In vivo digestibility of a range of silages in cattle compared with sheep
K. L. Bailes A , J. W. Piltz A C and D. M. McNeill BA Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2560, Australia.
B School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: john.piltz@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Animal Production Science 60(5) 635-642 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19178
Submitted: 29 March 2019 Accepted: 21 June 2019 Published: 19 February 2020
Abstract
Context: Ensuring accuracy of feed testing is becoming increasingly important as livestock industries seek to maximise efficiency of producing animal products to meet world requirements.
Aim: Twenty-four silages were fed to sheep and cattle to test the validity of using sheep-derived digestibility estimates for cattle.
Method: The silages tested included temperate and subtropical forages, and differed in level of maturity and weed contamination at harvest: several of the forage crops were grown with irrigation. In vivo comparisons were made for digestibility of dry matter (DMD), organic matter (OMD), and organic matter in the dry matter (DOMD) across two experiments. Intake was restricted to 16.5 g/kg liveweight and those silages with low nitrogen (N) contents were supplemented with urea to meet minimum dietary crude protein requirements.
Key results: DMD, OMD and DOMD ranged from 0.538 to 0.773, 0.550 to 0.810, 0.505 to 0.762 and 0.551 to 0.749, 0.584 to 0.786, 0.539 to 0.702 for cattle and sheep respectively. DMD, OMD and DOMD determined in sheep explained 88.7, 86.3 and 78.4% of the variation of DMD, OMD and DOMD in cattle respectively. In Experiment 1, DOMD was higher in cattle than sheep but for two silages (Silage 1, Subterranean clover: 0.631 vs 0.589; Silage 5, Annual ryegrass/oats, early cut: 0.761 vs 0.702) whereas in Experiment 2 DOMD was lower for cattle than sheep for one silage (silage 21, maize: 0.645 vs 0.691, s.e.d. = 0.019).
Conclusions and Implications: Since there was no clear trend for sheep to digest higher quality feeds better than cattle or for cattle to digest lower quality feeds better than sheep, we conclude that, at least for silages made from forage, sheep-derived values for digestibility should, in most instances, be applicable to cattle.
Additional keywords: in vivo digestibility, sheep vs cattle, silage DOMD.
References
Aerts JV, De Boever JL, Cottyn BG, De Brabander DL, Buysse FX (1984) Comparative digestibility of feedstuffs by sheep and cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 12, 47–56.| Comparative digestibility of feedstuffs by sheep and cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
AFIA (2007) ‘AFIA – laboratory methods manual.’ (Australian Fodder Industry Association: Melbourne, Vic.)
AFRC (1993) ‘Energy and protein requirements of ruminants.’ (AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients: Wallingford, UK)
Alexander RA, Hentges JHJ, McCall JT, Ash WO (1962) Comparative digestibility of nutrients in roughages by cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 21, 373–376.
| Comparative digestibility of nutrients in roughages by cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
ARC (1980) ‘The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock’. (CAB: Slough, UK)
Barber GD, Givens DI, Kridis MS, Offer NW, Murray I (1990) Prediction of the organic matter digestibility of grass silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 28, 115–128.
| Prediction of the organic matter digestibility of grass silage.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Buchanan-Smith JG, Totusek R, Tillman AD (1968) Effect of methods of processing on digestibility and utilization of grain sorghum by cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 27, 525–530.
| Effect of methods of processing on digestibility and utilization of grain sorghum by cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Charmley E (2001) Towards improved silage quality – a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81, 157–168.
| Towards improved silage quality – a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cipolloni MA, Schneider BH, Lucas HL, Pavlech HM (1951) Significance of the differences in digestibility of feeds by cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 10, 337–343.
| Significance of the differences in digestibility of feeds by cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14832136PubMed |
Colovos NF, Holter JB, Koes RM, Urban WEJ, Davis HA (1970) Digestibility, nutritive value and intake of ensiled corn plant (Zea mays) in cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 30, 819–824.
| Digestibility, nutritive value and intake of ensiled corn plant (Zea mays) in cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CSIRO (2007) ‘Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)
De Boever JL, Cottyn BG, Boucque CV, Aerts JV, Buysse FX (1984) Comparative digestibility by sheep and cows and consequences on energy value. Can. J. Anim. Sc 64, 175–176.
| Comparative digestibility by sheep and cows and consequences on energy value.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
De Boever JL, Cottyn BG, De Brabander DL, Vanacker JM, Boucque ChV (1997) Prediction of the feeding value of maize silages by chemical parameters, in vitro digestibility and NIRS. Animal Feed Science and Technology 66, 211–222.
| Prediction of the feeding value of maize silages by chemical parameters, in vitro digestibility and NIRS.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Givens DI, Cottyn BG, Dewey PJS, Steg A (1995) A comparison of the neutral detergent-cellulase method with other laboratory methods for predicting the digestibility in vivo of maize silages from three European countries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54, 55–64.
| A comparison of the neutral detergent-cellulase method with other laboratory methods for predicting the digestibility in vivo of maize silages from three European countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Havilah EJ, Kaiser AG, Nicol H (1995) Use of a kernel milk line score to determine stage of maturity in maize crops harvested for silage. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35, 739–743.
| Use of a kernel milk line score to determine stage of maturity in maize crops harvested for silage.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jordan RM, Staples GE (1951) Digestibility comparisons between steers and lambs fed prairie hays of different quality. Journal of Animal Science 10, 236–243.
| Digestibility comparisons between steers and lambs fed prairie hays of different quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14814049PubMed |
Kaiser AG, Mailer RJ, Vonarx MM (1995) A comparison of Karl Fisher titration with alternative methods for the analysis of silage dry matter content. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 69, 51–59.
| A comparison of Karl Fisher titration with alternative methods for the analysis of silage dry matter content.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Playne MJ (1978a) Differences between cattle and sheep in their digestion and relative intake of a mature tropical grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 3, 41–49.
| Differences between cattle and sheep in their digestion and relative intake of a mature tropical grass hay.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Prigge EC, Baker MJ, Varga GA (1984) Comparative digestion, rumen fermentation and kinetics of forage diets by steers and wethers. Journal of Animal Science 59, 237–245.
| Comparative digestion, rumen fermentation and kinetics of forage diets by steers and wethers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 6086564PubMed |
Rowe JB, Choct M, Pethick DW (1999) Processing cereal grains for animal feeding. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 721–736.
| Processing cereal grains for animal feeding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SCA (1990) ‘Feeding standards for Australian livestock, ruminants.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)
Smith D (1969) Removing and analysing total non-structural carbohydrates from plant tissue. Research in Reproduction 41, 1–11.
Südekum KH, Roh H, Brandt M, Rave G, Stangassinger M (1995) Comparative digestion in cattle and sheep fed wheat silage diets at low and high intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 1498–1511.
| Comparative digestion in cattle and sheep fed wheat silage diets at low and high intakes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 7593843PubMed |
Van Soest PJ (1994) ‘Nutritional ecology of the ruminant.’ (Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA)
Vander Noot GW, Cordts RH, Hunt R (1965) Comparative nutrient digestibility of silages by cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 24, 47–50.
| Comparative nutrient digestibility of silages by cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilkinson JM (1990) ‘Silage UK.’ 6th edn. (Chalcombe Publications: Shedfield, UK)
Wilman D, Field M, Lister SJ, Givens DI (2000) The use of near infrared spectroscopy to investigate the composition of silages and the rate and extent of cell-wall degradation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 88, 139–151.
| The use of near infrared spectroscopy to investigate the composition of silages and the rate and extent of cell-wall degradation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woods VB, Moloney AP, Mulligan FJ, Kenny MJ, O’Mara FP (1999) The effect of animal species (cattle or sheep) and level of intake on in vivo digestibility of concentrate ingredients. Animal Feed Science and Technology 80, 135–150.
| The effect of animal species (cattle or sheep) and level of intake on in vivo digestibility of concentrate ingredients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
