Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:07:17.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foraging behaviour and diet selection of free-ranging sheep and goats in the Negev Desert, Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2012

M. KAM ,
S. EL-MECCAWI  and
A. A. DEGEN
M. KAM*
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland Agriculture, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
S. EL-MECCAWI
Affiliation:
Research and Development of Negev Bedouin, P.O. Box 999, Hura 85730, Israel
A. A. DEGEN
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland Agriculture, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: mkam@bgu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The foraging behaviour and dietary selection of free-ranging Awassi sheep and Negev goats when shepherded in the Negev Desert was determined. Measurements were made for 9 weeks (W1–W9) from the beginning of February, following winter rains and emergence of annual plants, to the end of March, after the herbaceous vegetation dried up. Since sheep are grazers and goats are intermediate feeders, it was predicted that goats would browse more and consume proportionately more browse than sheep. These predictions were only partially supported. In fact, the foraging pattern was similar between sheep and goats (Mantel test, P<0·05) until W8 and only towards the end, at W9, did patterns differ significantly (Mantel test, P=0·214) between these two ruminants. There was no difference (P=0·575) between sheep and goats in foraging; however, a period effect was found (P<0·001). In February (W2), sheep and goats grazed 0·69 and 0·71 of the time allotted for foraging and neither species browsed. Browsing commenced only at the beginning of March (W4), when goats browsed 0·08 of the time and sheep 0·07 of the allotted time for foraging. The proportion of time spent browsing increased at the end of March (W9) when annuals disappeared, but the total time spent foraging decreased: goats browsed 0·29 and grazed 0·25, while sheep browsed 0·19 and grazed 0·26 of the time allotted for foraging. Goats increased the proportion of browse consumed gradually throughout the season, whereas sheep maintained a relatively higher proportion of herbaceous plants and only in late March (W8), at which time very little herbaceous plants were available, shifted abruptly to consume mainly browse. In W8, browse composed 0·85 of the dry matter (DM) intake in goats and 0·62 of the DM intake in sheep. A simultaneous analysis of foraging time allocation and relative diet composition revealed that both small ruminants were more efficient in consuming browse than herbaceous plants, more so in goats than sheep. It was concluded that vegetation availability and foraging habits affected dietary selection. Both sheep and goats only grazed when herbaceous plants were abundantly available; differences between ruminant species were apparent when herbaceous plants became scarcer, at which time goats browsed more and consumed proportionately more browse than sheep. The results contribute to better understanding of feeding behaviour and dietary selection of sheep and goats under natural desert pastures and could be useful in the management of mixed flocks.

Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 150 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 379 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Animut, G. & Goetsch, A. L. (2008). Co-grazing of sheep and goats: benefits and constraints. Small Ruminants Research 77, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC (1984). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th edn. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Becker, K. & Lohrmann, J. (1992). Feed selection by goats on tropical semi-humid rangeland. Small Ruminants Research 8, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosh, A., Henkin, Z., Rothman, S. J., Aharoni, Y., Orlov, A. & Arieli, A. (2003). Effects of faecal n-alkane recovery in estimates of diet composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 140, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celaya, R., Oliván, M., Ferreira, L. M. M., Martinez, A., Garcia, U. & Osoro, K. (2007). Comparison of grazing behaviour, dietary overlap and performance in non-lactating domestic ruminants on marginal heathland areas. Livestock Science 106, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cissé, M., Ly, I., Nianogo, A. J., Sane, I., Sawadogo, J. G., N'Diaye, M., Awad, C. & Fall, Y. (2002). Grazing behaviour and milk yield of Senegalese Sahel goat. Small Ruminant Research 43, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Becker, K., Makkar, H. P. S. & Borowy, N. (1995). Acacia saligna as a fodder tree for desert livestock and the interaction of its tannins with fibre fractions. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture 68, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Benjamin, R. W. & Hoorweg, J. C. (2000 a). Bedouin households and sheep production in the Negev Desert, Israel. Nomadic Peoples 4, 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Benjamin, R. W., Mishorr, T., Kam, M., Becker, K., Makkar, H. P. S. & Schwartz, H. J. (2000 b). Acacia saligna as a supplementary feed for grazing desert sheep and goats. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 135, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Benjamin, R. W., Abdraimov, S. A. & Sarbasov, T. I. (2002). Browse selection by karakul sheep in relation to plant composition and estimated metabolizable energy content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 139, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Kam, M., Pandey, S. B., Upreti, C. R., El-Meccawi, S. & Osti, N. P. (2010). In vitro gas production of leaves from fodder trees and shrubs from mid-hills of Nepal using cow, sheep and goat rumen liquor. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Mello, J. P. F. (1992). Chemical constraints in the use of tropical legumes in animal nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 38, 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, H. & Moore, A. D. (1995). Using a least-square optimization procedure to estimate botanical composition based on the alkanes of plant cuticular wax. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 46, 1535–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutilleul, P., Stockwell, J. D., Frigon, D. & Legendre, P. (2000). The Mantel test versus Pearson's correlation analysis: assessment of the differences for biological and environmental studies. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 5, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwert, C., Dove, H. & Rodehutscord, M. (2008). Faecal alkane recoveries from multi-component diets and effects on estimates of diet composition in sheep. Animal 2, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, R. R. (1989). Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landau, S., Dvash, L., Decandia, M., Cabiddu, A., Shapiro, F., Molle, G. & Silanikove, N. (2004). Determination of poly(ethylene glycol)-binding to browse foliage, as an assay of tannin, by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 52, 638–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Houérou, H. N. (1980). Planting and management methods for browse trees and shrubs. In Browse in Africa: the Current State of Knowledge (Ed. Le Houérou, H. N.), pp. 351–359. Paris, France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Lefroy, E. C., Dann, P. R., Wildin, J. H., Wesley-Smith, R. N. & McGowan, A. A. (1992). Trees and shrubs as sources of fodder in Australia. Agroforestry Systems 20, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, E. & Yogev, H. (2004). Statistical Yearbook of the Negev Bedouin. Beer Sheva, Israel: Negev Development Authority and Ben Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
Lindroth, R. L. (1988). Adaptations of mammalian herbivores to plant chemical defenses. In Chemical Mediation of Coevolution (Ed. Spencer, K. C.), pp. 415–445. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, J. & Fox, B. J. (1996). A review of the Mantel test in dietary studies: effect of sample size and inequality of sample sizes. Wildlife Research 23, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. (1993). Antinutritional factors in foods for livestock. In Animal Production in Developing Countries (Eds Gill, M., Owen, E., Pollott, G. E. & Lawrence, T. L. J.), pp. 69–85. Occasional Publication No. 16. Penicuik, UK: British Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Mantel, N. A. & Valand, R. S. (1970). A technique for non-parametric multivariate analysis. Biometrics 26, 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, C., Hagerman, A. E. & Robbins, C. T. (1991). Physiological strategies of mammalian herbivores against plant defenses. In Plant Defenses Against Mammalian Herbivory (Eds Palo, T. & Robbins, C. T.), pp. 103–114. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, C., Robbins, C. T., Hageman, A. E. & Hanley, T. A. (1993). Diet selection by ruminant generalist browser in relation to plant chemistry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 2236–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 217–222.Google Scholar
Menke, K. H. & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Ngwa, A. T., Pone, D. K. & Mafeni, J. M. (2000). Feed selection and dietary preferences of forage by small ruminants grazing natural pastures in the Sahelian zone of Cameroon. Animal Feed Science and Technology 88, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noy-Meir, I. & Seligman, N. G. (1979). Management of semi-arid ecosystems in Israel. In Management of Semi-arid Ecosystems (Ed. Walker, B. H.), pp. 113–160. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omphile, U. J., Aganga, A. A., Tshireletso, K. & Nkele, R. (2004). Foraging strategies of sheep and goats under semi-intensive management in Botswana. South African Journal of Animal Science 34 (Suppl. 1), 120–122.Google Scholar
Papachristou, T. G. (1997). Foraging behaviour of goats and sheep on Mediterranean kermes oak shrublands. Small Ruminant Research 24, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanon, H. O., Kaboré-Zoungrana, C. & Ledin, I. (2007). Behaviour of goats, sheep and cattle and their selection of browse species on natural pasture in a Sahelian area. Small Ruminant Research 67, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seim, V. & Holand, O. (1999). Factors Influencing Grazing Behaviour of Small and Large Ruminants at High Pastures in Basho Valley, Northern Pakistan. Aas, Norway: Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Available online at http://www.umb.no/statisk/akrsp/06_publications_and_presentations/01_articles_and_briefs/6_factors_influencing_grazing.pdf (verified 4 Dec 2011).Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd edn. New York: WH Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Tadmor, N. H., Brieghet, A., Noy-Meir, I., Benjamin, R. W. & Eyal, E. (1975). An evaluation of the calibrated weight-estimate method for measuring production in annual vegetation. Journal of Range Management 28, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Keulen, H., Seligman, N. G. & Benjamin, R. W. (1981). Simulation of water use and herbage growth in arid regions – a re-evaluation and further development of the model ‘ARID CROP.’ Agricultural Systems 6, 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, OR: OB Books.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber. Neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahed, R. A. & Owen, E. (1986). Comparison of sheep and goats under stall-feeding conditions: roughage intake and selection. Animal Production 42, 89–95.Google Scholar