Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:53:36.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of maturity and leafiness on the intake and digestibility of alfalfas and grasses fed to sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. E. Troelsen  and
J. B. Campbell
J. E. Troelsen
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Swift Current, Saskatchewan
J. B. Campbell
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Swift Current, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of maturity on the nutritional quality of hay from two alfalfa varieties and four grass species was studied. Each hay was harvested at six different stages of growth, chopped in 4–6 cm lengths, and fed to sheep in quantities of 10% in excess of voluntary intake. The relationship between intake (Y) and digestibility (X) of dry matter was best expressed by regressions of the form: Y = a + b1X + b2X2. The rate of intake declined 1·5 g daily per kg0·75 of body weight per unit decrease in digestibility percentage, and was the same for both alfalfa and grass hays. However, the intake of alfalfa hay was about 10% higher than that of the grass hays of similar digestibility. No differences in the relationship between intake and digestibility (P < 0·05) were observed between the two alfalfa varieties or between the four grass species. When the nutritional quality was expressed as voluntary intake of digestible organic matter daily per kg0·75 of body weight, and time of harvest as day-number of the year, the difference in quality between the six kinds of hay was very small or absent at the beginning of the season (immature to prebloom) and increased toward maturity (dough stage to seed ripe). The decline in quality of alfalfa hay was slower than that of grass hay, and ceased at the mature to overripe stage. On the average, voluntary intake of digestible organic matter declined 0·29 g daily for each day delay in harvest time; this decline varied from 1·2% of the daily intake of digestible organic matter in the beginning of the season to 0·6% at the mature stage. Time of harvest ‘accounted for’ 77–89% of the variation in the quality of the hays. The confounded effect of maturity and leanness on the nutritional quality of the hays was expressed best by concave, second degree polynomial regressions. On the average a unit decline in percent leaves corresponded to a decline of 0·58 g and 0·73 g respectively in the daily intake of digestible organic matter from alfalfa and grass hay. This varied from over 1 g early in the season to less than one tenth of a gram late in the season. The confounded effect of leafiness and growth stage ‘accounted for’ over 75% of the variability in nutritional quality. The relationship between intake and digestibility of the alfalfa and grass hays was used to illustrate how voluntary intake of metabolizable energy (percent of requirement for maintenance) from hay of pure or mixed species may be predicted from in vitro digestibility.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1969 , pp. 145 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

A.R.C. (1905). Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Beaumont, A. B., Stitt, R. E. & Snell, R. S. (1933). Some factors affecting the palatability of pasture plants. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 25, 123–8.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). The regulation of food intake by sheep. Anim. Prod. 3, 51–61.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wilson, R. S. (1962). The voluntary intake of roughages by steers. Anim. Prod. 4, 351–61.Google Scholar
Boss, R. C., Clatworthy, W. H. & Shrinkhande, S. S. (1953). Tables of partially balanced designs with two associate classes. Tech. Bull. N. Carol. agric. Exp. Stn No. 107.Google Scholar
Breirem, K., Homb, T., Presthegge, K. & Ulvesli, O. (1959). Some results from 15 years research on grassland products in the feeding of ruminants. Meld. Norg. Landbr Hogsk. 38, No. 9.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. & Hibbs, J. W. (1964). Regulation of feed intake in dairy cows. I. Changes in the importance of physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibility. J. Dairy Sri. 47, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P. & Reid, G. W. (1963). Effects of season on growth and digestibility of herbage on intake of grazing dairy cows. Anim, Prod. 5, 119–29.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1957). Interrelations between digestible nutrient and energy content, voluntary dry matter intake, and the overall feeding value of forages. J. Anim. Sci. 16, 546–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Runcie, K. V. (1962). The herbage intake and milk production of strip and zero grazed dairy cows. J. agric. Sri., Camb. 59, 95–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaney, D. P. & Pigden, W. J. (1963). Interrelationships and conversion factors between expressions of the digestible energy value of forages. J. Anim. Sci. 22, 956–60.Google Scholar
Heaney, D. P., Pritchard, G. I. & Pigden, W. J. (1968). Variability in ad libitum forage intakes by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 27, 159–64.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, D. H. & Bolton, J. L. (1958). Rambler alfalfa. Publs. Dep. Agric. Can. No. 1030.Google Scholar
Krvimäe, A. (1965). Timotejhöets sammansättning och smältbarhet vid främskridende skördestadier. Lantbr. Högsk. Meddn Serie A. Nr. 37.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. & Heinrichs, D. H. (1966). Russian wild ryegrass for western Canada. Publs Dep. Agric. Can. No. 991.Google Scholar
Macdonald, H. A. (1946). Factors affecting the nutritional value of forage plants. Agric. Engng. 27, 117–20.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. & Harris, C. E. (1960). Studies in the digestibility of herbage. VIII. The digestibility of S37 cocksfoot, S23 ryegrass and S24 ryegrass. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 15, 174–80.Google Scholar
Mott, G. O. (1959). Symposium on forage evaluation. IV. Animal variation and measurement of forage quality. Agron. J. 51, 223–6.Google Scholar
Mowat, D. N., Fulkerson, R. S., Tossell, W. E. & Winch, J. E. (1965). The in vitro digestibility and protein content of leaf and stem portions of forages. Can. J. Pl. Sci. 45, 321–31.Google Scholar
N.A.S.-N.R.C. (1964). Joint United States-Canadian Tables of Feed Composition. Pub. no. 1232. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Thomson, D. J. & Terry, R. A. (1966). The relationship between voluntary intake and digestibility of forage crops, using sheep. Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr. Helsinki, pp. 363–7.Google Scholar
Ostle, B. (1954). Statistics in Research, ch. 6. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Harris, C. E. & Harkeb, V. G. (1953). Studies on the digestibility of herbage. I. Technique of measurement of digestibility and some observations on factors affecting the accuracy of digestibility data. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 8, 301–14.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Kennedy, W. K., Turk, K. L., Slack, S. T., Trimberger, G. W. & Murphy, R. P. (1959). Symposium on forage evaluation. I. What is forage quality from the animal standpoint? Agron. J. 51, 213–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, D. E. & Hawk, V. (1945). Palatability for sheep and yield of hay and pasture from grasses at Union, Oregon. Bull. Ore. agric. Exp. Stn No. 431, p. 52.Google Scholar
Rogler, G. A. (1944). Relative palatability of grasses under cultivation on the northern great plains. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 36, 487–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smillie, K. W. (1966). An Introduction to Regression and Correlation. Toronto: The Ryerson Press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods. 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. (1965). Digestibility of the separate leaf and stem fractions of alfalfa hay. Forage Notes 11, 51–2.Google Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. & Bell, J. M. (1968). The effect of fermentation time in the artificial rumen on the relationship of in vitro digestibility to digestibility and intake of hay by sheep. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 48, 361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. & Bigsby, F. W. (1964). Artificial mastication—a new approach for predicting voluntary forage consumption by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 23, 1139–42.Google Scholar
Troelsen, J. E. & Campbell, J. B. (1968). Voluntary consumption of forage by sheep and its relation to the size and shape of particles in the digestive tract. Anim. Prod. 10, 289–96.Google Scholar
Waite, R. & Sastry, K. N. S. (1949). The composition of Timothy (Phleum pratense) and some other grasses during seasonal growth. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 17, 179–87.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1952). Chemical and physical changes in forage following cutting that influence their character and feeding values, and factors that influence these changes. Proc. 6th int. Grassld Congr. State College, Pa.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1935). Nutritive value of lucerne. IV. The Leaf-Stem ratio. J. agric. Sri., Camb. 25, 578–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar