Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T01:10:50.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dacron bag technique for comparing rumen degradability of untreated and ammonia-treated barley straw – effect of particle size and degree of replication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. J. Pike ,
E. Owen  and
A. N. Said
D. J. Pike
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Statistics, University of Reading, Harry Pitt Building, Whiteknights Road, PO Box 240, Reading RG6 2FN, UK
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 2A T, UK
A. N. Said
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 2A T, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Six rumen-fistulated steers were studied over six periods of 3 days at Reading University's Animal Production Research Unit. In each period, eight dacron bags comprising two replicates of the 22 factorial treatment set consisting of untreated and NH3-treated barley straw in chopped (12–54 mm) or ground (2·5 mm screen) form were placed in the rumen of each steer. Bags were left in the rumen for a given time which was one of the set 6, 9, 15, 24, 48, 72 h. Percentage dry matter (DM) disappearance from dacron bags was consistently higher for NH3-treated than untreated straw and higher for ground than chopped straw. Analysis of variance gave F ratios for period and steer which were non-significant but of similar size, showing that using fewer animals could be compensated for by using more periods. Percentage DM disappearance as a function of time was well described by the model y = a — beet. The parameter defining rate of disappearance c, was similar for the four forms of straw. Differences between straws occurred in values of a (potential degradability) and b suggesting that physical form of material put into dacron bags needs standardizing if absolute values of a are to be used (e.g. for predicting roughage intake). Experimental designs need further research.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 126 , Issue 2 , March 1996 , pp. 201 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council (1992). Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, Report No 9. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: protein. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 62, 787–835.Google Scholar
Chesson, A. & Ørskov, E. R. (1984). Microbial degradation in the digestive tract. In Straw and Other Fibrous Byproducts as Feed (Eds Sundstel, F. & Owen, E.), pp. 305–339. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Gale, G. E. & O'Dogherty, M. J. (1982). An apparatus for the assessment of the length distribution of chopped forage. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 27, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Handbook No 379. Washington DC: ARS/USDA.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB. & N'Gambi, J. W. (1984). Voluntary intake of hay in relation to its degradability in the rumen as measured in dacron bags. Animal Production 38, 538 (Abstract 71).Google Scholar
Kempton, T. J. (1980). The use of nylon bags to characterise the potential degradability of feeds for ruminants. Tropical Animal Production 5, 107–116.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. (1981). A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. & Ørskov, E. R. (1977). A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1973). The Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Technical Bulletin 27. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. DeB. & Mould, F. (1980). The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5, 195–213.Google Scholar
Owen, E. & Jayasuriya, M. C. N. (1989). Use of crop residues as animal feeds in developing countries. Research and Development in Agriculture 6, 129–138.Google Scholar
Sampaio, I. B. M. (1988). Experimental designs and modelling techniques in the study of roughage degradation in rumen and growth of ruminants. PhD thesis. University of Reading.Google Scholar
Sundsøl, F. & Coxworth, E. M. (1984). Ammonia treatment. In Straw and Other Fibrous By-products as Feed (Eds Sundstol, F. & Owen, E.), pp. 196–247. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Tetlow, R. M. (1974). A method for determining particle size distribution in packages of dried herbage. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 19, 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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