Feeding behavior and dry matter digestibility in sheep fed first and second cut reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.)

DOI: 10.18805/ijar.B-995    | Article Id: B-995 | Page : 327-330
Citation :- Feeding behavior and dry matter digestibility in sheep fed first and second cut reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.).Indian Journal Of Animal Research.2020.(54):327-330
N. Tokita, I. Yoshimura and T. Tokita tokitan@nvlu.ac.jp
Address : Department of Animal Science, Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo 180-8602, Japan.
Submitted Date : 4-06-2018
Accepted Date : 4-03-2019

Abstract

We investigated the intake and digestibility of different reed canarygrass (RCG) growth stages by sheep. RCG was cultivated in an experimental field and harvested at the first and second cuts at each pre-blooming stage. Feeding behavior was monitored on adult female sheep, fed 3 kg each of fresh RCG three times daily. While the crude protein content and dry matter digestibility of RCG were significantly higher in leaf than in stem tissue of both first and second cut in harvesting times, neutral and acid detergent fiber contents were higher in stem than in leaf. The dry matter intake of RCG at the second cut (296.1g) was significantly higher than at the first cut (214.1 g). The eating time for consumption of RCG on dry matter at the second cut (54.9 min) was shorter than at the first cut (69.4 min). Consequently, at the second cut, the rate of biting (54.6 bites/min) was lower than at the first cut (64.8 bites/min). Bite size, expressed as dry matter intake per bite, ranged from 0.05 g at first cut to 0.10 g at second cut.

Keywords

Chemical composition Digestibility Feeding behavior Reed canary grass Sheep.

References

  1. AOAC. (1984). Official Methods of Analysis. 12th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
  2. Goering, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J. (1970). Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). In: Agriculture Handbook (Eds. USDA). US Government printing office, Washington, D.C., USA. No. 379. pp. 1-20.
  3. Kaur, J., Thakur, S.S. and Mahendra, S. (2017). Nutritional value of Phalaris minor seeds and its comparison with conventional cereal grains for livestock feeding. Indian. J. Anim. Res., 51: 887-891.
  4. Minson, D.J. (1990). Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. Academic Press, London, UK.
  5. Nakanishi, Y., Shimojo, M., Tokita, N. and Goto, I. (1987). Selective grazing of goats on Siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) pasture. J. Jpn. Soc. Grassl. Sci., 33: 44-49. (In Japanese with English summary)
  6. Playne, M.J. (1978). Estimation of the digestibility of low-quality hays by cattle from measurements made with sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 3: 50-55.
  7. Poppi, D.P., Hendricksen, R.E. and Minson, D.J. (1985). The relative resistance to escape of leaf and stem particles from the rumen of cattle and sheep. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 105: 9-14.
  8. Ramirez-Lozano, R., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, H. and Ledezma-Torres, R. (2018). Nutritional evaluation of Senegalia greggii and Prosopis juliflora as browse supplements for sheep. Indian. J. Anim. Res., 52: 1304-1308.
  9. Sayar, A.M., Pannu, M.S., Ovais, A. and Nazam, K. (2014). In sacco degradability of wheat straw treated with urea and fibrolytic enzymes. Indian. J. Anim. Res., 48: 21-26.
  10. Sheaffer, C.C. and Marten, G.C. (1995). Reed canarygrass. In: Forages, 5th Ed. (Eds. R.F. Barnes, D.A. Miller and C.J. Nelson). Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA. pp. 335-343.
  11. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1989). Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Iowa State University, Iowa, USA.
  12. Tokita, N., Yokoyama, T., Makita, N., Hatori, M., Yoshimura, I. and Konno, T. (2001). Growth characteristics and nutritional value of the various parts of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). J. Jpn. Soc. Grassl. Sci., 47: 56-61. (In Japanese with English synopsis)

Global Footprints