4.3 Article

The feeding height preferences of two goat breeds fed Grewia occidentalis L. (Tiliaceae) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

期刊

SMALL RUMINANT RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 31-38

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00234-1

关键词

Boer goats; Ngum goats; browse; feeding level; savanna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nguni goats and Boer goats, which are farmed together in the savannas of the Eastern Cape Province, depend on the same feed resources. The feeding height intake rates and preferences of one of their most preferred browse species, Grewia occidentalis L. (Tiliaceae), were studied in order to indirectly determine resource partitioning between these goat breeds on the basis of feeding height. The two hypotheses tested were that taller Boer goats feed at higher levels than do Nguni goats and that both breeds have feeding height preferences that are related to differences in intake rates. Four individuals of each breed were fed branches attached to a height foraging board. The two breeds showed no particular height preference in either season. Bite rates varied with feeding height, while bite sizes and intake rates increased with feeding height. Boer goats had lower bite rates compared to Nguni goats, although both breeds achieved similar bite sizes and intake rates. Bites sizes and intake rates for both breeds were higher in summer than in winter, possibly because more browse biomass was available per branch in summer than in winter since G. occidentalis is deciduous. There was no evidence to support that feeding height preference was related to differences in intake rates. It is concluded that Boer goats may compete for forage resources during times of resource limitation. Thus, Nguni goats might be a more favourable breed in semi-arid savannas because of their smaller body-size and, therefore, absolute nutrient requirements as well as their better reproductive performance compared to Boer goats. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据