Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:35:07.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestibility of oat hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. F. Walker
H. F. Walker
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Digestibility trials, using sheep, were carried out on five batches of oat hay grown during 2 years; nitrogen balance experiments were made simultaneously.

2. The oat hay was not readily consumed by the sheep; this necessitated calculating the digestibility data on an ‘as consumed’ and on an ‘as offered’ basis; it also prevented a majority of the sheep from obtaining their maintenance requirements of energy or from maintaining nitrogen equilibrium.

3. Statistical analysis of the data revealed a downward drift in digestibility in the succeeding periods of the 1955 trial.

4. While stage of maturity had little consistent effect on digestibility or on the amounts of digestible nutrients present, the percentage digestible crude protein did increase with advance in maturity.

5. The amounts of digestible nutrients present in oat hay indicated that it had a nutritive value between those of oat straw and medium-quality meadow hay.

6. The data suggest that the maximum yield of digestible nutrients is obtained when the oat hay is cut at the ‘late cheesy’ stage of maturity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , December 1959 , pp. 289 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Bartlett, J. M. (1901). Bull. Me Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 70, 24 pp. (cited by Sotola, J. J. Agric. Res. 1937, 54, 399).Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1954). Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, ed. Hammond, J., vol. 1, p. 3. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth, p. 380. New York: Rheinholdt Publ. Corp.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). Advances in Protein Chemistry, vol. 9, p. 93, ed. M. L. Anson, K. Baily and J. T. Edsall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1956). Applied Animal Nutrition, p. 160. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T. S., Mitchell, H. H. & Kammlabe, W. G. (1928). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 303, pp. 295.Google Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Mitchell, H. H. (1941). J. Nutr. 22, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 1, 93.Google Scholar
MacDonald, I. W. (1948). Biochem. J. 42, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Weir, W. C., Jones, L. G. & Hall, J. L. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1949). Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Sheep.Google Scholar
Nicholson, I. A. (1957 a). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, I. A. (1957 b). Private communication.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1947). Feeds of the World; their Digestibility and Composition. Charleston, U.S.A.: Jarrett Printing Co.Google Scholar
Smuts, D. B. (1935). J. Nutr. 9, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smuts, D. B. & Marais, J. S. C. (1938). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 11, 131.Google Scholar
Sotola, J. (1937). J. Agric. Res. 54, 399.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. J. & Moir, R. J. (1944). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 21, 41.Google Scholar
Williams, V. J., Nottle, M. C., Moir, R. J. & Underwood, E. J. (1953). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 6, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1952). Rations for Livestock. Minist. of Agric. Bull. no. 48, 12th ed.London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar