Degradabilidad in sacco de Festuca arundinacea (Poaceae) en ovejas ( Ovis aries ) y llamas ( Lama glama )
Keywords:
Evaluation, Ruminants, Sheath, Sheet, TissuesAbstract
Fernández Pepi, María G.; Abimael Ortiz Chura; Alejandro F. Zucol; Gustavo Jaurena. 2016. “Degradability in sacco of Festuca arundinacea (Poaceae) in sheep ( Ovis aries ) and llamas ( Lama glama )”. Lilloa 53 (2) . The degradability of forage is associated to the chemical composition of the cell wall lignification of tissues (characteristic for each species) and accessibility of rumen microorganisms to these polysaccharides. This paper studied com- paratively tissue degradation of Festuca arundinacea blade and sheath in camelids and sheep rumen, in order to assess the greater efficiency of camelids to degrade fiber were made. Sheets and sheaths samples were taken, which were subjected to different ruminal incubation times to measure the degradation of different tissues, by the in sacco method. No differenc- es between the ability of ruminal degradation of llama and sheep were found (p>0,05). The anatomy of the blade and the sheath influenced the differential tissue degradation, although only significant differences for sclerenchyma and xylem of both fractions at 24 h of incubation were found. At 48 h rumen incubation, only they remain of nondigestible tissues , for the vascular system was found. Accessibility to structural carbohydrates of the cell wall by rumen microorganisms is determined by the arrangement of the elements of each tissue type and by the chemical composition of the wall.
Downloads
References
Agnusdei M. G., Di Marco O. N., Nenning F. R., Aello M. S. 2011. Leaf blade nutritional quality of rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) as affected by leaf age and length. Crop and Pasture Science 62: 1098-1105.
Akin D. E. 1984. Microbial breakdown of feed in the digestive tract. In: Hacker J.B. (Ed.). Nutritional limits to animal production from pastures. C.A.B. London 201-223 pp.
Akin D. E., Burdick B. 1975. Percentage of tissues types in tropical and températe grass leaf blades and degradation of tissues by rumen microorganisms. Crop Science15: 661.
Arriaga M. O., Jaurena G., Fernández Pepi M. G., Stampacchio M. L. 2013. Anatomía cuantitativa en seis especies de gramíneas megatémicas. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 48 (Supl): 135.
Bianco C. A., Kraus T. A., Vegetti A. C. 2004. La Hoja: Morfología externa y anatomía. 1° Edición. Córdoba. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. 159-160 pp.
Burns J. C. 2009. Nutritive value. En: Fribourg, H.A.; Hannaway, D.B.; West, C.P. (eds.). Tall fescue for the Twenty-first Century. Agron. Monogr. 53. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp.159-202.
Chesson A. 1993. Mechanistic models of forage cell wall degradation. In: JUNG et al. (eds). Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 347-375 pp.
Di Marco O. N., Harkes H., Agnusdei M. G. 2013. Calidad de agropiro alargado (Thinopyrum ponticum) en estado vegetativo en relación a la edad y longitud de las hojas. Revista de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (RIA) 39: 105-110.
Dulphy J. P., Ballet J. M., Jailler M., Detour A. 1997. Comparaison des activites alimentaires et maryciques de lamas et de moutons recevant des fourrages sees. Annales de Zootechnie 46: 117-125.
Duru M., Ducrocq, H. 2002. A model of lamina digestibility of orchardgrass as influenced by nitrogen and defoliation. Crop Science 42: 214-223.
Ehlke N. J., Casler M. D. 1985. Anatomical characteristics of smooth brome-grass clones selected for in vitro dry matter difestibility. Crop Science 25: 513-517.
Engelhardt W., Lechner-Doll M., Heller R., Rutagwenda T. 1988. Physiology of the forestomach in the camelids with particular reference to adaptation to extreme dietary conditions–a comparative approach. Animal Research Development 28: 56-70.
Feijóo M. B., Arriaga M. O. 2012. Calidad forrajera de Eleocharis (Cyperaceae) en Patagonia Argentina. Editorial Académica Española. 52 pp.
Ferrés Terra P. 1982. Evaluación primaria de gramíneas forrajeras por el método de transección foliar. Revista Técnica. Facultad de Agronomía UnivIversidad de la República del Uruguay 52: 77-102.
Gasser M., Ramos J., Vegetti A., Tivano J. C. 2005. Digestión de láminas foliares de Bromus auleticus Trin. Ex Nees someditas a diferentes tiempos de incubación ruminal. Agricultura Técnica 65 (2): 48-54.
Groot J. C., Neuteboom J. H. 1997. Composition and digestibility during ageing of Italian ryegrass leaves of consecutive insertion the same levels. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 75: 227–236.
Hanna W. E.; Monson W. G., Burton G. W. 1973. Histologycal examination of fresh forrage leaves after in vitro digestión. Crop Science 13: 98-102.
Insua J. R., Agnusdei M. G., Di Marco O. N. 2012. Calidad nutritiva de láminas de dos cultivares de “festuca alta” (Festuca arundinacea Schreb). Revista de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (RIA) 38 (2): 190-195.
Jouany J. P., Dulphy J. P., Kayouli C. 1995. Comparative abilities of feed intake and microbial digestion in the forestomachs of camelids y ruminants. In: Rumen Ecology Research Planning. Proc of Workshop, Addis Ababa, 13-18 March 1995 (RJ Wallace, A Lahlou-Kassi, eds), Int Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, 163-176 pp.
Jung H.; Buxton D. R.; Hatfiel R. D.; Mertens D.R.; Ralph J., Weimer P. J. 1996. Genetic manipulation of cell wall. Informational conference with dairy and forage indutries. US Dairy Research Center. Disponible en: http://www. dfrc. wisc. edu/Research_Summaries/ind_meet/dfrc2. pdf. Accessed (Vol. 17).
Magai M. M., Sleper D. A., Beuselinck P. R. 1994. Degradation of three warm season grasses in a prepared cellulase solution. Agronomy Journal 86: 1049-1053.
Raggi L. A., Ferrando G. 1998. Advances in adaptation and physiology of South American camelids. Avances en Ciencias Veterinarias 13: 3–15.
San Martin F., Bryant F. C. 1989. Nutrition of domesticated South American llamas and alpacas. Small Ruminant Research 2: 191–216.
Sauvant D., Ramangasoavina B. 1991. Rumen modelling. In: Jouany, J. P. (Ed.), Rumen micronial metabolim and ruminant digestión. INRA, Paris. 283-296 pp.
Sponheimer M., Robinson T., Roeder B., Hammer J., Ayliffe J., Passey B., Cerling T., Dearing D., Ehleringer J. 2003. Digestion and passage rates of grass hays by llamas, alpacas, goats, rabbits y horses. Small Ruminant Research 48:149-154.
Tivano J. C., Vegetti A. C., Brollo M. E. 1990. Utilización de los caracteres histofoliares en la evaluación de la calidad forrajera de 7 líneas de Paspalum dilatatum Poir (Poaceae). Revista Argentina de Producción Animal 10: 13-17.
Tivano J. C., Heinzen F. A. 1996. Anatomía cuatitativa en 3 cultivares de Dichanthium aristatum (Poiret) C. E. Hulbard (Poaceae) para inferir su valor forrajero. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía, La Plata 101: 15-23.
Tivano J. C., Ramos J. C., Gasser M. 2007. Digestibilidad de los pastos. Bases histoquímicas. Ediciones Universidad Nacional del Litoral. 35-43 pp.
UTHSCSA. 2000. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. ftp://maxrad6.uthscsa.edu
Vallenas A., Cummings J. F., Munnell J. F. 1971. A gross study of the compartmentalized stomach of two new-world camelids, the llama and guanaco. Journal of Morphology. 134: 399-423.
Van Soest P.J . 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the rumiant. 2ª ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca and London. 476 pp.
Wilson J. R.1993. Organization of forage plan tissues. In: JUNG et al. (eds.). Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 1-32 pp.
Wilson J. R., Hatfield R. D. 1997. Structural and chemical changes of cell wall types durin stem development: Consequence for fibre degradation rumen microflora. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 48: 16-180.
