Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:58:05.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Particle breakdown and rumen digestion of fresh ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) fed to cows during a restricted feeding period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. C. Waghorn ,
I. D. Shelton  and
V. J. Thomas
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Division, DSIR, Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand
I. D. Shelton
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Division, DSIR, Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand
V. J. Thomas
Affiliation:
Applied Mathematics Division, DSIR, Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Five rumen-fistulated cows were given freshly cut ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and lucerne (Medicago sativa L.), on separate occasions, to compare rates of particle breakdown and aspects of rumen fermentation.

2. Cattle were required to consume their daily allowance (offered ad lib.) in two 2 h feeding periods daily.

3. During the first 2 h feeding period, dry matter (DM) intakes of ryegrass (4.75 kg) and lucerne (4.85 kg) were similar. Eating reduced 46% of ryegrass and 61 % of lucerne to a size able to pass a 2 mm sieve (P < 0.001). Rumen DM particles retained on the 2 and 4 mm sieves had a low probability of passage out of the rumen, and accounted for only 6 % of faecal DM with both feeds.

4. Ryegrass was cleared from the rumen more slowly than lucerne. During eating, rumen DM particles which could not pass the 2 mm sieve increased from 323 to 511 g/kg for ryegrass and from 201 to 389 g/kg for lucerne. The rate of particle size reduction for lucerne stem was similar to that for ryegrass.

5. When lucerne was eaten the increases in rumen volatile fatty acid (VFA) and ammonia concentrations were much greater than for ryegrass (P < 0.001). The proportions of plant chlorophyll released during eating were similar for both feeds (0.570 and 0.607), but 2 h after eating 22.3 g had been released from lucerne (79.1 %) compared with 15.0 g from ryegrass (63.8%). The flux of water from the rumen to the omasum was similar for ryegrass (10.2 litres/h) and lucerne (12.7 litres/h) during eating, but declined to 6.0 litres/h after eating with the lucerne diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , March 1989 , pp. 409 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1989

References

Arnon, D. I. (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Plant Physiology 24, 1–15.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Cowie, A. T. (1962) Permanent rumen fistulae in cattle. Cornell Veterinarian 52, 206–214.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Vant Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. N. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82; 470.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. T. J. & Reid, C. S. W. (1974) Foamy bloat of cattle. A Review. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 753–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H., Huffman, C. F., Kleiber, M., Olson, T. M. & Schalk, A. F. (1945) A review of bloat in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 4, 183–236.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1981). Turnover of small particles in the rumen. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61 Abstr., 1108.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. T. (1985). Fibre intake, digestion and flow rates in sheep. In Rumen Physiology – Concepts and Consequences, pp. 105–116 [Baker, S. K., Gawthorne, Gawthorne,, Mackintosh, J. M. J. B., Purser, D. B., editors]. Perth: University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Grenet, E. (1970) Taille et structure des particules végétales au niveau du feuillet et des fèces chez les bovins. Annals of Biology, Animal Biochemistry and Biophysics 10, 643–657.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1982). Digestion and utilization of proteins. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures, pp. 245–257 [J. B. Hacker, editor]. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. E., Cheng, K.-J., Majak, W. & Costerton, J. W. (1986). Ruminant bloat. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 516–527 [Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L., Dobson, A., editors]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. E., Goplen, B. P., Brandt, S. A. & Cheng, K.-J. (1982) Disruption of leaf tissues by rumen microorganisms: an approach to breeding bloat safe forage legumes. Crop Science, 22, 564–568.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. E., Sarkar, S. K., Fesser, A. C. & Schnarr, G. W. (1977) Some properties of soluble proteins from alfalfa (Medicago sativa) herbage and their possible relationship to ruminant bloat. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 25, 175–179.Google Scholar
Jones, W. T., Lyttleton, J. W. & Clarke, R. T. J. (1970) Bloat in cattle. XXXIII. The soluble proteins of legume forages in New Zealand, and their relationship to bloat. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 149–156.Google Scholar
Jones, W. T., Lyttleton, J. W. & Mangan, J. L. (1978) Interactions between Fraction 1 leaf protein and other surfactants involved in the bloat syndrome 1. Foam stabilising materials. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 401–407.Google Scholar
Kudo, H., Cheng, K.-J., Hanna, M. R., Howarth, R. E., Goplen, B. P. & Costerton, J. W. (1985) Ruminal digestion of alfalfa strains selected for slow and fast initial rates of digestion. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 157–161.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1981). Evaluation of the inductively-coupled argon plasma emission spectrometer during ‘bedding in’ and its performance in the analyses of biological materials. Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR Technical Report No. 3. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR.Google Scholar
Majak, W., Hall, J. W., Rode, L. M. & Kalnin, C. C. (1986) Rumen clearance rates in relation to the occurrence of alfalfa bloat in cattle. I. Passage of water soluble markers. Journal of Dairy Science, 69, 1560–1567.Google Scholar
Majak, W., Howarth, R. E. & Narasimhalu, P. (1985) Chlorophyll and protein levels in bovine rumen fluid in relation to alfalfa pasture bloat. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65, 147–156.Google Scholar
Mangan, J. L. (1982). The nitrogenous constituents of fresh forages. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production. British Society of Animal Production. Occasional Publication No. 6, pp. 25–40 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames Ditton: British Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Hendricksen, R. E. & Minson, D. J. (1985) The relative resistance to escape of leaf and stem particles from the rumen of cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 9–14.Google Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. & Hendricksen, R. E. (1980) The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., Lyttleton, J. W. & Mangan, J. L. (1962) Bloat in cattle. XXIV. A method of measuring the effectiveness of chewing in the release of plant cell contents from ingested feed. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 5, 237–248.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). The detergent system of analyses and its application to human foods. In Basic and Clinical Nutrition, Vol 3, pp. 123–158 [James, W. P. T., Theander, O., editors]. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Sant, F. I. & Wilson, D. (1982) Use of a cellulolytic enzyme digestion technique to distinguish bloat-causing from non-bloat-causing legumes and to select for speed of mesophyll cell-wall disintegration in red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 99–102.Google Scholar
Stifel, F. B., Vetter, R. L., Allen, R. S. & Horner, H. T. (1968) Chemical and ultrastructural relationships between alfalfa leaf chloroplasts and bloat. Phytochemistry 7, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukachi, R. & Hoshino, S. (1981) Microbial characteristics of ruminal fluid from feedlot bloat beef cattle. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 27, 145–155.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. & Campling, R. C. (1977) Comparisons of some factors affecting digestibility in sheep and cows. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 33–41.Google Scholar
Uden, P. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982) The determination of digesta particle size in some herbivores. Animal Feed Science and Technology 7, 35–44.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. (1981) The feeding value of herbage: can it be improved? New Zealand Agricultural Science 15, 200–205.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 rumino-reticulum. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 498–515 [Milligan, P. L., Grovum, W. L., Dobson, A., editors] Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C. (1986) Changes in rumen digesta of cows during a restricted eating period when fed fresh red clover, lucerne or lucerne hay. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 233–241.Google Scholar
Western, R. H. (1985) The regulation of feed intake in herbage-fed ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia 10, 55–62.Google Scholar