2000
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2000.00225.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Voluntary intake, digestibility and nitrogen utilization by sheep fed ensiled forage legumes

Abstract: An experiment was conducted to compare the nutritive value of a range of ensiled forage legumes. Silages were prepared from late second‐cut lotus (Lotus corniculatus), first‐cut sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) and both early and late second‐cut red clover (Trifolium pratense) and lucerne (Medicago sativa). Each experimental silage was offered to six Suffolk‐cross wether lambs, aged 10 months, housed in metabolism crates. Voluntary intakes of dry matter ranged from 71 to 81 g kg−1 liveweight0·75 d−1. Voluntary… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
50
1
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
6
50
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In line with our findings here, other studies with legume forages have found lower N in vivo digestibility for sainfoin than lucerne, whether fresh or preserved as hay (Aufrère et al, 2008) or silage (Fraser et al, 2000). The differences between S100 and the mixtures in terms of the amounts of N intake and N digested arise from a combination of differences between sainfoin and lucerne in terms of voluntary intake and N content.…”
Section: N Utilisationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In line with our findings here, other studies with legume forages have found lower N in vivo digestibility for sainfoin than lucerne, whether fresh or preserved as hay (Aufrère et al, 2008) or silage (Fraser et al, 2000). The differences between S100 and the mixtures in terms of the amounts of N intake and N digested arise from a combination of differences between sainfoin and lucerne in terms of voluntary intake and N content.…”
Section: N Utilisationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…These values are in line with Arrigo (2009) who reported a totaltract N digestibility of approximately 0.60. Fraser et al (2000) on sainfoin silage and Dentinho et al (2006) on sulla haylage found low total-tract N digestibility, which led to a negative N balance. In this study, in vivo N digestibility of the whole digestive tract was smaller for sainfoin silages than the corresponding fresh forages, (Theodoridou et al, 2008), leading to a greater N quantity in the faeces, despite similar N intake.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…CTs are considered beneficial for silage fermentation, as they protect forage proteins from degradation (Salawu et al, 1999) by inhibiting plant and microbial enzymes and/or by forming complexes with proteins (Waghorn, 2008). Forages containing CT undergo less ensilage-process proteolysis and less transformation of their plant protein N into NPN compared with forages without CT (Albrecht and Muck, 1991;Fraser et al, 2000). The values for NH 3 -N, soluble N and acetic acid in the juice of sainfoin silages indicated a good-quality conservation according to the Dulphy and Demarquilly classification (1981).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SEM = standard error of the mean, L = Linear effect of maize silage in the diet, Q = Quadratic effect of maize silage in the diet. NS = not significant, * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001 diet, respectively), indicating an inefficient microbial capture of rumen degradable N. This is partly supported with the results of Fraser et al (2000) that nitrogen excretion in faeces and urine accounts for a high proportion of N intake, which may be more than 70% of the daily N consumption. Despite a similar urinary and faecal N loss in the diets containing GS, a positive associative effect of two forages on N retention was recorded due to a positive associative effect on N intake.…”
Section: A G R I C U L T U R a L A N D F O O D S C I E N C Ementioning
confidence: 58%