Back
 OJAS  Vol.5 No.3 , July 2015
Prediction of Feed Intake and Its Relationships with Chemical Composition of Diets in Goats Consuming Concentrate, Bahiagrass Pasture and Mimosa Browse
Abstract: An indoor and a grazing experiment was conducted to determine how estimated feed intake and digestion by grazing goats consuming concentrate, bahaigrass pasture, and mimosa browse changed with body weight (BW), level of supplementation, and forage chemical composition. Twenty four Boer wether goats were assigned in a completely randomized design with repeated measures on the following 3 treatments: concentrate, mimosa browse, and bahiagrass pasture. Internal markers used to estimate both dry matter (DM) digestibility (DMD) and DM intake (DMI) included acid detergent lignin (ADL) and acid insoluble ash (AIA). Marker-derived estimates of DMD and DMI were compared with DMD measured by total fecal collection or directly measured by in vivo feed intake rate. Both ADL and AIA-based markers in mimosa and bahiagrass diets were similar from those derived by in vivo DMD; however, AIA-based marker in concentrate was under-estimated (P < 0.01). These results indicate that ADL and AIA indigestible markers performed similarly to in vivo DMD in mimosa and bahiagrass, although AIA concentration in mimosa seemed to be low compared to others. All markers yielded feed intake estimates that differed from those derived by ADL (P < 0.03), AIA (P < 0.01), and in vitro DMD (P < 0.001) compared to in vivo control, with ADL (P < 0.05) and in vitro DMD (P < 0.01) by period interactions, indicating that estimated intake from ADL and in vitro DMD increased more in mimosa browse diet with time period than in concentrate and bahiagrass diets with that estimated intakes being decreased with corresponding the second period due to lower in vitro DMD (21% to 4%) in second period compared to the first period in both concentrate and bahiagrass diets, respectively. In the present study, mean marker recoveries were higher (P < 0.01) for bahiagrass and mimosa diets than for the concentrate diets for both ADL- and AIA-based markers. It can be concluded that the use of natural markers in ADL and AIA offers advantages over the total fecal collection or direct measurement of in vivo intake methods for digestibility studies. Both ADL and AIA occur in common forages at readily measurable levels and laboratory procedures are not difficult or time consuming. Therefore, both ADL and AIA have possible use in digestibility studies where other methods may not be applicable.
Cite this paper: Min, B. and Solaiman, S. (2015) Prediction of Feed Intake and Its Relationships with Chemical Composition of Diets in Goats Consuming Concentrate, Bahiagrass Pasture and Mimosa Browse. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 5, 283-293. doi: 10.4236/ojas.2015.53033.
References

[1]   Dove, H. (1996) The Ruminant, the Rumen and the Pasture Resource: Nutrient Interactions in the Grazing Animal. In: Hodgson, J. and Illius, A.W., Eds., The Ecology and Management of Grazing Systems, CAB Intl., Wallingford, 219-246.

[2]   Min, B.R., McNabb, W.C., Barry, T.N., Kemp, P.D., Waghorn, G.C. and McDonald, M.F. (1999) The Effect of Condensed Tannins on Reproductive Efficiency and Wool Production in Sheep Grazing Lotus corniculatus. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 132, 323-334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859699006371

[3]   Burns, J.C., Pond, K.R. and Fisher, D.S. (1994) Measurement of Forage Intake. In: Fahey Jr., G.C., et al., Eds., Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, 494-526.

[4]   Weir, W.C., Meyer, J.H. and Lofgreen, G.P. (1959) Symposium on Forage Evaluation: VI: The Use of the Esophageal Fistula, Lignin, and Chromogen Techniques for Studying Selective Grazing and Digestibility of Range and Pasture by Sheep and Cattle. Agronomy Journal, 51, 235-237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1959.00021962005100040014x

[5]   Loredo, M.A., Simpson, G.D., Minson, D.J. and Orpin, C.G. (1991) The Potential for Using n-Alkanes in Tropical Forages as a Marker for the Determination of Dry Matter Intake by Grazing Ruminants. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 117, 355-361.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600067101

