Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:47:38.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The availability of calcium in three herbs of grassland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. Armstrong ,
Brynmor Thomas  and
K. Horner
R. H. Armstrong
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Brynmor Thomas
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
K. Horner
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The availability of the calcium in three common herbs, viz. narrow-leaved plantain, chicory and burnet, has been investigated using the rat as the experimental animal.

2. Parallel methods used for the determination of calcium balance involved (a) the analysis of feed, faeces and urine, and (b) carcass analysis.

3. The availability of the calcium, while high in all three species, was in the order plantain, chicory and burnet. All differences between means were significant at P = 0·05.

4. There was shown to be some evidence of inverse relationships between fibre content and calcium availability, and between oxalic acid content and calcium availability.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 337 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Armstrong, R. H. & Thomas, Brynmor (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 454.Google Scholar
Baker, C. J. L. (1952). Analyst, 77, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckworth, J. & Godden, W. J. (1941). Biochem. J. 35, 16.Google Scholar
Elliot, R. H. (1942). The Clifton Park System of Farming. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, B. W. & Mitchell, H. H. (1938). J. Nutrit. 16, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansard, S. L., Connor, C. L. & Plumlee, M. P. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 524.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Pt. 1, p. 9. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M., Kon, S. K. & Watson, M. B. (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Pt. 1, p. 37. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
Lovelace, F. E., Liv, C. H. & McCay, C. M. (1950). Arch. Biochem. 27, 48.Google Scholar
Talapatra, S. K., Ray, S. C., Kehar, N. D. & Sen, K. C. (1942). Sci. & Cult. 8, 209.Google Scholar
Talapatra, S. K., Ray, S. C. & Sen, K. C. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Brynmor & Rogerson, A. (1950). Scot. Agric. 30, 1.Google Scholar
Thomas, Brynmor, Thompson, A., Oyenuga, V. A. & Armstrong, R. H. (1952). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 20, 10.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. D., Shirley, R. L. & Davis, G. K. (1951). J. Nutrit. 43, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerlund, A. (1938). LantbrHögsk. Ann. 5, 417.Google Scholar