Mechanistic model of intake of tropical pasture, depending on the growth and morphology of forage at a vegetative stage
M. Boval A D , O. Coppry B and D. Sauvant CA INRA, UR143, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, 97170 Petit-Bourg, Guadeloupe, French West Indies.
B INRA, UE1294, Plateforme Tropicale d’Expérimentation Animale (PTEA), Gardel, 97160 Le Moule, Guadeloupe, French West Indies.
C INRA, UMR 0791 MoSAR, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: maryline.boval@antilles.inra.fr
Animal Production Science 54(12) 2097-2104 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14542
Submitted: 2 May 2014 Accepted: 1 August 2014 Published: 21 October 2014
Abstract
The present model is targeted to simulate the diet of animals in tropical pastures, starting from underlying measurements carried out at the level of the tiller. Practically, we used measurements carried out at the following two levels: (1) on many tillers identified in the sward with rings and measured in various conditions (stages of regrowth, more or less fertilised and or irrigated), (2) on plots grazed individually by heifers tethered during 24 h, with measurements of both the forage and the animal faeces, for assessing their diet. The first step consisted in building a mechanistic model of the morphological grass growth calibrated on measurements performed on Dichanthium spp. at five vegetative stages of growth. In the process of growth, the principal stem was the major driving force, and the senescence of leaves was followed by their disappearance. The compartments represent lengths of stem or leaves. Taking into account the diversity of kinetics of the leaf appearance and growth, they were pooled in three types, according to their appearance process (two lower leaves, four leaves in the middle and the others at the upper level). In a second step, the impact of animal bites was included as an auxiliary variable in the model, taking into account the information at the level of the tillers and at the plot level. The impact of animal depends on the characteristics of the tiller, the length (or mass) and of the leaf characteristics, e.g. the leaves fraction in the sward. Afterwards, the information obtained at the tiller level and from the plot was compared. With a bottom-up approach it is possible to predict at a daily scale, starting from the tiller measurements, the dry matter intake and the organic matter digestibility, both measured at the plot level. Conversely, in a top-down approach, the information measured at the plot level were useful for adjusting the information acquired at the level of the tillers, e.g. the estimates of organic matter digestibility of the stems and the leaves at the plot level, allowing to assess the factors of variation of the organic matter digestibility of the consumed parts of a tiller, by the animal. These first results are encouraging and this model seems to promise a more complete mechanistic model of grazing cattle in tropical environment.
References
Allen VG, Batello C, Berretta EJ, Hodgson J, Kothmann M, Li X, McIvor J, Milne J, Morris C, Peeters A, Sanderson M (2011) An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass and Forage Science 66, 2–28.| An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baumont R, Cohen-Salmon D, Prache S, 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.
| A mechanistic model of intake and grazing behaviour in sheep integrating sward architecture and animal decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Benvenutti MA, Gordon IJ, Poppi DP, Crowther R, Spinks W (2008a) Foraging mechanics and their outcomes for cattle grazing reproductive tropical swards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 15–31.
| Foraging mechanics and their outcomes for cattle grazing reproductive tropical swards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Benvenutti MA, Gordon IJ, Poppi DP (2008b) The effects of stem density of tropical swards and age of grazing cattle on their foraging behaviour. Grass and Forage Science 63, 1–8.
| The effects of stem density of tropical swards and age of grazing cattle on their foraging behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Benvenutti MA, Gordon IJ, Poppi DP, Crowther R, Spinks W, Moreno FC (2009) The horizontal barrier effect of stems on the foraging behaviour of cattle grazing five tropical grasses. Livestock Science 126, 229–238.
| The horizontal barrier effect of stems on the foraging behaviour of cattle grazing five tropical grasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boval M, Dixon RM (2012) The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics. Animal 6, 748–762.
| The importance of grasslands for animal production and other functions: a review on management and methodological progress in the tropics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38ngsFejug%3D%3D&md5=1342b82a258b0c2defe292e4d4b4bf7eCAS | 22558923PubMed |
Boval M, Peyraud JL, Xandé A, Aumont G, Coppry O, Saminadin G (1996) Evaluation of faecal indicators to predict digestibility and voluntary intake of Dichanthium spp. by cattle. Animal Research 45, 121–134.
| Evaluation of faecal indicators to predict digestibility and voluntary intake of Dichanthium spp. by cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boval M, Coates DB, Lecomte P, Decruyenaere V, Archimede H (2004) Faecal near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to assess chemical composition, in vivo digestibility and intake of tropical grass by Creole cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114, 19–29.
| Faecal near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to assess chemical composition, in vivo digestibility and intake of tropical grass by Creole cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXjtFanu7k%3D&md5=b438d888ef76abfd38038bae3bd97e66CAS |
Boval M, Archimède H, Cruz P, Duru M (2007a) Intake and digestibility in heifers grazing a Dichanthium spp. dominated pasture, at 14 and 28 days of regrowth. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134, 18–31.
| Intake and digestibility in heifers grazing a Dichanthium spp. dominated pasture, at 14 and 28 days of regrowth.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boval M, Fanchone A, Archimede H, Gibb MJ (2007b) Effect of structure of a tropical pasture on ingestive behaviour, digestibility of diet and daily intake by grazing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 62, 44–54.
| Effect of structure of a tropical pasture on ingestive behaviour, digestibility of diet and daily intake by grazing cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXjs1Sqt7k%3D&md5=273d73c486248b3c0a7ddf7301f7559bCAS |
Burns JC, Sollenberger LE (2002) Grazing behavior of ruminants and daily performance from warm-season grasses. Crop Science 42, 873–881.
Burns JC, Fisher DS, Pond KR (2011) Steer performance, intake, and digesta kinetics of Switchgrass at three forage masses. Agronomy Journal 103, 337–350.
| Steer performance, intake, and digesta kinetics of Switchgrass at three forage masses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coleman SW (2006) Challenges to assessing forage intake by grazing ruminants. In ‘Proceedings of the 8th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 13–18 August 2006’. pp. 14–06. (Instituto Prociência: Minas Gerais, Brazil) Available at http://www.cabi.org/cabdirect/FullTextPDF/2006/20063169861.pdf [Verified 1 October 2014]
Coleman SW, Moore JE (2003) Feed quality and animal performance. Field Crops Research 84, 17–29.
| Feed quality and animal performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cottle DJ (2013) The trials and tribulations of estimating the pasture intake of grazing animals. Animal Production Science 53, 1209–1220.
| The trials and tribulations of estimating the pasture intake of grazing animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cruz P, Boval M (2000) Effect of nitrogen on some morphogenetic traits of temperate and tropical perennial forage grasses. In ‘Grassland ecophysiology and grazing ecology’. (Eds G Lemaire, J Hodgson, A De Moraes, PC Carvalho, C Nabinger) pp. 151–168. (University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK)
Decruyenaere V, Buldgen A, Stilmant D (2009) Factors affecting intake by grazing ruminants and related quantification methods: a review. Biotechnologie Agronomie Societe Et Environnement 13, 559–573.
Delagarde R, Faverdin P, Baratte C, Peyraud JL (2011) GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management. Grass and Forage Science 66, 45–60.
| GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DeVries TJ (2010) Review: behaviour and its role in the nutritional management of the growing dairy heifer. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90, 295–302.
| Review: behaviour and its role in the nutritional management of the growing dairy heifer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Freer M, Moore AD, Donnelly JR (1998) GRAZPLAN: decision support systems for Australian grazing Enterprises – II. The animal biology model for feed intake, production and reproduction and the GrazFeed DSS. Agricultural Systems 54, 17–126.
Garay AH, Sollenberger LE, McDonald DC, Ruegseffer GJ, Kalmbacher RS, Mislevy P (2004) Nitrogen fertilization and stocking rate affect stargrass pasture and cattle performance. Crop Science 44, 1348–1354.
Gregorini P, Beukes PC, Romera AJ, Levy G, Hanigan MD (2013) A model of diurnal grazing patterns and herbage intake of a dairy cow, MINDY: model description. Ecological Modelling 270, 11–29.
| A model of diurnal grazing patterns and herbage intake of a dairy cow, MINDY: model description.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Griffiths WM, Gordon IJ (2003) Sward structural resistance and biting effort in grazing ruminants. Animal Research 52, 145–160.
| Sward structural resistance and biting effort in grazing ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jouven M, Agabriel J, Baumont R (2008) A model predicting the seasonal dynamics of intake and production for suckler cows and their calves fed indoors or at pasture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 256–279.
| A model predicting the seasonal dynamics of intake and production for suckler cows and their calves fed indoors or at pasture.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Khaled RA, Duru M, Decruyenaere V, Jouany C, Cruz P (2006) Using leaf traits to rank native grasses according to their nutritive value. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59, 648–654.
| Using leaf traits to rank native grasses according to their nutritive value.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kondo S (2011) Recent progress in the study of behavior and management in grazing cattle. Animal Science Journal 82, 26–35.
| Recent progress in the study of behavior and management in grazing cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21269356PubMed |
Lemaire G, Silva SCd, Agnusdei M, Wade M, Hodgson J (2009) Interactions between leaf lifespan and defoliation frequency in temperate and tropical pastures: a review. Grass and Forage Science 64, 341–353.
| Interactions between leaf lifespan and defoliation frequency in temperate and tropical pastures: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lippke H (1980) Forage characteristics related to intake, digestibility and gain by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 50, 952–961.
Mezzalira JC, Carvalho PCDF, Fonseca L, Bremm C, Cangiano C, Gonda HL, Laca EA (2014) Behavioural mechanisms of intake rate by heifers grazing swards of contrasting structures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 153, 1–9.
| Behavioural mechanisms of intake rate by heifers grazing swards of contrasting structures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newman YC, Sollenberger LE, Chambliss CG (2003) Canopy characteristics of continuously stocked limpograss swards grazed to different heights. Agronomy Journal 95, 1246–1252.
| Canopy characteristics of continuously stocked limpograss swards grazed to different heights.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
O’Neill BF, Lewis E, O’Donovan M, Shalloo L, Mulligan FJ, Boland TM, Delagarde R (2013) Evaluation of the GrazeIn model of grass dry-matter intake and milk production prediction for dairy cows in temperate grass-based production systems. 2 – Animal characteristics. Grass and Forage Science 68, 524–536.
| Evaluation of the GrazeIn model of grass dry-matter intake and milk production prediction for dairy cows in temperate grass-based production systems. 2 – Animal characteristics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXhs12lsrbJ&md5=7550f17d86edde54578047761972a7beCAS |
Sollenberger LE, Vanzant ES (2011) Interrelationships among forage nutritive value and quantity and individual animal performance. Crop Science 51, 420–432.
| Interrelationships among forage nutritive value and quantity and individual animal performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
