968 , pp. 661 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1968

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Blair-West, J. R., Bott, E., Boyd, G. W., Coghlan, D. A., Denton, D. A., Goding, J. R., Weller, S., Wintour, M. & Wright, R. D. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant, p. 198. [Dougherty, R. W., Allen, R. S., Burroughs, W., Jacobson, N. L. and McGillard, A. D., editors.] Washington: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bott, E., Denton, D. A., Goding, J. R. & Sabine, J. R. (1964). Nature, Lond. 202, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, P. K., Franklin, M. C. & McClymont, G. L. (1957). Aust. J. agric. Res. 8, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, D. A., Goding, J. R. & Wright, R. D. (1959 a). Br. med. J. ii, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, D. A., Goding, J. R. & Wright, R. D. (1959 b). Br. med. J. ii, 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, T. J. & Roberts, W. K. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A., Scott, D. & Bruce, J. B. (1966). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 51, 311.Google Scholar
Dobson, A., Scott, D. & McDonald, I. (1966). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. I. H., Miles, D. G. & Sinclair, K. B. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A. & Guerink, J. H. (1966). Tijdschr. Diergeneesk. 91, 580.Google Scholar
McClymont, G. L., Wynne, K. N., Briggs, P. K. & Franklin, M. C. (1957). Aust. J. agric. Res. 8, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar