Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:31:04.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The apparent digestibility of crude protein by non-ruminants and ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Glover  and
D. W. Duthie
J. Glover
Affiliation:
East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
D. W. Duthie
Affiliation:
East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The apparent digestibility of crude protein by the non-ruminants, pigs, horses, rats, man and the rabbit, is shown to be related to the crude protein content of the feed, and the form of the relationship is similar to that for ruminants. With non-ruminants the apparent digestibility of crude protein is markedly depressed by the crude fibre content of the feed, whereas with ruminants the depression is only slight. The relevant equations show that pigs are much more sensitive to crude fibre than horses and rabbits, and both the latter react more markedly to crude fibre than do the ruminants.

Despite the apparently significant differences between the equations for the ruminant and nonruminant herbivores, it is shown that over the normal range of crude protein and crude fibre content in feedingstuffs suitable for herbivores, the apparent digestibility coefficient of crude protein is similar for all. In other words, despite different abilities to cope with crude fibre, the herbivores as a class digest crude protein in normal feeds to much the same extent. On the other hand, the pig, an omnivore, is shown to be very markedly affected by the crude fibre content of such feeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , December 1958 , pp. 289 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atwater, W. O. (1895). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Stas, no. 21.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Rutherford, B. E. (1954). J. Nutr. 54, 445.Google Scholar
Feldman, W. M. (1923). Biomathematics. London: Griffin and Company.Google Scholar
Glover, J., Duthie, D. W. & French, M. H. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. & French, M. H. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 78.Google Scholar
Glover, J. & Duthie, D. W. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 227.Google Scholar
Jaffa, M. E. (1903). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Stas, no. 132.Google Scholar
Lloyd, L. E. & Crampton, E. W. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1947). Feeds of the World. W. Va. Univ., Morgantown, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Snyder, H. (1905). Bull. U.S. Off. Exp. Stas, no. 156.Google Scholar
Voris, Le Roy, Marcy, L. F., Thacker, E. J. & Wainio, W. W. (1940). J. Agric. Res. 61, 673.Google Scholar