Browsing by Author "Owen, E."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item The ability of sheep to reach for food through tombstone barriers, as affected by position of food, body weight and body dimensions(2000) Muhikambele, V.R. M.; Owen, E.; Mould, F.L.; Mtenga, A.Two studies were undertaken to provide information on the ability of sheep to reach for food similar to that for cattle fed through tombstone barriers. In the first study twenty castrate and twenty non-pregnant: female unshorn Suffolk x Mule sheep (23 - 89 kg live weight) were trained to reach through a vertical' tombstone barrierJor concentrate meal placed on a horizontal platform attached to the barrier. The barrier allowed the neck to pass through, but not the shoulders. It was hypothesised that horizontal reach forwards (F. distance from mid-point of barrier to uneaten meal) and sideways (S. distance sideways from ' mid-point of barrier to uneaten meal adjacent to barrier) would be a function of height of platform above the floor and bt size (M). Because of size. seventeen sheep (mean 34.6 kg) were unable to reach the meal when the p at form height was 75 cm. Mean (s. e.) values for F cit platform heights O. 25. 50 and 75 cm were 43.91.03. 9.40.91. 47. 00. 96 and 27.01.27 em respectively. Values for Sweresmaller but followed a similar pattern (36.61.10. 43.50.80. 41.00. 79 and 22.91.78 em). Lihearregression showed that F or S could be predicted from M (R2 >0.5) or a combination of M and withers height (R2>0. 7) when platform heights were 25. 50 or 75 cm. Reach at 0 cm platform height was not related to body weight or linear dimensions. In the second study with unshorn Suffolk x Mule sheep. ten castrates and ten non-pregnant fomales (23 - 97 kg live weight) were trained to reach through the tombstone barrier for concentrate pellets glued'. using molasses. onto a vertical plate. It was hypothesised that vertical reach (V. distance from floor to uneaten pellets) would be afunction of distance between barrier wid plate (20. 30. 40. 45. 50 cm). height of step (0. 14.2. 28.4. 42.6 cm) on which sheep placed their forelegs. and body size. With the-exception of the largest sh'eep. most were unable to reach pellets either when the barrier-to-plate distance was 45~nd 50cin. or when theforeleg-step height was 42. 6 cm. Mean (s.e) Vvaluesdecreasedwith step height (e.g. at 0 cm step. 103.83.04. 96.23.23 and 82.14.3 7cm. at 20. 30 and 40 cm plate distances respectively; at ~Ocm plate distance. 103.83.04.118.72.83 and 131.92.91 cm at O. 14.2 and 28.4 cm step heights respectively). Linear regression of V on body weight and linear dimensions (e.g. withers height and rump height) showed high correlations (R2> O. 8). V could be predicted from either M ~>O. 7) or a combination of rump height andwithers height~>0.9). The results confirm relationshipsfound in a previous investigation }'lith goats. but demonstrate that sheep have a smaller reach than goats. The data will facilitate the design of mangers for sheep with body dimensions in the range of those used.Item Developmental changes of fat depots-in male Saanen goats(2005) Mtenga, L.A.; Owen, E.; Muhikambele, V.R.M.; Kifaro, G.C.Thirty-four male British Saanen goats were reared on milk substitutes from birth to weaning at 35 days and then given barley-based concentrate diet ad libitum. They were slaughtered serially at birth (3.5 kg), weaning (9.5 kg), 24.5,36.5, 48.5 and 72.5 kg live weights. Weights of fat depots were recorded. With the exception of channel fat, all fat depots increased significantly (P< 0.001) with increasing slaughter weight. Fat growth coeffients were greater than 1 (P<0.001) and was highest for subcutaneous fat (1.887), followed by gut fat (1.802), dissected fat I. 687), inter-muscular fat I.6I9) and lowest for channel fat I.I27). Relative to total fat, the greatest change in proportion of fat occurred between birth and 24.5 kg of live, weight. There were little consistent changes in proportion of subcutaneous fat relative to change in lotal body fatItem Muscle distribution in farm animals: comparison between goats and other farm animals(1998) Mtenga, L. A.; Owen, E.; Muhikambele, V.R.M.Eight,male goats w,ere 'slaf.lghtered at. 36 kg, live weight (approximately two thirds of mature weight) and dissected, into individual anatomic m'((s(;les. Weights of individual muscles were then grouped into 8 functional units and compared with published data on bulls, rams and boars.' There was a wide species d(tference;in "size index'~ musGles..· Abdominal wall index was highest !'n boars followed by goats, bulls and'rams, the values being 108, 1.00, 91 m:zd 90 resp.ectivety. 9,o(lts had. higher i!ldices ill four;functional units: agility, locomotion, supporting muscles 'and specialised funCtionai mu~cles.· Muscle data .. o/ goa~s indicated that goats are most aggressive followed by bulls, rams and pigs.Item The' effect 'of feeding position,and body size on the capacity of small ruminants to reach, for fOOd when fed through balriers(2000) Muhikambele, V.:R. M.; Massawe, N. F.; Mtenga, L. A.; Butler, E.A.; Owen, E.Small ruminant systems, espedally with intensification in the tropics, are increasingly involving indoor stall-feeding. To facilitate manger design, there is a needfor iriformation on the ability of the animal to reachfor food, suchas that availablefor cattle fed through barriers. Thirty eight goats (20 Galla, mean weight 28.2 kg; 18 Small East African; mean weight 24. 6 kg) and 26 sheep (16 Blackhead Persian, mean weight 24.0 kg, 10 Red Maasai; mean weight 20.4 kg), were trained to reach for concentrate meal placed on a horizontal platform through a vertical tombstone barrier. The barrier allowed the neck to pass through, but not the shoulders. 1t was hypothesized that goats would have larger reach than sheep and thatforeach species, horizontal reachforwards, F, (distancefrom mid-point of barrier to uneaten meal) and sideways,S, (distances sidewaysjrom mid-point of barrier to uneaten meal adjacent to barrier) would be ajunction of height of platform above the floor (0, 15, 30 and 45 cm) and body size (weight and linear measurements, e.g. body length). Goats had significantly larger F and S values than sheep. Mean values for Fat platform heights 0, 15, 30 and 45 cm were 37.9,41.8, 44.7 and 39.4 em respe;ctively for sheep and 45:4, 46.6, 47.2 and 43.0 cm respectively for goats. Values for S were smaller, but followed a similar pattern. Linear correlation coefficients between For S and dimensions in sheep were all low (0-0.5), but in goats, especially for F, correlations were generally high (0.4-0.8). Exceptfor the low correlation between reach and size in sheep, the results supported the hypotheses. The data will facilitate manger design for small'ruminants of similar breeds, having dimensions in the range of those used in the study.