You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Forage fermentation patterns and their implications for herbivore ingesta retention times

  1. J. HUMMEL1,2,*,
  2. K.-H. SÜDEKUM1,
  3. W. J. STREICH3,
  4. M. CLAUSS4

Article first published online: 24 OCT 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01206.x

Issue

Functional Ecology

Functional Ecology

Volume 20, Issue 6, pages 989–1002, December 2006

Additional Information

How to Cite

HUMMEL, J., SÜDEKUM, K.-H., STREICH, W. J. and CLAUSS, M. (2006), Forage fermentation patterns and their implications for herbivore ingesta retention times. Functional Ecology, 20: 989–1002. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01206.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Institute of Animal Science, University of Bonn, Germany,

  2. 2

    Zoological Garden of Cologne, Germany,

  3. 3

    Institute of Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Berlin, Germany,

  4. 4

    Division of Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Switzerland

* †Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jhum@itw.uni-bonn.de

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 24 OCT 2006
  2. Article first published online: 24 OCT 2006
  3. Received 23 May 2006; revised 13 August 2006; accepted 21 August 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (502K)

Keywords:

  • browse;
  • feeding type;
  • grass;
  • herbs;
  • passage rate

Summary

  • 1
    Differences in digestive physiology between browsing and grazing ruminant feeding types have been discussed extensively. The potentially underlying differences in fermentative behaviour of forage plants have received much less attention.
  • 2
    In this study, different groups of temperate forage plants (grasses, browse leaves and twigs, herbs and legumes) were compared in their chemical composition and fermentative behaviour. They were evaluated via an in vitro fermentation system (modified Hohenheim gas test), and relevant fermentation parameters such as maximal gas production and relative gas production rate were calculated.
  • 3
    Grasses generally had a higher NDF (neutral detergent fibre = total cell wall) content than browse leaves, herbs and legumes, while browse leaf cell wall was more lignified than that of herbs, legumes and grass.
  • 4
    With respect to fermentation parameters, grass had the highest maximal gas production, followed by herbs and legumes, and the lowest maximal gas production in browse leaves and twigs. Relative gas production rate was highest in herbs and legumes, while that of grass and browse was lower. As expected, browse twigs had the lowest nutritional value.
  • 5
    Dicot material reached given setpoints of absolute gas production rate like 1·0 or 0·5 mL gas/(200 mg dry matter × h) faster than grass material. Based on these results, a longer passage time of food particles seems to be adaptive for grazing ruminants, as over a wide range of fermentation times, absolute gas production rate is higher in grass compared with dicots. Especially for browse leaves, a higher intake level should be expected to balance energy requirements of animals relying on this forage type.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (502K)