Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:27:15.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development and function of the rumen in milk-fed calves II. Effect of wood shavings in the diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. Smith
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Unmuzzled milk-fed calves which ate considerable amounts of wood shavings after they were a few weeks old showed a much bigger increase with age in volume of rumen fluid and in flow rate of fluid out of the reticulo rumen than did muzzled milk-fed calves. It is suggested that these differences were due mainly to increased saliva production in the calves eating shavings.

2. Milk leaked into the rumen at feeding in eight out of twenty-four experiments. There was no indication that shavings ingestion increased the incidence of leakage nor that age up to 16 weeks had any marked effect. The leakage appeared to be a consistent characteristic of certain calves rather than a random occurrence and did not appear to affect adversely growth or health.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1961 , pp. 105 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Bailey, C. B. (1959). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 18. xiii.Google Scholar
Brownlee, A. (1956). Brit. Vet. J. 112, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flatt, W. P., Warner, R. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegland, R. B., Lambert, M. R., Jacobson, N. L. & Payne, L. C. (1957). J. Dairy Sd. 40, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pounden, W. D., Hibbs, J. W. & Conrad, H. R. (1955). Vet. Med. 50, 435.Google Scholar
Sander, E. G., Warner, R. G., Harrison, H. N. & Loosli, J. K. (1959). J. Dairy Sd. 42, 1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalk, A. F. & Amadon, R. S. (1928). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 216.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Turner, A. W. & Hodgetts, V. E. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. G., Flatt, W. P. & Loosli, J. K. (1956). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 4, 788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. G., Grippin, C. H., Flatt, W. P. & Loosli, J. K. (1955). J. Dairy Sd. 38, 605.Google Scholar
Wise, G. H., Anderson, G. W. & Miller, P. G. (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar