Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:23:47.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in the relationship between in vitro digestibility and voluntary dry-matter intake of different grass varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. J. K. Walters
R. J. K. Walters
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The relationship between digestibility (% DOMD in-vitro)and voluntary drymatter intake of a range of grasses conserved as artificially dried grass, has been studied in two experiments with reference to growth stage, percentage of leaf, stem and dead material, number of days to harvest and dry-matter yield.

In the first experiment digestibility accounted for 69% of the variation in intake during first growth and differences were established between varieties of the same and of different species in (a) intake at similar levels of digestibility and (6) the rate of change of intake per unit change of digestibility. In the second experiment differences in intake were established between varieties, within and between first growth and regrowth, when compared at a similar level of digestibility.

The variation in intake between varieties at a similar level of digestibility was not correlated with stage of growth or percentage leaf, stem and dead material in either first growth or regrowth. However, number of days to harvest and to a lesser extent, dry-matter yield, were associated with this variation, but only in first growth.

regrowths of grasses generally resulted in higher intakes than first growths, but the varietal variation in intake was not correlated between growths.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 243 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Aldrich, D. T. A.Dent, J. W. (1967). The relationship between yield and digestibility in the primary growth of nine grass varieties. J. natn. Inst. agric. Bot. 11, 104–13.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No.2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W.Wilson, R. S. (1961). The regulation of food intake by sheep. Anim. Prod. 3, 51–61.Google Scholar
Bosman, M. S. M. (1967). Methods of predicting herbage digestibility. Jaarb. Inst. biol. scheik. Onderz. Landb-Gewass Meded. 349, 97–100.Google Scholar
Davies, I. (1969). The influence of management on tiller development and herbage growth. Tech. Bull. No.3, Welsh PI. Breed. Stn, p. 35.Google Scholar
Green, J. O. (1968). Yield and digestibility. Grass Conservation Handbook. Natn. Grass Cons. Conference, Bristol 1967, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
Miles, D. G., Walters, R. J. K.Evans, E. M. (1969).Dry-matter intake and live-weight gain of cattle and sheep offered different grass varieties with and without clover. Anim. Prod. 11, 19–28.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., Harris, C. E., Raymond, W. F.Milford, R. (1964). The digestibility and voluntary intake of S22 and H. 1 ryegrass, S170 tall fescue, S48 timothy, S215 meadow fescue and Germinal cocksfoot. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19, 298–305.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Thomas, D. J.Terry, R. A. (1966). The relationship between voluntary intake and digestibility of forage crops, using sheep. Proc. X Int. Grassld Congr., Helsinki 363–6.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F. (1969). The nutritive value of forage crops. Adv. Agron. 21, 1–108.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Kennedy, W. K., Turk, K. L., Slack, S. T., Trimberger, G. W.Murphy, R. P. (1959).Symposium on forage evaluation. 1. What is forage quality from the animal standpoint? Agron. J. 51, 213–16.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A.Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18, 104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troelsen, J. E.Cambell, J. B. (1969). The effect of maturity and leafiness on the intake and digestibility of alfalfas and grasses fed to sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 145–54.Google Scholar
Walters, R. J. K.Griffith, G.,Hughes, R.Jones, D. I. H. (1967). Some factors causing differences in digestibility of grasses measured by an in vitro method. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22, 112–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, R. J. K. (1968). Dry matter yield/digestibility relationships. Rep. Welsh Pl. Breed Stn for 1967, 58.Google Scholar
Wedin, W. F., Carlson, I. T. (1966). Studies on nutritive value of fall saved forage using rumen fermentation and chemical analyses. Proc. X Int. Grassld Congr., Helsinki 424–28.Google Scholar