We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 6th, 2024 - no new submissions will be accepted; however, all content already published will remain publicly available. Please reach out to repository@u.library.arizona.edu with your questions, or if you are a UA affiliate who needs to make content available soon. Note that any new user accounts created after September 22, 2024 will need to be recreated by the user in November after our migration is completed.
Sagebrush ingestion by lambs: Effects of experience and macronutrients
Issue Date
2000-01-01Keywords
feeding levelfeed formulation
lambs
alfalfa
Artemisia
poisonous weeds
feeding behavior
protein intake
terpenoids
barley
Artemisia tridentata
feed intake
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Burritt, E. A., Banner, R. E., & Provenza, F. D. (2000). Sagebrush ingestion by lambs: Effects of experience and macronutrients. Journal of Range Management, 53(1), 91-96.Publisher
Society for Range ManagementJournal
Journal of Range ManagementAdditional Links
https://rangelands.org/Abstract
We investigated how experience early in life and macronutrient content of the diet influenced intake of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana (Rydb.) Beetle) by sheep. In the first part of our study, 2-month-old lambs were exposed as a group for 2 mo to a 70% barley-30% soybean meal ration (300 g/hd/day) that contained increasing amounts sagebrush (1 to 20%). Control lambs received grain without sagebrush. All lambs had access to alfalfa hay and pellets ad libitum. When lambs were tested at 6 months of age, prior exposure had no effect on sagebrush consumption after the first 4 days of the trial. When sagebrush comprised 20% of an alfalfa/barley ration, lambs ate the sagebrush ration readily even when a nutritious alternative was offered indicating the flavor of sagebrush did not prevent lambs from feeding. Increasing the amount of sagebrush in the ration from 50% to 75% resulted in lambs eating less of the barley/sagebrush ration, but daily intake of sagebrush remained constant throughout the 4 day trial, presumably because toxins (terpenes) limited intake of sagebrush. In the second part of our study, lambs experienced with sagebrush were fed 250 g/hd/day of barley, and nutritional status was varied by offering alfalfa pellets at 33% or 80% of ad libitum (1.2 and 2.7 times maintenance, respectively) to determine if dietary energy levels affected intake of sagebrush. Each day lambs received a 50/50 sagebrush/barley supplement ad libitum for 1 hour. Lambs fed at 33% of ad libitum consumed more of the sagebrush/barley supplement than lambs fed at 80% of ad libitum. Thus, additional energy did not enable lambs to consume more sagebrush. In the last trial, lambs in both treatments were fed a basal ration of alfalfa pellets at 50% of ad libitum. Each morning for 1 hour, lambs were offered macronutrient supplements containing either 50% barley/50% sagebrush (high energy) or 25% barley/25% soybean meal/50% sagebrush (high energy and protein). Lambs consumed the same amount of sagebrush regardless of supplement. Thus, supplemental protein did not improve sagebrush consumption. We conclude lambs readily ingested a high-energy ration containing sagebrush, regardless of exposure early in life, suggesting toxins, not flavor, control intake of sagebrush. Further, supplementing lambs with energy or protein failed to improve intake of sagebrush, which suggests these macronutrients did not enhance detoxification of sagebrush.Type
textArticle
Language
enISSN
0022-409Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.2307/4003398