Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:24:35.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-term ingestive behaviour of cattle grazing tropical stoloniferous grasses with contrasting growth forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2010

M. HIRATA ,
E. KUNIEDA  and
M. TOBISA
M. HIRATA*
Affiliation:
Division of Grassland Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki889-2192, Japan
E. KUNIEDA
Affiliation:
Division of Grassland Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki889-2192, Japan
M. TOBISA
Affiliation:
Division of Grassland Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki889-2192, Japan
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: m.hirata@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Relationships between sward height and short-term ingestive behaviour of cattle were examined for two tropical stoloniferous grasses with contrasting growth forms: centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack.; (CG); strongly prostrate) and bahia grass (Paspalum notatum Flügge; (BG); more erect). Turves (500×500 mm) were extracted from field monoculture swards of each grass after the varying duration of re-growth, and presented to animals for a short period (10 bites) to measure bite dimensions (area, depth and volume), bite mass, time per bite and intake rate. In the same re-growth period, CG was always shorter and denser than BG. Bite dimensions, the bite mass and the intake rate of animals increased at a declining rate as the sward height increased for both grasses, showing a tendency for a steeper initial increase, an earlier plateau and a lower maximum in CG than in BG. Due to the difference in the shape of the intake rate response, animals on BG were estimated to require a longer grazing time than those on CG to attain the same daily herbage intake, when the sward is shorter than about 200 mm. The sward height below which the daily intake of animals may be restricted was lower for CG (61–70 mm) than for BG (71–92 mm). The results indicate an advantage of strongly prostrated, highly dense grasses (e.g. CG) over more erect, less dense grasses (e.g. BG) when grazed at a relatively low height (<200 mm). In relation to increasing bite mass, the time per bite pooled over CG and BG was constant until the bite mass reached a critical value (0·55 g dry matter (DM)) and thereafter increased linearly with the bite mass, confirming that cattle are able to perform compound jaw movements that gather herbage into the mouth (manipulative jaw movement) and chew herbage already in the mouth (chewing jaw movement) within one cycle of opening and closing of the jaws.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 615 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

REFERENCES

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat (AFFRCS), MAFF (2000). Japanese Feeding Standard for Beef Cattle (2000). Tokyo: Japan Livestock Industry Association (in Japanese).Google Scholar
AOAC (1984). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 14th edn. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. W. & Dudzinski, M. L. (1978). Ethology of Free-Ranging Domestic Animals. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beard, J. B. (1973). Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Benvenutti, M. A., Gordon, I. J. & Poppi, D. P. (2006). The effect of the density and physical properties of grass stems on the foraging behaviour and instantaneous intake rate by cattle grazing an artificial reproductive tropical sward. Grass and Forage Science 61, 272–281.Google Scholar
Bergman, C. M., Fryxell, J. M., Gates, C. C. & Fortin, D. (2001). Ungulate foraging strategies: energy maximizing or time minimizing? Journal of Animal Ecology 70, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L. & Kenney, P. A. (1984). Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. II. Height and density of pasture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 565–578.Google Scholar
Burlison, A. J., Hodgson, J. & Illius, A. W. (1991). Sward canopy structure and the bite dimensions and bite weight of grazing sheep. Grass and Forage Science 46, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, I. A., Laidlaw, A. S., Brereton, A. J., McGilloway, D. A. & Watson, S. (2004). The effect of bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing microswards in the field. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 142, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cid, M. S. & Brizuela, M. A. (1998). Heterogeneity in tall fescue pastures created and sustained by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 51, 644–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, C. T., Bradley, N. W., Cornelius, P. L. & Lauriault, L. M. (1989). Short-term fasts and the ingestive behaviour of grazing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 44, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drescher, M., Heitkönig, I. M. A., Raats, J. G. & Prins, H. H. T. (2006). The role of grass stems as structural foraging deterrents and their effects on the foraging behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B., Petit, M. & D'hour, P. (1995). Choice of sheep and cattle between vegetative and reproductive cocksfoot patches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, E. R., Laca, E. A., Griggs, T. C. & Demment, M. W. (1993). Sward height and vertical morphological differentiation determine cattle bite dimensions. Agronomy Journal 85, 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. F. & Broom, D. M. (1997). Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Ginnett, T. F., Dankosky, J. A., Deo, G. & Demment, M. W. (1999). Patch depression in grazers: the roles of biomass distribution and residual stems. Functional Ecology 13, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Hodgson, J., Lambert, M. G. & Gordon, I. L. (1996 a). Short-term ingestive behaviour of sheep and goats grazing grasses and legumes. 1. Comparison of bite weight, bite rate, and bite dimensions for forages at two stages of maturity. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Lambert, M. G. & Hodgson, J. (1996 b). Effects of contrasting sward heights within forage species on short-term ingestive behaviour of sheep and goats grazing grasses and legumes. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goto, I. & Minson, D. J. (1977). Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin-cellulase assay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, G. B. & Demment, M. W. (1988). The effect of fasting on short-term cattle grazing behaviour. Grass and Forage Science 43, 377–386.Google Scholar
Hirata, M., Ogura, S., Hasegawa, H. & Maćešić, D. (2007). Effect of herbage mass on the selection and use by cattle of fine-scale locations in a progressively grazed tropical grass pasture. Grassland Science 53, 226–239.Google Scholar
Hirata, M., Islam, M. A., Harada, E., Furuya, M. & Sakou, A. (2008 a). Sward structure and herbage quality, production and utilisation of adjacent monocultures of centipede grass and bahia grass grazed by cattle. Tropical Grasslands 42, 202–213.Google Scholar
Hirata, M., Sakou, A., Terayama, Y., Furuya, M. & Nanba, T. (2008 b). Selection of feeding areas by cattle in a spatially heterogeneous environment: selection between two tropical grasses. Journal of Ethology 26, 327–338.Google Scholar
Hirata, M., Yamamoto, K. & Tobisa, M. (2010 a). Selection of feeding areas by cattle in a spatially heterogeneous environment: selection between two tropical grasses differing in accessibility and abiotic environment. Journal of Ethology 28, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirata, M., Nakayama, Y. & Tobisa, M. (2010 b). Interindividual variability in feeding station behavior in cattle: a preliminary study. Grassland Science 56, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, M. A. & Hirata, M. (2005). Centipedegrass (Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack.): growth behavior and multipurpose usages. Grassland Science 51, 183–190.Google Scholar
Laca, E. A., Ungar, E. D., Seligman, N. & Demment, M. W. (1992). Effects of sward height and bulk density on bite dimensions of cattle grazing homogeneous swards. Grass and Forage Science 47, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, E. A., Ungar, E. D. & Demment, M. W. (1994). Mechanisms of handling time and intake rate of a large mammalian grazer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 3–19.Google Scholar
McCusker, A. (2002). Structure and variation in the grass plant. In Flora of Australia. Volume 43, Poaceae 1: Introduction and Atlas (Eds Mallett, K. & Orchard, A. E.), pp. 213–244. Melbourne, Australia: ABRS/CSIRO.Google Scholar
McNaughton, S. J. (1984). Grazing lawns: Animals in herds, plant form, and coevolution. American Naturalist 124, 863–886.Google Scholar
Moser, L. E., Burson, B. L. & Sollenberger, L. E. (Eds) ( 2004). Warm-Season (C4) Grasses. Agronomy Monograph No. 45. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Naujeck, A. & Hill, J. (2003). Influence of sward height on bite dimensions of horses. Animal Science 77, 95–100.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. M., McGilloway, D. A., Cushnahan, A., Mayne, C. S. & Laidlaw, A. S. (1998). Effect of duration of fasting period on short-term intake rates of lactating dairy cows. Animal Science 66, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skerman, P. J. & Riveros, F. (1989). Tropical Grasses. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Stobbs, T. H. (1975). Factors limiting the nutritional value of grazed tropical pastures for beef and milk production. Tropical Grasslands 9, 141–150.Google Scholar
Ungar, E. D. (1996). Ingestive behaviour. In The Ecology and Management of Grazing Systems (Eds Hodgson, J. & Illius, A. W.), pp. 185–218. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Ungar, E. D., Ravid, N., Zada, T., Ben-Moshe, E., Yonatan, R., Baram, H. & Genizi, A. (2006). The implications of compound chew–bite jaw movements for bite rate in grazing cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 183–195.Google Scholar
Vallentine, J. F. (1990). Grazing Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilmshurst, J. F., Fryxell, J. M. & Hudson, R. J. (1995). Forage quality and patch choice by wapiti (Cervus elaphus). Behavioral Ecology 6, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar