Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:20:47.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of starch fermentation products on roughage digestion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. I. Hynd
P. I. Hynd
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Glen Osmond, S.A., 5064, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The potential benefits of high-energy supplements, such as cereal grains, for grazing ruminants are commonly eroded by an accompanying depression in the digestion and intake of the basal herbage (McCullough, 1959). Low ruminal pH (< 6·0) induced by the rapid rate of production of the acids of starch fermentation, and competition between cellulolytie and amylolytic bacteria for limited nutrients, are known to be responsible for inhibition of cellulolysis (Terry, Tilley & Outen, 1969; Stewart, 1977; el Shazly, Dehority & Johnson, 1961). However, there are reports of reduced roughage digestion when nutrients appear to be non-limiting and pH is maintained above 6·0 (Gilchrist et al. 1979; Henning et al. 1980). The possibility remains that intermediates or end products of starch digestion have specific inhibitory effects on the numbers of cellulolytie organisms or on the activity of their extracellular cellulases.

Type
Short Note
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , October 1984 , pp. 469 - 470
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

REFERENCES

Conway, E. J. (1962). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error, 5th ed.London: Crosby and Lockwood.Google Scholar
El Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. & Johnson, R. R. (1961). Effect of starch on the digestion of cellulose in vitro and in vivo by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of Animal Science 20, 286–273.Google Scholar
Erwin, E. S., Marco, G. J. & Emery, E. M. (1961). Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science 44, 1768–1771.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, F. M. C, Henning, P. A., Van Der Linden, Y., Mattheyse, M. E., Nauhaus, W. K. & Schwartz, H. M. (1979). Factors affecting digestion of grainsupplemented straw. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 10, 320–322.Google ScholarPubMed
Henning, P. A., Van Der Linden, Y., Mattheyse, M. E., Nauhaus, W. K. & Schwartz, H. M. (1980). Factors affecting the intake and digestion of roughage by sheep fed maize straw supplemented with maize grain. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 565–573.Google Scholar
McCullough, M. E. (1959). Conditions influencing forage acceptability and rate of intake. Journal of Dairy Science 42, 571–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Gordon, J. G. (1974). Effect of processing of cereals on rumen fermentation, digestibility, rumination time, and firmness of subcutaneous fat in lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satter, L. D. & Slyter, L. L. (1974). Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, C. S. (1977). Factors affecting the cellulolytic activity of rumen contents. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 33, 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.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.Google Scholar