Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:42:16.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of ammonia treatment or protein supplementation on rumination behaviour in sheep given barley straw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. O. Mawuenyegah ,
L. Warly ,
T. Harumoto  and
T. Fujihara
P. O. Mawuenyegah
Affiliation:
Shimane University, Faculty of Agriculture, Matśue, Shimane 690, Japan
L. Warly
Affiliation:
Shimane University, Faculty of Agriculture, Matśue, Shimane 690, Japan
T. Harumoto
Affiliation:
Shimane University, Faculty of Agriculture, Matśue, Shimane 690, Japan
T. Fujihara
Affiliation:
Shimane University, Faculty of Agriculture, Matśue, Shimane 690, Japan
Get access

Abstract

A study was conducted to compare the effects of ammoniation and protein supplementation of barley straw on rumination behaviour of sheep. Four wethers were allocated to four diets offered ad libitum in a 4 × 4 Latin-square design. The diets were, untreated barley straw + molasses meal (diet 1), untreated barley straw + soya-bean meal + molasses meal (diet 2), ammonia-treated barley straw + molasses meal (diet 3) and ammonia-treated barley straw + soya-bean meal + molasses meal (diet 4). Animals were kept in metabolism crates throughout each 16-day experimental period and allowed free access to water and a mineralized salt lick. The first 11 days of each period were for adaptation to the harnesses and diets while the last 5 days were used for rumination studies. Animals given diets 3 and 4 had slower eating rates compared with those given diets 1 and 2. Rumination index and duration of each rumination period was lower for sheep consuming diets 3 and 4 than for those on diets 1 and 2 but not significantly so (P > 0·05). Rumination time per 100 g neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) intake was significantly lower (P < 0·01) for diets containing ammoniated straw. Animals given ammoniated straw diets also regurgitated fewer boluses per unit NDF intake than did those on untreated straw diets. The results showed that increased intake and digestibility, which is usually associated with ammoniated straws, was due to sheep doing less work per unit of time to break down straw for digestion. In this way, potentially digestible tissues within a given amount of straw is more readily exposed. The foregoing suggests that ammonia treatment results in less rumination so that ruminants given ammonia-treated straw diets do less work ruminating.

Keywords

ammonia treatmentprotein supplementruminationsheepstraw
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , June 1997 , pp. 441 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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 and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis, 13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. and Balch, C. C. 1962. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 3. The effect of urea on the voluntary intake of oat straw. British Journal of Nutrition 16: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Boever, J. L., Andries, J. I., De Brabander, D. L., Cottyn, D. L. and Buysse, F. X. 1990. Chewing activity of ruminants as a measure of physical structure — a review of factors affecting it. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Remond, B. and Theriez, M. 1980. Ingestive behaviour and related activities in ruminants. In Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 103–122. M.T.P. Press Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujihara, T. 1980. The eating and rumination behaviour in sheep fed only grass diets in either the fresh or dried form. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 729–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujihara, T. and Nakao, T. 1984. The effect of casein supplement on the eating and rumination behaviour in sheep receiving a hay diet. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 55: 199–203.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural handbook number 379, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. G. 1955. Rumination in the sheep. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Harumoto, T. and Kato, M. 1978. Difference of eating and rumination behaviour between fresh grass and hay feeding in sheep. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shimane University, volume 12, pp. 20–25.Google Scholar
Harumoto, T. and Kato, M. 1979. Use of ruminating time as an index of the herbage intake by grazing animals. Journal of the Japan Society of Grassland Science 24: 233–238.Google Scholar
Luginbuhl, J. M., Pond, K. R., Burns, J. C. and Russ, J. C. 1989. Effects of ingestive mastication on particle dimensions and weight distribution of coastal bermudagrass hay fed to steers at four levels. Journal of Animal Science 67: 538–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeod, M. N. and Smith, B. R. 1989. Eating and ruminating behaviour in cattle given forages differing in fibre content. Animal Production 48: 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawuenyegah, P. O., Warly, L., Harumoto, T. and Fujihara, T. 1995. Rumination behaviour in sheep on low quality roughage diets. Proceedings of the international symposium on wild and domestic ruminants in extensive land use systems — satellite symposium to the VIIIISRP, Berlin, pp. 39–46.Google Scholar
Okine, E. K. and Mathison, G. W. 1991. Reticular contraction attributes and passage of digesta from the rumino-reticulum in cattle fed roughage diets. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2177–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C. and Akin, D. E. 1984. Ingestive mastication and fragmentation of forages. Journal of Animal Science 58: 1567–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics, fifth ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. and Kennedy, P. M. 1996. Plant and animal constraints to voluntary feed intake associated with fibre characteristics and particle breakdown and passage in ruminants. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47: 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorrilla-Rios, J., Owens, F. N., Horn, G. W. and McNew, R. W. 1985. Effect of ammoniation of wheat straw on performance and digestion kinetics in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 60: 814–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar