Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T22:57:58.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The physical digestion of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and white clover (Trifolium repens) in the foregut of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Moseley  and
J. R. Jones
G. Moseley
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, S Y23 3EB, Wales
J. R. Jones
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, S Y23 3EB, Wales
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. Sheep were fed once daily with 300 or 600 g dried perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) or white clover (Trifolium repens). Total rumen contents were sampled once daily at various intervals up to 24 h after feeding for 6 d.

2. Total weight of fresh rumen contents and dry matter (DM), organic matter and particulate matter concentrations were measured and the particle size distribution of rumen contents was analysed using a wet sieving technique.

3. There was a similar exponential loss of DM from the rumen with time after feeding for both perennial ryegrass and white clover. The rate of DM disappearance during the first 3 h after feeding was ten times greater for the higher intake and seven times greater for the lower intake than during the subsequent 21 h. The percentage of particulate material disappearingduring the first 3 h was greater for white clover (57% )than for perennial ryegrass (49%).

4. Particle size distribution analysis of rumen contents showed that the most rapid rate of particle size reduction occurred during the first 3 h after feeding. Despite a rapid rate of breakdown there was no increase in the total weight of small particles in the rumen.

5. The rate of reduction in particle size during this period was greater for white clover than perennial ryegrass.

6. Microscopic examination of rumen particles showed a difference in particle geometry between white clover and perennial ryegrass which appeared to be related to anatomical features of the plant.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 381 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Bailey, R. W. (1967). New zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1958). British Journal of Nutrition 12, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 32, 669–686.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. L., Koong, L. J. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1977). Agricultural Systems 2, 255–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Black, J. L. & Faichney, G. J. (1980). Agricultural Systems 6, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L., Beever, D. E., Faichney, G. J., Howarth, B. R. & McGraham, N. (1980). Agricultural Systems 6, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, G. T. (1964). Journal of Experimental Botany 15, 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. M., Pearce, G. R., Burnett, J. & Pillinger, S. L. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 29, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M., Campling, R. C. & Balch, C. C. (1962). British Journal of Nutrition 16, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grenet, E. (1970). Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 10, 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. R. & Moseley, G. (1977). Laboratory Practice 26, 687–689.Google Scholar
Lees, G. L., Howarth, R. E. & Goplen, B. P. (1982). Canadian Journal of Botany 60, 2126–2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. T. & Juniper, B. E. (1970). The cuticles of plants, pp. 9, 73–75, 254. Edinburgh: R. R. Clark ltd.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. (1983). Grass and Forage Science 38, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1979). Research in Veterinary Science 27, 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. (1965). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. (1965 b). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prins, R. A. & Clark, R. T. J. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 179–204 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: Mtp press ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, P. V. & Joyce, J. P. (1970). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 778–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. W. S. (1963). Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 23, 169–188.Google Scholar
Reid, C. W. S., John, A., Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C. & Milligan, L. P. (1979). Annals de Recherches Veterinaires 10, 205–207.Google Scholar
Reid, C. W. S., Ulyatt, M. J. & Munro, J. A. (1977). Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 31, 173–175.Google Scholar
Sant, F. I. & Rhodes, I. (1970). Journal of the British Grassland Society 25, 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troelson, J. E. & Campbell, J. B. (1968). Animal Production 10, 289–296.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46, 825–828.Google Scholar
Van soest, P. J. (1963 b). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46, 829–835.Google Scholar