Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:08:35.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The feed intake of grazing sheep differing in age, breed, previous nutrition and live weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. P. Langlands
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Pastoral Research Laboratory, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia

Summary

Two flocks of Merino wethers ranging in age from 3 to 87 months grazed a poor (L) or high (H) quality pasture for 3 months. The flocks were then combined, and intake was estimated while the sheep grazed four different pastures in succession. In a second experiment, flocks of Merino, Border Leicester, Southdown and Dorset Horn ewes of varying ages grazed in succession six pastures on which intakes were estimated and live weights recorded. The digestibility of the diet selected, as estimated from the faecal nitrogen concentration, declined with age by 0·053 units per month in Exp. (2) and curvilinearly in Exp. (1). In both experiments faecal output of sheep of similar breed receiving similar treatments increased with age to approximately 3 years and declined thereafter. In neither experiment was there a significant allometric relationship between intake and live weight.

The intake of the L group was consistently greater than that of the H group when both groups grazed together. The differences were correlated with the quantity of green feed available. The faecal output of Dorset Horns, Merinos, Southdowns and Border Leicesters at 28·7 months of age was calculated to be 451, 402, 346 and 588 g per day respectively in Exp. (2). Mean digestibility of the diet selected estimated by the faecal nitrogen procedure was 65·1, 63·0, 64·7 and 64·5 units at 28·7 months for the Dorset Horns, Merinos, Southdowns and Border Leicesters respectively. Differences between breeds in faecal output and in the digestibility of the diet were significant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Allden, W. G. & Scott, Young R. (1964). The summer nutrition of weaner sheep: herbage intake following periods of differential nutrition. Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 9891000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W. (1966). Age, pasture conditions and the performance of grazing sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 6, 213–21.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. 6. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces. N.Z. Jl Sci. Tech. 36A, 328–30.Google Scholar
Hadjipieris, G., Jones, J. G. W. & Holmes, W. (1965). The effect of age and live weight on the feed intake of grazing wether sheep. Anim. Prod. 7, 309–17.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Jones, J. G. W. & Drake-Brockman, R. M. (1961). The feed intake of grazing cattle. II. The influence of size of animal on feed intake. Anim. Prod. 3, 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, K. J. (1967). A coring technique for the measurement of pasture of low availability to sheep. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22, 131–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambourne, L. J. & Reardon, T. F. (1963). The use of chromium oxide and faecal nitrogen concentration to estimate the pasture intake of Merino wethers. Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlands, J. P. (1962). Energy intake and its utilization for maintenance by the intensively grazed ruminant. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. (1967). Studies on the nutritive value of the diet selected by grazing sheep. II. Some sources of error when sampling oesophageally fistulated sheep at pasture. Anim. Prod. 9, 167–75.Google Scholar
Roe, R. (1947). Preliminary survey of the natural pastures of the New England District of New South Wales and a general discussion of their problems. Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Melb. no. 210, p. 26.Google Scholar