[6]   Tilley, J.M.A. and Terry, R.A. (1963) A Two-Stage Technique for the in Vitro Digestion of Forage Crops. Grass and Forage Science, 18, 104-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x

[7]   Nelson, B.D., Montgomery, C.R., Schilling, P.E. and Mason, L. (1975) Effects of Fermentation Time on in Vivo/in Vitro Relationships. Journal of Dairy Science, 59, 270-277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(76)84194-X

[8]   Egan, J.K. and Doyle, P.T. (1982) The Effect of Stage of Maturity in Sheep upon Intake and Digestion of Roughage dIets. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 33, 1099-1121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR9821099

[9]   Goetsch, A.L., Johnson, Z.B., Galloway Sr., D.L., Foster Jr., L.A., Brake, A.C., Sun, W., Landis, K.M., Lagasses, M.L., Hall, K.L. and Jones, A.L. (1991) Relationships of Body Weight, Forage Composition, and Corn Supplementation to Feed Intake and Digestion by Holstein Steer Calves Consuming Bermudagrass Hay ad Libitum. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 2634-2645.

[10]   Sunvold, G.D. and Cochran, R.C. (1991) Evaluation of Acid Detergent Lignin, Alkaline Peroxide Lignin, Acid Insoluble Ash, and Indigestible Acid Detergent Fiber as Internal Markers for Prediction of Alfalfa, Bromegrass, and Prairie Hay Digestibility by Beef Steers. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4951-4955.

[11]   Galyean, M.L., Krysl, L.J. and Rstell, R.E. (1986) Marker Based Approaches for Estimation of Fecal Output and Digestibility in Ruminants. In: Owbens, F.N., Ed., Feed Intake by Beef Cattle: Symposium, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station MP-121, Stillwater, 96-113.

[12]   Cochran, R.C., Vanzant, E.S., Jacques, K.A., Galyean, M.L., Adams, D.C. and Wallace, J.D. (1987) Internal Markers. Proceedings of the Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conference, Laramie, 23-24 July 1987, 39-48.

[13]   Judkins, M.B., Krysl, L.J. and Barton, R.K. (1990) Estimating Diet Digestibility: A Comparison of 11 Techniques across Six Different Diets Fed to Rams. Journal of Animal Science, 68, 1405-1411.

[14]   Penning, P.D. and Johnson, R.H. (1983) The Use of Internal Markers to Estimate Herbage Digestibility and Intake. 1. Potentially Indigestible Cellulose and Acid Insoluble Ash. Journal of Agricultural Science, 100, 127-135.

[15]   Thonney, J.M., Palhof, B.A., De Carlo, M.R., Ross, D.A., Firth, N.L., Quaas, R.L., Perosio, D.J., Duhaime, D.J., Rollins, S.R. and Nour, A.Y.M. (1985) Sources of Variation of Dry Matter Digestibility Measured by the Acid Insoluble Ash Marker. Journal of Dairy Science, 68, 661-671.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(85)80872-9

[16]   Van keulen, J. and Young, B.A. (1977) Evaluation of Acid Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility Studies. Journal of Animal Science, 44, 282-290.

[17]   AOAC (1984) Official Methods of Analysis. 14th Edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.

[18]   Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (1991) Methods for Dietary Fibre, Neutral Detergent Fibre and Non-Starch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

[19]   Kumar, U., Sareen, V.K. and Singh, S. (1994) Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Culture Supplement on Ruminal Metabolism in Buffalo Calves Given a High Concentrate Diet. Animal Production, 59, 209-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100007698

[20]   SAS (1990) SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Version 5 Edition, SAS Institute Inc., Cary.

[21]   Van Soest, P.J. (1987) Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Cornell University Press, New York, 39-57.

[22]   Goncalves, A.L., Lana, R.P., Rodrigues, M.T., Viera, R.A.M., Queiroz, A.C. and Henrique, D.S. (2001) Nicternal Pattern of Ruminal pH and Feeding Behaviour of Dairy Goats Fed Diets with Different Roughage to Concentrate Ratio. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 30, 1886-1892.

 
 
Top