Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:51:27.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestibility of wheat straw treated with sulphur dioxide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. Ben-Ghedalia  and
J. Miron
D. Ben-Ghedalia
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, P.O. Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
J. Miron
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, P.O. Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two digestion trials were performed with sheep in order to assess the effect of the sulphur dioxide treatment on the digestibility of wheat straw in vivo. In the first trial, untreated and SO2-treated straw served as the major components of the diets. Sulphur dioxide partly solubilized the cell wall (CW) material of the straw, decreasing its content from 78·5 to 55·9%. The digestibility of the residual CW was increased from 49·2 to 77·8%, whereas the digestibility values of the cell-soluble fraction (CS) were unaffected by the treatment: 55·8 and 57·8% for the untreated and treated straw, respectively. Apparent digestibility of the organic matter (OM) was increased by the treatment from 46 to 65%.

In the second trial SO2-treated wheat straw was fed together with concentrates at a D.M. ratio of 30/70, and the digestibility of the OM and CW was determined.

CW and OM digestibilities of the treated straw were not affected by 70% concentrate in the diet and the respective values were 77·0 and 65·5%, very similar to those found in the first trial. The reason for the in vitro–in vivo discrepancy is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 517 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Ben-Ghedalia, D. & Miron, J. (1981). Effect of sodium hydroxide, ozone and sulphur dioxide on the composition and in vitro digestibility of wheat straw. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 224–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ghedalia, D. & Miron, J. (1984). The response of wheat straw varieties to mild sulphur dioxide treatment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10 (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D., Shefet, G. & Dror, Y. (1983). Chemical treatments for increasing the digestibility of cotton straw. 1. Effect of ozone and sodium hydroxide treatments on rumen metabolism and on the digestibility of cell walls and organic matter. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, L. L., Klopfenstein, T. J. & Britton, R. A. (1979). Effect of sodium hydroxide on efficiency of rumen digestion. Journal of Animal Science 49, 1317–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, L. L., Klopfenstein, T. J. & Britton, R. A. (1980). Effect of sodium hydroxide treatment on rate of passage and rate of ruminal fiber digestion. Journal of Animal Science 50, 745–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesson, A. (1981). Effects of sodium hydroxide on cereal straws in relation to the enhanced degradation of structural polysaccharides by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Walker, H. G., Kohler, G. O. & Hart, M. R. (1979). Response of ruminants to diets containing sodium hydroxide or ammonia treated rice straw. Journal of Animal Science 48, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analysis. U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook, no. 379. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Horton, G. M. J. (1979). Feeding values of rations containing non-protein nitrogen or natural protein and of ammoniated straw for beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 48, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. G. (1978). Treating straw for animal feeding. An assessment of its technical and economic feasibility. Animal Production and Health, paper 10, F.A.O., 81 pp. Rome: F.A.O.Google Scholar
Levy, D., Holzer, Z., Neumark, H. & Folman, Y. (1977). Chemical processing of wheat straw and cotton by-products for fattening cattle. 1. Performance of animals receiving the wet material shortly after treatment. Animal Production 25, 27–37.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. & Loften, J. R. (1980). The effect of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miron, J. & Ben-Ghedalia, D. (1982). Effect of hydrolysing and oxidizing agents on the composition and degradation of wheat straw monosaccharides. European Journal of Applied Microbiology and Bio-technology 15, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, M. J. & Richards, G. N. (1978). The fate of the soluble lignin-carbohydrate complex produced in the bovine rumen. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 513–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1967). Development of a comprehensive system of feed analysis and its application to forages. Journal of Animal Science 26, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar