Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:48:40.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet selection in sheep: The role of the rumen environment in the selection of a diet from two feeds that differ in their energy density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. D. B. Cooper ,
I. Kyrizakis  and
J. V. Nolan
S. D. B. Cooper
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, The Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG
I. Kyrizakis
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, The Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG
J. V. Nolan
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Nutrition, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, 2350, Australia
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.

The effect of the energy density (ED) of feeds offered as a choice on the diet selection of sheep, and the relationship between the rumen environment and the diet selected from feeds of different ED were investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment two feeds, L and H, and their mixture M (3:1 w/w) were formulated. All feeds had similar calculated metabolizable protein: metabolizable energy (ME) ratios, but differed in ED (7·4, 8·1 and 10·1 MJ ME$sol;kg fresh feed for L, M and H respectively). The feeds were offered ad lib. either singly or in paired choices (L/M, L/H and M/H; n6 per treatment) to growing sheep. Although the rate of live-weight (Lwt) gain on feed H was higher than on feeds L or M, and the daily rate of feed intake lower, the sheep on feed choices did not consume only feed H. Instead they selected a mixture of both feeds offered, such that the total amount of H consumed per kg fresh feed was similar on choices L/H and M/H. The rate of Lwt gain of sheep on choices L/H and M/H was not different from that achieved on feed H alone. In the second experiment the choice L/H was offered to fistulated sheep (10 months of age, mean Lwt 57·5 kg) in an 8×8 Latin square, with 7 d periods. Treatments were infusions into the rumen (total volume 1 litre) over 4 h on days 1–4 of each period of acid (HC1; Acid 1, 400; Acid 2, 300 and Acid 3, 200 mmol/l), alkali (NaOH; Alk 1, 316; Alk 2, 212 and Alk 3, 109 mmol/l) and control (NaCl; Con 1, 315 and Con 2, 209 mmol/l). Infusate osmolalities (mOs/kg) were 795 (Acid 1), 585 (Acid 2, Alk 1 and Con 1), 390 (Acid 3, Alk 2 and Con 2) and 200 (Alk 3). Infusion treatment significantly affected the diet selection of the sheep (P < 0·05) according to the osmolality of infusate, but not according to rumen pH. During infusions intake of feed H tended to decline with increasing treatment osmolality, whereas intake of L remained constant. The effects on diet selection and feed intake were of a short duration with no carry-over effects. These results show that sheep given a choice between two feeds of different ED select a substantial quantity of the low-ED feed; this diet selection is affected by short-term manipulations of their rumen environment, in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of effective rumen conditions.

Keywords

Diet selectionEnergy densityRumenFeed intakeSheep
Type
Diet selection
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , July 1995 , pp. 39 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1995

