Determining the Palatability of Rangeland Species Grazed by Goat in Relation to Growth Stages and Day Length (Case Study: Rangelands of Deh Sheikh Village, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province)... | ||
| پژوهش های علوم دامی (دانش کشاورزی) | ||
| Volume 33, Issue 3, January 2024, Pages 1-15 PDF (555.05 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22034/as.2022.47506.1627 | ||
| Authors | ||
| vahid sayare1; Hossein Arzani* 2; Ali Tavili3; setareh Bagheri4 | ||
| 1karaj | ||
| 2Professor, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran | ||
| 4PhD Graduate in rangeland management | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Introduction: Palatability is one of the important characteristics of rangeland plants that is related to their acceptance by animals for grazing (Arzani, 2009). It is also defined as an animal's pleasurable reaction to its food depending on the taste, smell, texture, and appetite of nutrition animal (Church, 1988). Molyneux and Ralphs (1992) reported that while palatability means acceptance, it is not necessarily desirable. In other words, a nutritious food may not have a specific smell or taste in terms of preference, and it may not be attractive or taste bad. In terms of nutritional needs, most of the animal food may be composed of plants that have a moderate degree of palatability. Material and methods: This research has been done in the rangeland of Deh Sheikh Village of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad provinces. To conduct this study, first two healthy three-year-old goats (females) of Mamasani breed were randomly selected from a herd that belonged to the same area. Then, three important rangeland species including two perennial species including Gundelia tournefortii and Bromus tomentellus and one annual species, Aegilops triuncialis were selected by video method to determine the palatability of species at different stages of growth including vegetative growth, flowering and seeding. For this purpose, the grazing time of goats from any plant was monitored at intervals of 30 minutes in three times including morning, noon and evening and in two repetitions (two days in each growing season) with a suitable distance from the goats. Finally, the palatability percentage of each species was calculated separately. Results and discussion: The results of perennial species in vegetative growth and flowering stages showed that there is no significant difference in palatability between different times of the day (morning, noon and evening). In other words, the consumption of goats from any specie is the same at different times of the day in the stages of vegetative growth and flowering. It was also observed that G. tournefortii has more palatability than B. tomentellus in vegetative growth and flowering stages (Figures 2 and 3). Also, the palatability results of perennial species in the seeding stage indicate that there is no significant difference between different species in terms of palatability at any time of the day. In the case of A. triuncialis, it was found that the palatability of this species at different stages of growth has a significant difference at the level of 1%, but at different times of the day there was no significant difference in palatability (Table 3). Also, according to Figure 7, it was found that the highest and lowest palatability of this species are related to the stages of vegetative growth (27.21%) and seeding (8.09%), respectively. Conclusion: In the vegetative and flowering stages of G. tournefortii, which is a forb species, it has more palatability than B. tomentellus (grass) for goats. In fact, if G. thournefortii thorns are not for livestock, this species will appear in the form of a palatable species and will be selected by goats. In this regard, Shoaib Amjad et al. (2014) stated that the morphological characteristics of plants such as thorns, hairs, bitter taste and unpleasant reduce palatability. The findings of Arzani and Naseri (2007) in relation to the study of goat grazing behavior of G.tournefortii also showed that G.tournefortii is more grazed by goats at the flowering stage when the thorns are soft. The results of some studies also showed that even in the flowering stage, changes in flowering time and flowering and fruiting rates affect the behavior of animal species that are directly or indirectly dependent on plant phenology. On the other hand, the results of the seeding stage of perennial species showed that in the sowing stage of B.tomentellus species has a higher percentage of palatability than G.tournefortii species in all three times of the day (Figure 5). The results of this study on A. triuncialis palatability (annual species) showed that the highest and lowest palatability of this species for goats coincides with the stages of vegetative growth and seeding (Table 3 and Figure 6). It should be noted that the decrease in palatability of most plants with the development of vegetative stages is almost confirmed for most species. So that in the early growth of forage is very green and palatable and with the development of puberty most of its nutrients are reduced (Tan et al., 2003; Rebole et al., 2004; Alikhahasl, 2008). The results of some studies also confirm that forage quality indicators also change as the growth stages progress. In fact, forage quality changes constantly as plants mature, and these changes are so rapid that a significant reduction in forage quality can be detected every two or three days (Twidwell and Wegenhoft, 1999). The results of Heady and Denis (1994) show that in the vegetative growth stage of forage plants, the amounts of crude protein, sugars and vitamins are high; but fiber and lignin levels are low. According to the results of this study, it can be said that future studies can extend these results to vegetation, including a wider range of vegetative forms, because our results emphasize the importance of maintaining the complex structure of plant communities in rangelands (different species, vegetative forms and growth stages). To maintain their nutritional value over time. Although goats are known as browser and are interested to shrubs, but as Arzani and Naseri (2009) reported, in the absence of shrubs, this animal will graze on grass and forb in the rangeland, so most herds Countries A combination of sheep and goats can be seen. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Growth Stages; Palatability; Aegilops triuncialis; Bromus tomentellus; Gundelia tournefortii | ||
| References | ||
|
Aerts R, 1996. Nutrient resorption from senescing leaves of perennials: are there general patterns. Journal of Ecology 84: 597-608.
Aizen MA and Feinsinger P, 1994. Forest fragmentation, pollination, and plant reproduction in a Chaco dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75: 330-351.
Aizen MA, 2007. Enfoques en el estudio de la reproducción sexual de las plantas en ambientes alteradoslimitaciones y perspectivas. Ecologia Austral 17: 7-19.
Alikhah Asl M, 2008. Investigating the relationship between palatability and forage quality of some rangeland plants. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran.
Andueza D, Delgado I and Munoz F, 2012, Variation of digestibility and intake by sheep of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) hays cut at sunrise or sunset. Journal of Agricultural Science 150(2): 263-270.
Arzani H and Naseri K, 2009. Livestock feeding on pasture, translation, University of Tehran, 301p.
Arzani H, 2009. Forage quality and daily requirement of grazing animal. University of Tehran Press, 354 p.
Arzani H, Pirisahragard H, Turkan J and Saedi K, 2010. Comparison of forage quality of Some plant species of Saral Kurdistan rangelands in different phenological stages. Rangeland 4 (2): 160-167. (In Persian)
Badshah L and Hussain F, 2011. Farmer preferences and use of local fodder flora in Tank district, Pakistan. African journal of Biotechnology 10(32): 6062-6071.
Baumont R, 1996. Palatability and feeding behaviour in ruminants. a review. Annales de Zootechnie 45: 385-400.
Burt-Smith GS, Grime JP and Tilman D, 2003. Seedling resistance to herbivory as a predictor of relative abundance in a synthesised prairie community. Oikos 101: 345-353.
Buschmann H, Keller M, Porret N, Dietz H and Edwards PJ, 2005. The effect of slug grazing on vegetation development and plant species diversity in an experimental grassland. Functional Ecology 19: 291-298.
Canon SK, Urness PJ and DeByle NV, 1987. Habit selection, foraging behaviour and dietary nutrition of elk in burned aspen forest. Journal of Range Management 40(5): 433-438.
Charesaz N, jafari AA, Arzani H and Azarnivand H, 2010. Investigation of variations in percentage of soluble carbohydrates in three species of Agropyron intermedium, Bronus tonentellus, Dactvlis glomerata in three phonological stages. Journal of Rangeland 4(1): 121-129. (In Persian)
Church DC, 1988. The ruminant animal: digestive physiology and nutrition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall. 563p.
Cingolani AM, Noy-Meir I and Díaz S, 2005. Grazing effects on rangeland diversity: a synthesis of contemporary models. Ecological Applications 15: 757-773.
Cornelissen JHC, Quested HM, Gwynn-Jones D, Van Logtestijn RSP, Beus MAH, Kondratchuk, A, Callaghan TV and Aerts R, 2004. Leaf digestability and litter decomposability are related in a wide range of subarctic plant species and types. Functional Ecology 18: 779-786.
Damiram D, 2005. Palatability of Mongolian rangeland plants. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center Circular of Information 3: 1-91.
Delavaripour, A. 2005. Comparison of the palatability of some important species of Yazd rangelands in relation to sheep and goat grazing, MSc. thesis. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran.
Elger A and Barrat-Segretain MH, 2004. Plant palatability can be inferred from a single-date feeding trial. Functional Ecology 18: 483-488.
Emil JC, Ghesquiere M, Traineaau R, Jadas-Hecart J and Mousset C, 1997. Evaluation de la valuer alimentarire de genotypes de fetuque eleveee obtenus par diffeerents strategies d’amelioration. Fourrage151: 373-387.
Ghahreman A, 1992. Cromophytes of Iran. Tehran University Press, pp: 515-622. (In Persian)
Ghodsi Rasi H, 1996. Comparison of methods for determining palatability and investigation of factors affecting palatability of important rangeland species in Chaharbagh region of Golestan. Thesis of Tehran University.
Griffin MPA, Cole ML, Kroeger KD and Cebrian J, 1998. Dependence of herbivory on autotrophic nitrogen content and on net primary production across ecosystems. Biol Bull 195: 233-234.
Grime J, 2001. Plant strategies, vegetation processes and ecosystem properties. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley, 456p.
Heady HF and Denis RD, 1994. Rangeland and ecology and management. West View Press. USA, 520p.
Holchek JI, Herbal CH and Pieper RD,2004. Range management principles and practices. prentice Hall Pub. USA. ForthEdition. 587p.Hussain F and Durrani MJp 2009. Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Harboi arid rangeland, Kalat, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany 41(2): 539-554.
Joneidi H, Amani S and Karami P, 2016. Effects of grazing intensities on carbon sequestration and storage in the rangelands of Bijar protected area. Iranian Journal of Society of Range Management 10(1): 53-67.
Julie B and C Huighe, 1998. Variabilite genetique pour la digestibilite de la jucerne: relation avec ia production de matiere seche et la proportion de feuilles. Fourrages 154: 261-268.
Kaitho RJ, Tamminga S and Bruchem J, 1996. Rumen degradation and in vivo digestibility of dried Calliandra calothyrsus leaves. Animal Feed Science Technology 43(1-2): 19-30.
Kaitho RJ, Umunna NN, Nsahlai IV, Tamminga S, Van Bruchem T, Hanson J and Van der Wouw M, 1996. Palatability of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative palatability by sheep. Agroforestry Systems 13: 249-261.
Karda IW and Spudiati S, 2006. Relativee palatability by sheep and goats of oven -dried Calliandrs, ,Albizia, Gliricidia, and Leucaena leaves. Majalah Ilmiah Peternakan, 9(2):1-10.
Karimi H, 1990. Rangeland. University of Tehran Press. 408p.
Khan M and Hussain F, 2012. Palatability and animal preferences of plants in tehsil Takht-e- Nasrati, district Karak, Pakistan. African Journal of Agricultural Research 7(44): 5858-5872.
Kirilov A, Vasilev E and Naydenova Y, 2009. Nutritive characteristics of grasses and legumes. Conference paper, 291-293.
Lusigi WJ, Nkurunziza ER and Masheti S, 1984. Forage preferences of livestock in the arid lands of Northern Kenya. Journal of Range Management 37(6): 542-548.
Malubekova GB, 1996. The ecological evaluation of the present condition of rangeland vegetation of Kazakhistan deserts. In: Proc. Rangelands. In a sustainable biosphere. (Ed.): N.E. West. 5th International Congress 1995, Salt Lake City Utah pp. 338-339.
Manske LL, 2005. Environmental factors to consider during planning of management for range plants in the Dickinson, North Dakota, region, 1892-2004.
Mill E, Knemeyer J, Matter HE and Steinbach J, 1990. Methodology for determining the available nutrientsin the various vegetation strata of Northern and Southern Africa. Animal Research and Develop 31: 22-30.
