Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T04:30:18.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 3. Comparisons with four forage diets, and with rice straw supplemented with energy and protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. M. Kennedy
P. M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Division of Tropical Animal Production, CSIRO, PB3, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Intake and digestion by swamp buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) and crossbred cattle (Bos indicus × B. taunts) of a range of diets were measured in two experiments conducted in north Queensland in 1988. In Expt 1, four animals of each species were offered rice straw ad libitum with a supplement of minerals and urea. The four dietary treatments were (i) no concentrates, (ii)cracked rice grain (900 g/day), (iii) cracked rice grain (900 g/day) plus sunflower seed meal (900 g/day) and (iv) as for (iii) but with 50% of the sunflower seed meal treated with formaldehyde solution. In Expt 2, the same animals were offered two legumes, lablab (Lablab purpureus) and verano (Stylosanthes hamata cv. verano), and two grasses, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor × S. sudanense) and pangola grass (Digitaria eriantha). In Expt 1, voluntary intake of organic matter of buffaloes was 1·22 that of cattle. Concentrate supplementation increased organic matter digestibility and total intake, but did not affect straw intake. Intake of supplements by cattle was poor in the absence of sunflower seed meal. In Expt 2, intake and digestibility was similar in both species but was higher in animals given sorghum compared with the other forages. Total time spent chewing for both species and all diets ranged between 163 and 244 min/kg intake of plant cell wall constituents. The fractional rate of fluid flow from the reticulorumen and the concentration of propionic acid in the rumen fluid of buffaloes were consistently higher than in cattle in both experiments. Cotton and rice straw, placed in polyester bags in situ in the reticulorumen, were more extensively fermented in buffaloes than in cattle in Expt 1. In contrast, there were no differences between animal species in fermentation rates of cotton and ground diets in situ in Expt 2, but a relationship was observed between the relative fermentation of cotton and the relative digesta retention times in the reticulorumen in the two animal species. Microbial biomass, estimated as microbial dry matter per kg dry matter in the reticulorumen, was less (P < 0·05) in buffaloes than in cattle in Expt 1; higher concentrations of protozoa were observed in buffaloes than in cattle in Expt 2. Digesta load in the reticulorumen of buffaloes was c. 0·88 that of cattle. In Expt 1, digesta load was inversely related to digestible organic matter intake. The results were consistent with the hypothesis that energy metabolism and digesta load in the reticulorumen interact in the regulation of roughage intake, but it appeared that the lower loads measured in both species in Expt 2 indicated the operation of an unidentified limitation to intake.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 265 - 275
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

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Akin, D. E., Borneman, W. S. & Lyon, C. E. (1990). Degradation of leaf blades and stems by monocentric and polycentric isolates of ruminal fungi. Animal Feed Science and Technology 31, 205–221.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1970). Physical regulation of voluntary intake. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 226–234. Newcastleupon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. (1983). The utilisation of nutrients, feeding systems and nutrient requirements of swamp buffaloes. In Current Development and Problems in Swamp Buffalo Production (Ed. Shimizu, H.), pp. 73–106. Proceedings of the Preconference Symposium of the 5th World Congress on Animal Production. Ibaraki, Japan: University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Djajanegara, A. & Doyle, P. T. (1989). Urea supplementation compared with pretreatment. 1. Effects on intake, digestion and live-weight change by sheep fed a rice straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27, 17–30.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. (1980). Hormones and metabolites in the control of food intake. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Ruckebusch, Y. & Thivend, P.), pp. 145–160. Lancaster: MTP Press.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S. G. & Black, J. L. (1989). Influence of postrumen supply of nutrients on rumen digesta load and voluntary intake of roughage by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 589–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetsch, A. L., Forster, L. A. Jr, Murphy, G. E., Grant, E. W., Galloway, D. L. Sr, & West, C. P. (1990). Digestion and live-weight gain by beef cattle consuming bermudagrass supplemented with grain or different highprotein foodstuffs. Animal Production 51, 263–275.Google Scholar
Homma, H. (1986). Cellulase activities of bacteria in liquid and solid phases of the rumen digesta of buffaloes and cattle. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 57, 336–341.Google Scholar
Homma, H. & Chikamune, T. (1992). Ruminal liquid turnover rate and water absorption from the rumen wall in cattle and buffaloes. In Recent Advances in Animal Production: Proceedings of the Sixth AAAP Animal Science Congress, Vol. 3 (Eds Reodecha, C., Sangdid, S. & Bunyavejchewin, P.), p. 230. Bangkok, Thailand: The Animal Husbandry Association of Thailand.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1985). Effect of rumination on reduction of particle size of rumen digesta by cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 819–828.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1990). Digestion and passage of tropical forages in swamp buffaloes and cattle. In Domestic Buffalo Production in Asia, pp. 21–40. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1995). Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 4. Particle size and buoyancy in relation to voluntary intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124, 277–287.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., McSweeney, C. S., Ffoulkes, D., John, A., Schlink, A. C., Lefeuvre, R. P. & Kerr, J. D. (1992 a). Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 1. The digestion of rice straw (Oryza saliva). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119, 227–242.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Boniface, A. N., Liang, Z. J., Muller, D. & Murray, R. M. (1992 b). Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 2. The comparative response to urea supplements in animals fed tropical grasses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Gordon, G. L. R. & Hogan, J. P. (1993). Nutritional comparisons between cattle and buffaloes and implications for draught animal power. In Draught Animal Power in the Asian-Australasian Region (Ed. Pryor, W. J.), pp. 66–71. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
Kudo, H., Ho, Y. W., Abdullah, N., Jalaludin, S. & Cheng, K.-J. (1991). Rumen microflora and its significance to ruminant feeding in the tropics. In Utilization of Feed Resources in Relation to Nutrition and Physiology of Ruminants in the Tropics: Tropical Agriculture Research Series No. 25. Tsukuba, Japan: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. & Smith, B. R. (1989). Eating and ruminating behaviour in cattle given forages differing in fibre content. Animal Production 48, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1982). Effects of chemical and physical composition of herbage eaten upon intake. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures(Ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 167–182. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Moran, J. B. (1983). Rice bran as a supplement to elephant grass for cattle and buffalo in Indonesia. 1. Feed intake, utilization and growth rates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 709–716.Google Scholar
Moran, J. B., Satoto, K. B. & Dawson, J. E. (1983). The utilization of rice straw fed to Zebu cattle and swamp buffalo as influenced by alkali treatment and Leucaena supplementation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 73–84.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. R., Kennedy, P. M. & Welch, J. G. (1989). Passage and rumination of inert particles varying in size and specific gravity as determined from analysis of faecal appearance using multicompartment models. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neutze, S. A., Smith, R. L. & Forbes, W. A. (1993). Application of an inhibitor in vitro method for estimating rumen degradation of feed protein. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 251–265.Google Scholar
O'kelly, J. C. & Spiers, W. G. (1992). Possible contribution of protozoa to differences in rumen metabolism between cattle breeds. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 43, 1795–1808.Google Scholar
Pradhan, K., Bhatia, S. K. & Sangwan, D. C. (1991). Relative rumen ecosystem and nutrient digestibility in cattle and buffalo fed high fibrous diets. Technical Bulletin, Haryana Agricultural University, India.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, T. S. & Henry, R. J. (1990). Starch determination in horticultural plant material by an enzymiccolorimetric procedure. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 52, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, B. D. & Kennedy, P. M. (1972). The utilization of spear grass (Heteropogon contortus). I. Factors limiting intake and utilization by cattle and sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 35–44.Google Scholar
Soofi, R., Fahey, G. C. Jr, & Berger, L. L. (1983). Rate and extent of digestion of cotton thread and of dry matter and cell wall constituents of soybean stover, alfalfa and their blends and rumen characteristics of sheep fed these forages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, T. (1988). Particle separation in the forestomachs of sheep. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants (Eds Dobson, A. & Dobson, M. J.), pp. 43–73. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wanapat, M. (1989). Comparative aspects of digestive physiology and nutrition in buffaloes and cattle. In Ruminant Physiology and Nutrition in Asia (Eds Devendra, C. & Imaizumi, E.), pp. 27–43. Sendai, Japan: Japan Society of Zootechnical Science.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
Weston, R. H. & Davis, P. (1991). The significance of four forage characters as constraints to voluntary intake. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, p. 33. Penang, Malaysia: Malaysian Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H., Lindsay, J. R., Purser, D. B., Gordon, G. L. R. & Davis, P. (1988). Feed intake and digestion responses in sheep to the addition of inorganic sulfur to a herbage diet of low sulfur content. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 1107–1119.Google Scholar