Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:38:52.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of previous experience of four pasture species on the grazing behaviour of ewes and their lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C.J.C. Phillips  and
M.Y.I. Youssef
C.J.C. Phillips
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Science, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
M.Y.I. Youssef
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Science, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
Get access

Abstract

Four groups of eight primiparous ewes and their single lambs were grazed for 2 weeks on pasture containing one of four novel grass species – perennial ryegrass, timothy, cocksfoot and red fescue. When subsequently grazed in a field with randomized plots of the four species, both ewes and lambs spent longer grazing the species to which they had been accustomed than was spent by ewes and lambs accustomed to other species. This effect was proportionately greater for the lambs than the ewes, and the lambs responded most to experience of cocksfoot and red fescue. Both ewes and lambs spent most time grazing perennial ryegrass and timothy, and least time grazing red fescue, with cocksfoot intermediate. It is concluded that perennial ryegrass and timothy are grazed by ewes and lambs in preference to cocksfoot and red fescue, but that a two week period of experience will increase the attractiveness of the less-preferred species, particularly to lambs.

Keywords

grassesgrazing behaviourlambssheep
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , October 2003 , pp. 329 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Arnold, G. W. 1962. The influence of several factors in determining the grazing behaviour of Border Leicester ✕ Merino sheep. Journal of the British Grassland Society 17: 41–51.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. W. and Hill, J. C. 1972. Chemical factors affecting the selection of food plants by grazing ruminants. In Phytochemical ecology (ed. Harborne, J. B.), pp. 71–101. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. W. and Maller, R. A. 1974. Some aspects of competition between sheep for supplementary feed. Animal Production 19: 309–314.Google Scholar
Barcsak, Z. 1994. Correlation between the palatability of grasses and their soluble sugar contents. Novenytermeles 43: 221–228.Google Scholar
Barthram, G. T. 1986. Experimental techniques: the HFRO sward stick. Biennial report, 1984–5. Hill Farming Research Organisation, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Kenney, P. A. and Colebrook, W. F. 1987. Diet selection by sheep. In Temperate pastures, their production, use and management (ed. Wheeler, J. L.). CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Cowlishaw, S. J. and Alder, F. E. 1960. The grazing selections of cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 54: 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganskopp, D. and Cruz, R. 1999. Selective differences between naive and experienced cattle foraging among eight grasses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 293–303.Google Scholar
Hazard, L., Moraes, A.de, Betin, M., Traineau, R. and Emile, J. C. 1998. Perennial ryegrass cultivar effects on intake of grazing sheep and feeding value. Annales de Zootechnie 47: 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J., Mackie, C. K. and Parker, J. W. G. 1986. Sward surface heights for efficient grazing. Grass Farmer 24: 5–10.Google Scholar
Jones, E. L. and Roberts, J. E. 1991. A note on the relationship between palatability and water-soluble carbohydrates content in perennial ryegrass. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 163–167.Google Scholar
Kilgour, R. 1978. The application of animal behaviour and the humane care of farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 46: 1478–1486.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1985. Genstat version 5. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Martin, J. H., Phillips, C. J. C. and Alcock, M. B. A. 1991. Supplementary forage for grazing sheep. 1. Effects on lactating ewes and lambs. Grass and Forage Science 46: 209–216.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., Spence, A. M., McCormack, H. A., Lamb, C. S. and Dove, H. 1984. The amount and type of supplement to feed to ewes in relation to pasture supply in early lactation. Biennial report 1982-83. Hill Farming Research Organisation, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Mirza, S. N. and Provenza, F. D. 1992. Effects of age and conditions of exposure on maternally mediated food selection by lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 35–42.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C., Youssef, M. Y. I. and Chiy, P. C. 1999. The effect of introducing timothy, cocksfoot and red fescue into a perennial ryegrass sward and the application of sodium fertilizer on the behaviour of male and female cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 215–226.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. and Balph, D. F. 1987. Diet learning by domestic ruminants: theory, evidence and practical implications. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 211–232.Google Scholar
Ramos, A. and Tennessen, T. 1992. Effects of previous grazing experience on the grazing behaviour of lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 43–52.Google Scholar
Ridder, N.de, Benjamin, R. W. and Keulan, H. van. 1986. Forage selection and performance of sheep grazing dry annual range. Journal of Arid Environments 10: 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalba, J. J. and Provenza, F. D. 2000. Postingestive feedback from starch influences the ingestive behaviour of sheep consuming wheat straw. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 49–63.Google Scholar