Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:46:38.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comminution of roughages by red deer (Cervus elaphus) during the prehension of feed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. McL. Dryden ,
K. J. Stafford ,
G. C. Waghorn  and
T. N. Barry
G. McL. Dryden
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
K. J. Stafford
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
Ag Research Grasslands, 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

The chewing behaviour of red deer (Cervus elaphus) during eating and the effectiveness of chewing on feed comminution was studied in two experiments. In Expt 1, deer were fed long or chopped lucerne (Medicago sativa) hay, and feed intake and chewing activity were recorded. In Expt 2, the rumen was emptied and test meals of fresh chicory (Cichorium intybus cv. Puna), lotus (Lotus corniculatus cv. Grasslands Goldie), ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Ruanui) forage and long lucerne hay were given, chewing activity recorded and the ingested forage quantitatively removed from the rumen. In Expt 1, the chopped hay was eaten more quickly than long hay (11·4 v. 8·3 g dry matter/min), and required fewer chewing bites per g dry matter eaten. In Expt 2, the four forages were consumed at similar rates (mean 4·3 g organic matter/min) and there was no significant difference in the chewing required to consume either total organic matter (OM) or cell wall OM. Deer chewed more quickly when eating lucerne hay than when eating lotus, and it was estimated that a greater number of chewing bites were required to form a bolus of lucerne hay than to form a lotus bolus. The proportion of ingested OM which was comminuted so as to pass a 1 mm sieve (efficiency of chewing) was greater for lotus (0·485) and lucerne hay (0·.518) than for chicory (0·.267). The efficiency of chewing ryegrass (0·.366) was intermediate and not significantly different from any other forage. For all forages, the main effect of chewing during eating appeared to be the release of cell contents, rather than the comminution of cell wall. Physical breakdown to particles which passed a 1 mm screen but were retained on an 0·25 mm screen was low for fresh forages (0·074–0·086) but was slightly higher for lucerne hay (0·127). Deer reduced feed particle size during eating with a similar efficiency to sheep, but were less efficient than goats.

It is suggested that the chewing effort associated with forage consumption by red deer is related to the need to form a bolus. The amount of chewing may be as much influenced by the physical characteristics of the forage (e.g. leaf size and shape) as by its chemical composition, and the extent of comminution during eating may be determined by the processing needed to form a bolus and the resistance of the feed to bolus formation.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 407 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W., Wilson, P. R. & Barry, T. N. (1991 a). Comparative digestion in deer, goats and sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 45–53.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991 b). The efficiency of chewing during eating and ruminating in goats and sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulphy, J. P. & Michalet-Doreau, B. (1983). Comportement alimentaire et mérycique d'ovins et des bovins recevant des fourrages verts. Annales de Zootechnie 32, 465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. & Ely, L. O. (1979). A dynamic model of fiber digestion and passage in the ruminant for evaluating forage quality. Journal of Animal Science 49, 1085–1095.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.Google Scholar
Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C. & Akin, D. E. (1984). Ingestive mastication and fragmentation of forages. Journal of Animal Science 58, 1567–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 a). Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. I. The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time in the reticulo-rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 b). Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. III. The retention time in the rumen of large feed particles. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., John, A., Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C. & Milligan, L. P. (1979). Chewing and the physical breakdown of feed in sheep. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 10, 205–207.Google ScholarPubMed
Spalinger, D. E. (1986). The dynamics of forage digestion and passage in the rumen of mule deer and elk. Dissertation Abstracts International, B. Sciences and Engineering 46, 11, 2662B.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (1988). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Baldwin, R. L. & Koong, L. J. (1976). The basis of nutritive value – a modelling approach. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 36, 140–149.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Reid, C. S. W. & Carr, D. H. (1982). Effects of chewing during eating on particle size reduction and subsequent fermentation in sheep. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 42, 159.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 reticulorumen. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dobson, A.), pp. 498–515. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall constituents. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Journal 51, 780–785.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. (1986). Changes in rumen digesta of cows during a restricted feeding period when offered fresh red clover, lucerne, or lucerne hay. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & John, A. (1986). Feed comminution, particle composition and distribution between the four compartments of the stomach in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay at two feeding frequencies and intake levels. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 287–296.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Shelton, I. D. & Thomas, V. J. (1989). Particle breakdown and rumen digestion of fresh ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and lucerne (Medicago saliva L.) fed to cows during a restricted feeding period. British Journal of Nutrition 61, 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar