J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 1972. 34:830-838.
© 1972 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gaudreau, J.-M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gaudreau, J.-M.

Voluntary Intake and Nutrient Digestibility of Forages by Goats and Sheep1

G. M. Jones, R. E. Larsen, A. H. Javed, E. Donefer and J.-M. Gaudreau2

Macdonald Campus of McGill University,,3 Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

Abstract

Numerous studies have compared intakes and digestibility of nutrients by goats or sheep to that by cattle in an attempt to determine if these smaller animals can be substituted for cattle when denning the nutritive value of feedstuffs. Various studies (Swift and Bratzler, 1959; Alexander et al., 1962; Donefer, 1966) have observed that the digestibility of forages was highly correlated between cattle and sheep. However, the protein content of forages resulted in variable patterns of digestibility between species (Alexander et al., 1962). The digestibility of protein and energy in low quality Coastal Bermudagrass hay was greater when fed to wethers than to mature beef cows. The reverse was observed with forages of higher protein content. Sheep were observed to be more variable, with lower digestibilities of DM, than steers fed prairie hays (Jordan and Staples, 1951).

The goat has been implicated as a useful small ruminant for the evaluation of forages (Baumgardt et al., 1964).

Footnotes

1 Financial support provided by the Quebec Agricultural Research Council and the Canada Department of Agriculture.

2 The assistance of Mrs. B. Kensett and Messrs. P. Puzio, G. Peaulieu, M. Huberty and B. Dolgowicz is gratefully acknowledged.

3 Department of Animal Science.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1972 by the American Society of Animal Science.