Differences between sheep and red deer in in vitro apparent and true digestibility of commonly used red deer feeds


  • Andrej LAVRENČIČ University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Animal Science, Slovenia
  • Darko VETERNIK LPN Kozorog Kamnik, Slovenia




animal nutrition, red deer, sheep, rumen, feed evaluation, in vitro digestibility, supplementary feeding


The nutritive value of red deer feeds is frequently determined by sheep despite the ultimate arbitrator of the nutritive value of any feed is the host animal. The objective of the trial was to determine the influence of rumen fluid donor (sheep vs red deer) on in vitro dry matter (DMD), neutral-detergent fibre (NDFD) and true digestibility (ivTD) of eleven substrata, naturally occurring in Slovenian forests (chestnut fruits, acorns of common and sessile oak, two fresh grasses) and those frequently used in supplemental red deer feeding (two grass hays and two grass silages, apple pomace and sugar beet roots). Only the fresh grass from Jelendol had greater (< 0.05) DMD (646 vs 508 g/kg) when incubated in red deer inoculum. The NDFD and ivTD were always numerically greater when substrates were incubated in red deer inocula, however the NDFD and ivTD were significantly greater (p < 0.05) only when fresh grass from Jelendol (590 vs 343 g/kg and 801 vs 681 g/kg, respectively), grass silage from Kokra (541 vs 359 g/kg and 742 vs 639 g/kg, respectively) and apple pomace (428 vs 328 g/kg and 704 vs 653 g/kg, respectively) were incubated in the inoculum prepared from red deer rumen contents. These results indicate that rumen fluid from sheep can be used to predict in vitro digestibility in red deer and that these parameters can be used in the formulation of deer diets.


Barbosa, P., & Bowyer, R. T. (2000). Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. Journal of Mammalogy, 81, 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081%3C0473:SSIDDA%3E2.0.CO;2

Crawford, H. S., & Hankinson, D. H. (1984). White-tailed deer vs. bovine inocula for in vitro digestibilities. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48, 649–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801211

DLG. (1997). DLG Futterwerttabellen: Wiederkäuer (7th revised and extended edition). Frankfurt: DLG-Verlag.

Gordon, I. J., Pérez-Barbería, F. J., & Cuartas, P. (2002). The influence of adaptation of rumen microflora on in vitro digestion of different forages by sheep and red deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80, 1930–1937. https://doi.org/10.1139/z02-179

Goering, H. K., & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture handbook 379. Washington, DC, USA: ARS USDA.

Hervás, G., Ranilla, M. J., Mantecón, A. R., Bodas, R., & Frutos, P. (2004). Comparison of in vitro digestibility of feedstuffs using rumen inoculum from sheep or red deer. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 13(Suppl. 1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/73746/2004

Henderson, G., Cox, F., Ganesh, S., Jonker, A., & Young, W., Global Rumen Census Collaborators, Janssen, P. H. (2015). Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 5, 14567. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567

Jerina, K. (2007). The effects of habitat structure on red deer (Cervus elaphus) body mass. Zbornik Gozdarstva in Lesarstva, 82, 3–13.

Menke, K. H., & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development, 28, 375–386.

Neumann, K., & Bassler, R. (1976). Methodenbuch, Band III. Neudamm: Verlag J. Neumann.

Palmer, W. L., Cowan, R. L., & Amman, A. P. (1976) Effect of inoculum source on in vitro digestion of deer foods. Journal of Wildlife Management, 40, 301–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800429

Rajský, M., Vodňanský, M., Hell, P., Slamečka, J., Kropil, R., & Rajský, D. (2008). Influence of supplementary feeding on bark browsing by red deer (Cervus elaphus) under experimental conditions. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54, 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0199-2

Ru, Y. J., Glatz, P. C., Miao, Z. H., Swanson, K., Falkenberg, S., & Wyatt, S. (2002). Comparison of the digestibility of grain and forage by sheep, red deer and fallow deer. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, 15, 800–805. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.800

SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS/STAT user’s guide: Statistics (release 9.4). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Schwartz, C. C., & Nagy, J. G. (1972). Maintaining deer rumen fluid for in vitro digestion studies. Journal of Wildlife Management, 36, 1341–1343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3799281

Tilley, J. M. A, & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x



21. 06. 2018



Animal Science section

How to Cite

LAVRENČIČ, A., & VETERNIK, D. (2018). Differences between sheep and red deer in in vitro apparent and true digestibility of commonly used red deer feeds. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, 112(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2018.112.1.1

Similar Articles

1-10 of 643

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)