Moghaddam MR, 2008. Range and range management. University of Tehran Press. Second edition, 470 p.
Molyneux RJ and Ralphs M, 1992. Plant toxins and palatability to herbivores. Journal of Range Management 45(1): 13-18.
Ngwa AT, Nsahlai IV and Bonsi MLK, 2003. Feed intake and dietary preferences of sheep and goats offered hay and legume-tree pods in South Africa. Agroforestry Systems 57: 29-37.
Noy-Meir I and Walker BH, 1986. Stability and resilience in range lands. In: Joss PJ, Lynch PW, Williams OB, editors. Rangelands: a resource under siege. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science 21-25.
Palkova K and Leps J, 2008. Positive relationship between plant palatability and litter decomposition in meadow plants. Community Ecology 9(1): 17-27.
Paz M and Raffaele E, 2013. Cattle change plant reproductive phenology, promoting community changes in a post-fire Nothofagus forest in Northern Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Plant Ecology 1-26.
Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Vendramini F, Cornelissen JHC, Gurvich DE and Cabido M, 2003. Leaf traits and herbivore selection in the field and in cafeteria experiments. Austral Ecology 28: 642-650.
Raufirad V, Azadi H, Ebrahimi A. and Bagheri S, 2016. Palatability: application of principal component analysis. Rangelands 38(3): 105-112.
Rebole A, Alzueta C, Ortiz LT, Barro C, Rodriguez ML and Caballero R, 2004. Yields and chemical composition of different parts of the common vetch at flowering and at two seed filling stages. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2(4): 550-557.
Rios S, Correal E and Robledo A, 1989. Palatability of the main fodder and pasture speciepresent in S.E. Spain. I. woody species (tree and shrubs). XVI Int. Grassld. Congr, Nice (France) pp. 1531-1532.
Robledo A, Correal E and Rios S, 1989. Palatability of the main fodder and pasture speciespresent in S.E. Spain. II Herbaceous species. XVI Int. Grassld.Congr., Nice (France) pp. 1533-1534.
Shahbazian R and Erfanzadeh R, 2014. Evaluation Of grazing behavior and diet selection of Marghoz breed goat in rangeland of Kurdistan province (case study: Ghorveh). Animal Sciences Journal (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi) 101: 52-61.
Shoaib Amjad M, Arshad M, Fatima S and Mumtaz N, 2014. Palatability and animal preferences of plants in Tehsil Nikyal, district Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Pakistan. Annual Research & Review in Biolog 4(6): 953-961.
Silcock JL Fairfax RJ and Fensham RJ, 2019. Feral fuchsia eating: Long-term decline of a palatable shrub in grazed rangelands. Journal of Arid Environment 163: 1-8.
Smith-Ramírez C, Armesto JJ and Figueroa J, 1998. Flowering, fruiting and seed germination in Chilean rain forest myrtaceae: ecological and phylogenetic constraints. Plant Ecology 136: 119-131.
Strauss SY and Agrawal AA, 1999. The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14: 179-185.
Strong DR, Lawton JH and Southwood TRE, 1984. Insects on plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Harvard Univ. Press.
Tan M, Temel S and Yolcu H, 2003. Effects of harvest management on the mineral composition of common vetch. Proceedings of the 12th symposium of the European grassland federation, Pleven, Bulgaria pp. 423-425.
Twidwell E and Wegenhoft K, 1999. Forage quality and its value. Available online: http://www.agecon.lsu.edu/Extension_Pubs/Forage%20Quality%20and%20It s%20Value.pdf
Vallentine JF, 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, USA.
Van-Slageren MW, 1994. Wild wheats: a monograph of Aegilops L. and Amblyopyrum (Jaub. & Spach) Eig (Poaceae). Wageningen Agricultural University Papers (94-7).
Wardle DA, KI Bonner and Barker GM, 2002. Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter quality, and vegetation responses to herbivores. Functional Ecology 16: 585-595.
Westoby M, Walker BH and Noy-Meir I, 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42(4): 266-274. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 801 PDF Download: 482 |
||