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council (1992). Technical committee on responses of ruminant animals. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B 62, 788–835.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Belovsky, G. E. (1978). Diet optimisation in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theoretical Population Biology 14, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. & Warner, R. G. (1967). Rumen pH as a factor for controlling feed intake in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 50, 116–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, R. R. & Grovum, W. L. (1990 a). A review of the physiological significance of hypertonic body fluids on feed intake and rumen function: salivation, motility and microbes. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2811–2832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, R. R. & Grovum, W. L. (1990 b). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by sheep. 5. The inhibitory effect of hypertonicity in the rumen. British Journal of Nutrition 64, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, R. R., Retter, W. C. & Watson, J. N. (1979). Silage and milk production: comparisons between grass silage of three difference chop lengths. Grass and Forage Science 34, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. D. B., Kyriazakis, I. & Oldham, J. D. (1995). The effect of late pregnancy on the diet selection made by ewes. Livestock Production Science 40, 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropper, M. R. (1987). Growth and development of sheep in relation to feeding strategy. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. (1991). Diet selection by animals: theory and experimental design. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azahan, E. A. Engku & Forbes, J. M. (1992). Effects of intra ruminal infusions of sodium salts on selection of hay and concentrate foods by sheep. Appetite 18, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. M. & Barrio, J. P. (1992). Abdominal chemo- and mechano-sensitivity in ruminants and its role in the control of food intake. Experimental Physiology 77, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. (1987). A new look at what is controlling food intake. In Feed Intake by Beef Cattle, pp. 1–40 [Owens, F. N. editor]. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
Hou, X. Z. (1991). Diet selection in ruminants. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. & Gordon, I. J. (1990). Constraints on diet selection and foraging behaviour in mammalian herbivores. In Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection, pp. 369–392 [Hughes, R. N. editor]. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, W. (1976). Influence of the composition of the ration and the feeding frequency on pH regulation in the rumen and on feed intake. Livestock Production Science 3, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, P. A. & Black, J. L. (1984). Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. I. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R. & McCleery, R. H. (1984). Optimisation in behavioural ecology. In Behavioural Ecology - An Evolutionary Approach, pp. 91–121 [Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., editors]. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. & Whittemore, C. T. (1990). Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein contents. Animal Production 51, 180–191.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. & Oldham, J. D. (1993). Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen × 6·25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69, 617–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust (1987). GENSTAT V mark 3. Rothamsted Experimental Station Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. & Ørskov, E. R. (1984). Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulolysis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered hay or concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J. & Harvey, A. (1992). Not all sheep prefer clover: diet selection revisited. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1973). The effect of not processing barley on rumenitis in sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 149, 110–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Penning, P. D., Harvey, A. & Orr, R. J. (1994). Diet preferences of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillip, L. E., Buchanan-Smith, J. G. & Grovum, W. L. (1981). Food intake and ruminal osmolality in sheep, differentiation of the effect of osmolality from that of the products of maize silage fermentation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provenza, F. D. & Balph, D. F. (1990). Applicability of five diet selection models to various foraging challenges ruminants encounter. In Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection, pp. 423–459 [Hughes, R. N. editor]. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P. & Kalat, J. W. (1971). Specific hungers and poison avoidance as adaptive specialisations of learning. Psychological Review 78, 459–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russel, J. B. & Strobel, H. J. (1993). Microbial energetics. In Quantitative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism, pp. 165–186 [Forbes, J.M. and France, J., editors]. Wallingford: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Schiller, L. R., Emmet, M., Ana, C. A. Santa & Fordtran, J. S. (1988). Osmotic effects of polyethylene glycol. Gastroenterology 94, 933–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shariadmadari, F. & Forbes, J. M. (1993). Growth and food intake responses to diets of different protein contents and a choice between diets containing two levels of protein in broiler and layer strains of chickens. British Poultry Science 34, 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Robertson, S., Chamberlain, D. G., Livingstone, R. M., Garthwaite, P. H., Dewey, P. J. C., Smart, R. & Whyte, C. (1988). Predicting the metabolisable energy (ME) content of compounded feeds for ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Production, pp. 127–146 [Haresign, W. and Cole, D.G. A., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Thorhallsdottir, A. G., Provenza, F. D. & Balph, D. F. (1990). Ability of lambs to learn about novel foods while observing or participating with social models. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, G. M., Tyler, T. R., Bennick, M. R., Khan, B. B. & Ghorban, K. Z. (1976). Ionic environment of the rumen and its effect upon microbial function, volatile fatty acid production and absorption. In Nuclear Techniques in Animal Production and Health, pp. 289–299. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Westoby, M. (1974). An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. American Naturalist 108,290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., Fallon, R. J., Innes, G. M. & Garthwaite, P. (1987). Effects on food intake, rumen development and liveweight of calves of replacing barley with sugar beet-citrus pulp in a starter diet. Animal Production 44, 65–73.Google Scholar
Zahorik, D. M. & Houpt, K. A. (1977). The concept of nutritional wisdom. Applicability of laboratory learning models to large herbivores. In Learning Mechanisms in Food Selection, pp. 45–67 [Barker, L. M., Best, M. R. and Domjan, M., editors]. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar