Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T19:40:27.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake, by sheep, and digestibility of chickweed, dandelion, dock, ribwort and spurrey, compared with perennial ryegrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. W. Derrick ,
G. Moseley  and
D. Wilman
R. W. Derrick
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
G. Moseley
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3EB, UK
D. Wilman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Six plant species were compared as food for sheep: chickweed (Stellaria media (L.) Vill.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber), dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.), ribwort (Plantago lanceolata L.), spurrey (Spergula arvensis L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). In two experiments at Aberystwyth in 1985 and 1986, the species were fed to lambs as the total diet, after artificial drying. In another experiment in 1987, they were fed fresh, in 1·5 minute meals, to yearling sheep.

The dicotyledonous species had a lower proportion of cell wall (neutral detergent fibre) in dry matter than perennial ryegrass. The true dry matter digestibility of chickweed, dandelion, dock and leafy ribwort was as high as that of ryegrass, but the in vivo digestibility of all five dicotyledonous species was lower than that of ryegrass. The voluntary intake of the dicotyledonous species was higher than might have been predicted from their digestibility. The voluntary intake of spurrey was > 20% higher than that of ryegrass.

When the species were fed fresh, spurrey had the highest rate of intake as a consequence of a high chewing rate and a low requirement for number of chews/g of dry matter consumed. Chewing rate was higher on all the dicotyledonous diets than on ryegrass. The rate of intake of dandelion was above average, but that of dock was low and variable, particularly when the plants had been chopped.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 120 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 51 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cammell, S. B. (1977). Equipment and techniques used for research into the intake and digestion of forages by sheep and calves. Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Technical Report No. 24.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1960). The Grass Crop: Its Development, Use, and Maintenance, 2nd edn.London: E. & F. N. Spon Ltd.Google Scholar
Derrick, R. W. (1989). The nutritive value of a range of grassland species. PhD thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Fream, W. (1900). The Complete Grazier and Farmers' and Cattle-Breeders' Assistant Forming a Compendium of Husbandry (originally written by Youatt, W.), 14th edn.London: Crosby Lockwood & Son.Google Scholar
Ivins, J. D. (1952). The relative palatability of herbage plants. Journal of the British Grassland Society 7, 43–54.Google Scholar
Milton, W. E. J. (1938). The yield of certain miscellaneous herbs compared with grasses when grown in drills. Welsh Journal of Agriculture 14, 196–202.Google Scholar
Moseley, G. (1982). The role of physical breakdown in controlling the nutritive quality of forages. Report for 1981, Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth, pp. 167–182.Google Scholar
Powell, E. F. W. (1972). About Dandelions. London: Thorsons Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Rudeforth, C. C. (1970). Soils of North Cardiganshire. Harpenden: Soil Survey of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1984). The nutritive value of white clover. In Forage Legumes (Ed. Thomson, D. J.), pp. 78–92. Occasional Symposium No. 16, British Grassland Society. Hurley: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the HI vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46, 829–835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1967). Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages. Journal of Animal Science 26, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1968). Determination of lignin and cellulose in acid-detergent fiber with permanganate. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 51, 780–785.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Wine, R. H. & Moore, L. A. (1966). Estimation of the true digestibility of forages by the in vitro digestion of cell walls. Proceedings of the Xth International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 438–441.Google Scholar
Wilman, D. & Riley, J. A. (1993). Potential nutritive value of a wide range of grassland species. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 120, 43–49.Google Scholar