Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T04:38:26.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritive value of willow (Salix sp.) for sheep, goats and deer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Sharon M. McCabe  and
T. N. Barry
Sharon M. McCabe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Voluntary intake and apparent digestibility of tree willow (Salix matsudana Χ alba) and of osier willow (Salix viminalis) were measured with male sheep and goats and voluntary intake only with male deer. Both willow species had been selected for extremely rapid growth, and were grown in coppices on high fertility soil. In a first experiment spring primary growth of both willows was fed to sheep, goats and deer in early summer, whilst in a second experiment summer regrowth (i.e. secondary growth) of osier willow was fed to sheep and goats in autumn.

Although the ratio of readily fermentable to structural carbohydrate (0·51–0·70) and total N concentration (18–24 g/kg D.M.) in primary growth of the willows was less than normally found in high quality fresh temperate forages, the values were similar to those of many dried forages normally used as supplements. Averaged over sheep and goats, voluntary intake of digestible D.M. was 22% less for osier than for tree willow, this being associated with higher concentrations of lignin (197 ν 182 g/kg D.M.) and of condensed tannin (66 ν 29 g/kg D.M.) in the osier willow. The lower digestible dry-matter intake was attributable to both lower voluntary intakes and lower digestibility of the D.M. (0·57 ν 0·64). Both voluntary intake and apparent digestibility of secondary growth willow were lower than that of primary growth.

When expressed as functions of the amount required for maintenance, voluntary metabolizable energy intake of goats was approximately double that of sheep, both for primary growth (2·2 ν 1·1) and for secondary growth (1·8 ν. 0·7) willow. This was attributable to consistently higher voluntary D.M. intakes/kg W0'6 by goats, and to a trend for higher digestibility than sheep, which attained significance in Expt 2but not in Expt 1. The ratios of dry-matter intake/kg W075 per day for sheep: deer: goats fed primary growth willow were 1·0:1·5:1·9, with deer thus being intermediate between the other two species. There were no differences in voluntary intake (g/kg W0·75 per day) of sheep, goats and deer fed a high quality lucerne hay.

It was concluded that willows grown during spring and summer could adequately be used as supplementary feed during summer droughts and that willow could be used most effectively if fed to goats, followed by deer, with sheep being the least efficient. Tree willow is a preferred choice to the osier willow used here, and it was further concluded that like Lotus pedunculatus, high concentrations of lignin and condensed tannin, both of which are produced by the same biochemical pathway, are likely to be limiting nutritive value of the more leafy osier willow.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alam, M. R., Poppi, D. P. & Sykes, A. R. (1983). Intake, digestibility and retention time fo two forages by kids and lambs. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 43 119–121.Google Scholar
Alam, M. R., Poppi, D. P. & Sykes, A. R. (1985). Comparative intake of digestible organic matter and water by sheep and goats. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 45, 107–111.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1967). Quantitative studies of ruminant digestion. 2. Loss of ingested plant carbohydrates from the reticulo-rumen. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 1. Voluntary intake. British Journal of Nutrition 51, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, T. N.& Manley, T. R. (1984). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 2. Quantititative digestion of carbohydrates and proteins. British Journal of Nutrition 51, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Manley, T. R. (1986). Interrelationships between the concentrations of total condensed tannin, free condensed tannin and lignin in Lotussp. and their possible consequences in ruminant nutrition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37, 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). Quantitative digestion by sheep of carbohydrates, nitrogen and SMCO in diets of fresh kale. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. & Duncan, S. J. (1986). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatusfor sheep. 4. Sites of carbohydrate and protein digestion as influenced by dietary rective tannin concentration. British Journal of Nutrition 55, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, R. B. & Jones, W. T. (1978). Analysis of condensed tannins using acidified vanillin. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 788–794.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. T., Egan, J. K. & Thalen, A. J. (1984). Intake, digestion, and nitrogen and sulphur retention in Angora goats and Merino sheep fed herbage diets. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 24, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennessy, P. F., Moore, G. H. & Corson, I. D. (1981). Energy requirements of red deer. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41, 167–173.Google Scholar
Gamble, A. W. & MacIntosh, J. B. (1981). A comparison of digestion in goats and sheep of similar liveweights. Animal Production in Australia 14, 652.Google Scholar
Gihad, E. A., El-Bedawy, T. M. & Mehrez, A. Z. (1980). Fibre digestibility by goats and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1701–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, C. W. & Moore, Y. F. (1981). Metabolisable energy required by feral goats for maintenance and the effects of cold climate conditions on their heat production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41, 163–166.Google Scholar
Howe, J. C., Barry, T. N. & Popay, I. A. (1988). Voluntary intake and digestion of gorse (Ule.x europaeus)by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1985). Body size, patterns of growth and efficiency of production in red deer. In Biology of Deer Production (ed. Fennessy, P. F. and Drew, K. R.). The Royal Society of New Zealand, Bulletin 22, 411–421.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. & Goodall, E. D. (1976). The intake, digestibility and retention time of roughage diets by red deer (Cervus elaphus)and sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 98A–99A.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. & Staines, B. W. (1981). The nutrition of the red deer (Cervus elaphus). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (B) 51, 601–622.Google Scholar
Leng, R. A. (1982). Modification of rumen fermentaton. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Product ion from Pastures (ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 427–453. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A. (1980). Comparative digestive physiology and metabolism of the red deer and the sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 40, 151–157.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., Macrae, J. A., Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swain, T. (1979). Tannins and lignins. In Herbivores: Their Interaction with Secondary Plant Metabolites (ed. Rosenthal, G. A. and Janzen, D. A.), pp. 657–682. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1986). Contribution of chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the reticulo-rumen. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants(ed. Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A.), pp. 498–515. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Macrae, J. C. (1974). Quantitative digestion of fresh herbage by sheep. 1. The site of digestion of organic matter, energy, readily fermentable carbohydrate, structural carbohydrate, and lipid. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Ulyatt, M. J., John, A. & Fisher, M. T. (1987). The effect of condensed tannins on the site of digestion of amino acids and other nutrients in sheep fed Lotus corniculatus. British Journal of Nutrition 57, 115–126.Google Scholar
Waite, R., Johnson, M. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. 1. The effect of stage of maturity on the apparent digestibility of ryegrass, cocksfoot and timothy. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 391–398.Google Scholar
Watson, C. & Norton, B. W. (1982). The utilisation of Pangola grass hay by sheep and Angora goats. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 467–470.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1985). The regulation of feed intake in herbage-fed ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 10, 55–62.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. D. (1977). The digestibility and voluntary intake of the leaves of trees and shrubs by sheep and goats. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 501–508.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. D., Leigh, J. H., Hindley, N. L. & Mulham, W. E. (1975). Comparison of the diets of goats and sheep on a Casuarina cristata-Heterodendrum olcifolium woodland community in Western New South Wales. Australian Journal of Experimen tal Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 15, 45–53.Google Scholar