Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T16:37:15.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ewes increase their intake when offered a choice of herbage species at pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. Cortes ,
J. C. Damasceno ,
J. Jamot  and
S. Prache
C. Cortes
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 St-Genès-Champanelle, France Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
J. C. Damasceno
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo, 5790, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
J. Jamot
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 St-Genès-Champanelle, France
S. Prache*
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, INRA Clermont-Ferrand/Theix, 63122 St-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
†E-mail: prache@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

In stall-feeding conditions, food diversity has been shown to increase an animal's motivation to eat and its level of food intake. This effect has also been suggested, but not demonstrated, for free-grazing animals. In free-grazing conditions, however, animals may have to search for the preferred plant species and this may reduce their intake rate. Moreover, the management of diverse swards faces a risk of overgrazing the preferred species and undergrazing the less preferred species, leading to resource degradation. We investigated the effect of food diversity on foraging behaviour and intake in grazing sheep, in interaction with the type of diversity (conterminal monocultures v. mixtures) and management (two monocultures offered simultaneously v. successively over time). Five treatments were compared with five groups of five dry INRA 401 ewes for five periods, using a Latin-square design: LOL=grazing a monoculture of Lolium perenne cv. Herbie (L); FES=grazing a monoculture of Festuca arundinacea cv. Florine (F); STRIPS=grazing conterminal monocultures of L and F, 0·5:0·5 by ground area, with animals having a free choice between both species; TIME=grazing L from 16:00 to 09:00 h and F from 09:00 to 16:00 h; MIX=grazing an intermeshed mixture of L and F. Sward height was maintained at 9 cm. Each period comprised a 5-day adaptation subperiod followed by a 5-day measurement subperiod. Dietary choices and intake were measured using n-alkanes, and grazing time was assessed using the Ethosys® recording system. Intake rate was calculated as the ratio of intake to grazing time. Intake in the monoculture treatments were higher than predictions made for housed animals given similar forages ad libitum, demonstrating that sward conditions were favourable for the expression of voluntary intake in all treatments. Intake was higher in LOL than in FES, this result being consistent with predictions for stall-feeding conditions. There was no difference in diet composition, foraging behaviour and intake between the bispecific treatments (STRIPS, TIME and MIX). Intake was higher in the bispecific treatments than in LOL (1666 v. 1492 g digestible organic matter per day, P<0·001). Grazing time was higher in STRIPS and MIX than in LOL (420 and 430 min respectively v. 366 min, P<0·01). Dry ewes increase their intake when offered a choice of herbage species at pasture, this being mediated via an increase in grazing time rather than an increase in intake rate. There was no interaction with type of diversity or type of management.

Keywords

food intakefood preferencesgrazingselectionsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 183 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Aufrère, J. and Michalet-Doreau, B. 1983. In vivo digestibility and prediction of digestibility of some by-products. In EEC seminar EUR 8918 EN Feeding value of by-products and their use by beef cattle. pp. 25–35Melle-Gontronde, Belgium.Google Scholar
Baumont, R., Champciaux, P., Agabriel, J., Andrieu, J., Aufrère, J.Michalet-Doreau, B. and Demarquilly, C. 1999. An integrated tool to predict feed value for ruminants: PrévAlim for INRAtion. INRA Productions Animales 12: 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R., Cohen-Salmon, D., Prache, S. and Sauvant, D. 2004. A mechanistic model of intake and grazing behaviour in sheep integrating sward architecture and animal decisions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanc, F., Theriez, M. and Brelurut, A. 1999. Effects of mixed-species stocking and space allowance on the behaviour and growth of red deer hinds and ewes at pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CarvalhoP. C. F, P. C. F,Prache, S., Roguet, C. and Louault, F. 1999. Defoliation process by ewes of reproductive compared to vegetative swards. Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores, San Antonio Texas (CD Rom)Google Scholar
Champion, R. A., Orr, R. J., Penning, P. D. and Rutter, S. M. 2004. The effect of the spatial scale of heterogeneity of two herbage species on the grazing behaviour of lactating sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, C., Damasceno, J. C., Bechet, G. and Prache, S. 2005. Species composition in ryegrass (Lolium perenne)/tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) mixtures using various combinations of n -alkanes. Grass and Forage Science 60: 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delagarde, R., Prache, S., D'Hour, P. and Petit, M. 2001. Ingestion de l'herbe par les ruminants au pâturage. Fourrages 166: 189–212.Google Scholar
Dove, H., Freer, M. and Foot, J. Z. 1988. Alkane capsules for measuring pasture intake. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 13: 131.Google Scholar
Duncan, A. J., Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S., Yong, S. A. and Castillo, I. 1999. The use of naturally occurring and artificially applied n -alkanes as markers for estimation of short-term diet composition and intake in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 132: 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, A. J., Ginane, C., Gordon, I. J., Ørskov, E. R. 2003. Why do Herbivores Select Mixed Diets? Proceedings of the IVth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores, September 1995, Clermont-Ferrand (ed. Journet, M. et al. ), pp. 95–120.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P., Baumont, R. and Ingvarsten, K. L. 1995. Control and prediction of feed intake in ruminants. Proceedings of the IVth international symposium on the nutrition of herbivores, September 1995, Clermont-Ferrand (ed. Journet, M. et al. ), pp. 95–120.Google Scholar
Ginane, C., Baumont, R., Lassalas, J. and Petit, M. 2002. Feeding behaviour and intake of heifers fed on hays of various quality, offered alone or in a choice situation. Animal Research 51: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. 1997. Advances and retreats in specifying the constraints on intake in grazing ruminants. Proceedings of the XVIII international grassland conference, 8–17 June 1997, Winnipeg and Saskatoon, pp. 39–44Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 1989. Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. Jarrige, R.). John Libbey EUROTEXT, Paris.Google Scholar
Laca, E. A. and Ortega, I. M. 1996. Integrating foraging mechanisms across spatial and temporal scales. In Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere, Proceedings of the Vth international rangeland congress, Denver, CO, vol. 2, Society for Range Management (ed. West, N. E.), pp. 129–132.Google Scholar
Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. and Cosgrove, P. M. 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n -alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuret, M. and Bruchou, C. 1994. Modélisation de l'ingestion selon la diversité des choix alimentaires réalisés par la chèvre au pâturage sur parcours. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 1: 225–228.Google Scholar
Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Penning, P. D., Harvey, A. and Orr, R. J. 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prache, S. and Damasceno, J.C. 2006. Preferences of sheep grazing down conterminal monocultures of Lolium perenne-Festuca arundinacea: Test of an energy intake-rate maximisation hypothesis using the short-term double weighing technique. Applied Animal Behaviour Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prache, S., Roguet, C. and Petit, M. 1998. How degree of selectivity modifies foraging behaviour of dry ewes on reproductive compared to vegetative sward structure. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D., Baumont, R. and Faverdin, P. 1996. Development of a mechanistic model of intake and chewing activities of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2785–2802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheibe, K. M., Schleusner, T., Berger, A., Eichhorn, K., Langbein, J., Dal Zotto, L. and Streich, W. J. 1998. ETHOSYS ® - New system for recording and analysis of behaviour of free-ranging domestic animals and wildlife. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Vulich, S. A., O'Riordan, E. G. and Hanrahan, J. P. 1991. Use of n -alkanes for the estimating of herbage intake in sheep: accuracy and precision of the estimates. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 116: 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar