Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1387–1393 | Cite as

Time of feeding and predictability of dry matter and water intake of grasscutters fed on grass and supplements containing varying levels of dietary fiber

  • J. K. NyameasemEmail author
  • S. Affedzie-Obresi
  • E. K. Adu
Regular Articles


The study evaluated the feeding behavior of growing male grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed freshly cut Panicum maximum, supplemented with pelletized concentrates containing varying levels of dietary fiber. In a two-stage 4 × 4 Latin square arrangement, the relationships between water and dry matter intakes as influenced by dietary characteristics were investigated by offering supplements either at 09:00 h (morning) during the first stage or at 17:00 h (evening) during the second. Each test period lasted for 14 days with a 1-week rest period between changeovers. Time of feeding significantly (P < 0.05) affected total dry matter intake (DMI) and intake of the supplements, with the total DMI increasing by 21% when the diets were offered in the evening relative to when offered in the morning. Regression analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) correlations between dry matter (DM) and water intakes against some dietary characteristics. The current study has shown that crude fiber (CF) inclusion of up to 14% in pelletized supplements for growing grasscutters consuming a basal diet with CF up to 31% may not affect feed and water intake, as well as acceptability of the feed. However, feeding such supplements in the evening could stimulate higher feed intake. Also, dietary DM better predicted DMI compared to the other dietary characteristics.


Crude fiber Diet acceptability Dry matter intake Feeding behavior Thryonomys swinderianus Water intake 



The management of Animal Research Institute is thanked for the permission to use the facilities of the Grasscutter Unit for this work.

Funding information

Financial support for this work is from Research-Farmer Linkage Committee, Greater Accra Region of Ghana.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Adu, E. K., Awotwi, E. K., Awumbila, B. and Amaning-Kwarteng, K. 2013. Predicting the energy and protein requirements of the pregnant grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus, Temminck) using the changes in weight and composition of the foetus and associated tissues of pregnancy. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45(5), 1207–1213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Adu, E. K., Asafu-Adjaye, A., Hagan, B. A. and Nyameasem, J. K. 2017. The grasscutter: an untapped resource of Africa’s grasslands. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 29(47), Accessed 13 Sept 2017.
  3. Al-Dawood, A. 2017. Towards heat stress management in small ruminants - A review. Annals of Animal Science, 17(1), 59–88. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Homidan, A. and Ahmed, B. M. 2000. Productive performance and digestion kinetics of California rabbits as affected by combinations of ambient temperature and dietary crude fibre level. Egyptian Journal of Rabbit Science, 10, 281–294.Google Scholar
  5. Ammer, S., Lambertz, C., von Soosten, D., Zimmer, K., Meyer, U., Dänicke, S., and Gauly, M. 2017. Impact of diet composition and temperature–humidity index on water and dry matter intake of high-yielding dairy cows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 102(1), 103–113. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia, 15th edition, 1298 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Appuhamy, J. A. D. R. N., Judy, J. V., Kebreab, E., and Kononoff, P. J. 2016. Prediction of drinking water intake by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(9), 7191–7205. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohort Software 2008. CoStat version 6.400. Cohort Software, Monterey, CA.
  9. da Silva, C. S., van den Borne, J. J., Gerrits, W. G., Kemp, B. and Bolhuis, J. E. 2012. Effects of dietary fibers with different physicochemical properties on feeding motivation in adult female pigs. Physiology and Behavior, 107, 218–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Glencross, B. D., Booth, M., and Allan, G. L. 2007. A feed is only as good as its ingredients - A review of ingredient evaluation strategies for aquaculture feeds. Aquaculture Nutrition, 13(1), 17–34. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hristov, A. N., Price, W. J., and Shafii, B. 2004. A Meta-Analysis Examining the Relationship Among Dietary Factors, Dry Matter Intake, and Milk and Milk Protein Yield in Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 87(2001), 2184–2196. doi: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Husse, J., Eichele, G. and Oster, H. 2015. Synchronization of the mammalian circadian timing system: Light can control peripheral clocks independently of the SCN clock: Alternate routes of entrainment optimize the alignment of the body’s circadian clock network with external time. BioEssays, 37(10), 1119–1128. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnston, J. D. 2014. Physiological responses to food intake throughout the day. Nutrition Research Reviews, 27(1), 107–18. doi: CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Karikari, P. K. and Nyameasem, J. K. 2009. Productive performance and carcass characteristics of captive grasscutters (Thryonomys swinderianus) fed concentrate diets containing varying levels of guinea grass. World Applied Sciences Journal, 6 (4): 557–563.Google Scholar
  15. Khelil-Arfa, H., Boudon, A., Maxin, G., Faverdin, P. 2012. Prediction of water intake and excretion flows in Holstein dairy cows under thermoneutral conditions. Animal, 10, 1662–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kusi, C., Tuah, A. K., Annor, S. Y. and Djang-Fordjour, K. T. 2012. Determination of dietary crude protein level required for optimum growth of the grasscutter in captivity. Livestock Research for Rural Development 24(10), Accessed 16 Jun 2017.
  17. Li, Q. and Patience, J. F. 2017. Factors involved in the regulation of feed and energy intake of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 233, 22–33. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A, Greenhalgh, J.F.D, Morgan, C.A, Sinclair, L.A. and Wilkinson, R. G. 2011. Animal Nutrition. doi:
  19. Nikkhah, A. 2012. Science of eating time: chronophysiological approach to optimize glucose-insulin dynamics and health. Journal of Diabetes Mellitus 2(1), 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nikkhah, A., Furedi, C. J., Kennedy, A. D., Scott, S., Crow, G. H. and Plaizier, J. C. 2011. Feed delivery at 2100 h vs. 0900 h for lactating dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Sciences, 91, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Opara, M. N. 2010. The Grasscutter I: A Livestock of Tomorrow. Research Journal of Forestry, 4(3), 119–135. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauzenga, U. 1985. Feeding parent stock. Zootechnica International, December 1985, 22–24.Google Scholar
  23. Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Technology and Engineering. Cornell University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Ward, D. and McKague, K. 2007. Water requirements of livestock. OMAFRA Fact Sheet. Accessed 20 April 2017.
  25. Yape-Kii, W. and Dryden, G. McL. 2005. Water consumption by rusa deer (Cervus timorensis) stags as influenced by different types of feed. Animal Science, 23, 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. K. Nyameasem
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Affedzie-Obresi
    • 1
  • E. K. Adu
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIR-Animal Research InstituteAchimotaGhana

Personalised recommendations