Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:08:53.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization of chopped and pelleted lucerne (Medicago sativa) by growing lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

D. J. Thomson  and
S. B. Cammell
D. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks. SL6 5LR
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks. SL6 5LR
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. The efficiency of utilization of the dietary energy and nitrogen contained in a dried lucerne (Medicago sativa cv. Chartainvilliers) given either chopped (CL) or ground (1.96 mm screen) and pelleted (PL), was measured in a comparative slaughter experiment. Growing lambs were given equal amounts of digestible energy in the chopped or pelleted form at each at each of the three planes of nutrition for a period of 100 d.

2. The initial energy, fat and protein content of both the carcass and the total body of the test lambs was estimated from regression equations between fasted (18 h) live weight and these components, derived from a group of twenty-three comparable lambs. The final energy, fat and protein content of the test lambs was determined directly by chemical analyses.

3. The metabolizable energy (ME) content of the diets was derived at each plane of nutrition from measured faecal and urinary losses and estimated methane losses. The depression in ME content with grinding and pelleting the dried lucerne was small (CL 8.69 MJ/kg dry matter (DM), PL 8.42 MJ/kg DM).

4. The efficiency of utilization of the ME of the dried lucerne for growth and fattening was higher (P < 0.01) when given in the ground pelleted form (0.533), than in the chopped form (0.284). The net energy value of the PL (3.5 MJ/kg DM) was higher than that of CL (2.2 MJ/kg DM).

5. Thus lambs fed on PL grew faster and had a higher caracass weight gain, carcass protein and fat retention than lambs fed on CL. The composition of the carcass was not altered by the physical processing treatment.

6. Digestion studies with these same CL and PL diets had shown that grinding and pelleting depressed digestion in the forestomachs and increased digestion in the small intestine compared with the chopped form. The increased efficiency of utilization of the gross energy and ME and the higher net energy value of PL was attributed primarily to a change in the site of digestion within the alimentary tract. Associated with this change was a higher value for absorbed amino acids : absorbed energy and an increased apparent absorption of methionine for lambs fed on PL. The difference in the energy costs of eating and ruminating the CL and PL was small.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 1979 , pp. 297 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

American Society of Agricultural Engineers (1967). Am. Soc.agric. Engrs. p. 301.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1969). Oficial Methods ofAnalysis. 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1969). Proc. 3rd gen. Mtg eur. Crassld Fedr. Braunschweig p. 245.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Broster, W. H., Rook, J. A. F. & Tuck, V. J. (1965). J. Dairy Res. 32, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Coehlo de Silva, J. F., Prescott, J. H. D. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Harrison, D. G. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 86A.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L. & Tribe, D. E. (1973). Aust. J. agric. Res. 24, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K.L. (1974). In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, p. 3 [Swan, H. and Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Clapperton, J. L. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1956). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 47, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coehlo da Silva, J. F., Seeley, R. C., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). J. Nutr. 15, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. & Journet, M. (1967). Annls Zootech. 16, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennessy, P. F., Woodlock, M. R. & Jagusch, K. T. (1972). N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 15, 795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Fries, J. A. & Braman, W. W. (1925). J. agric. Res. 31, 987.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1961). Research Techniques in use at the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Bull. 45 Commonw. Bur. Past, Fld. Crops, Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Wainman, F. W. (1972). Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. x, 6.Google Scholar
Hinders, R. G. & Owen, F. G. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. (1968). A study of some factors influencing the intake of solid food by young calves. Ph D Thesis, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1967). Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1861). Jl. R. agric. Soc. 21, 1.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Gaskill, R. L., Stoewsand, G. S. & Weir, W. C. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, R. (1965). Herbage digestibility and animal production. Ph D Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (1975). tech. Bull. no. 33.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osuji, P. O., Gordon, J. G. & Webster, A. J. F. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paladines, O. L., Reid, J. T., Van Niekerk, B. D. H. & Bensadoun, A. (1964). J. Nutr. 83, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. S., Wainman, F. W. & Dewey, P. J. S. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 97A.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1963). Publ. Eur. Ass. Anim. Proc. no. 11, p. 319.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1968). The utilization of herbage diets by growing sheep. Ph D Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J. & Beever, D. E. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 66A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Coehlo da Silva, J. F. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomnson, D. J. & Cammell, S. B. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 88A.Google Scholar
Treacher, T. T. & Penning, P. D. (1971). Outl. Agric. 6, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermorel, M., Bouvier, J. C. & Demarquilly, C. (1974). Publ. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 14, p. 213.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Blaxter, K. L. & Smith, J. S. (1972). J. agric. Sci. Camb. 78, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar