Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:29:22.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical research on the digestibility in the cow. I. Dry matter and energy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Paquay ,
R. De Baere  and
A. Lousse
R. Paquay
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cureghem, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
R. De Baere
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cureghem, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
A. Lousse
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cureghem, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The results obtained for dry matter and energy digestibility with 116 different rations fed to 242 non-pregnant dry cows and 96 laotating cows were studied.

With winter rations, dry-matter digestibility (Y) is linearly related to dry-matter intake (X1) and to the crude fibre content of the dry matter (X2):

Y = 89·58–0·557X1–0·863X2.

A similar equation was obtained for energy digestibility (Y):

Y = 90·68–0·195X1–0·892X2,

where X1 represents the energy intake (in 1000 kcal) and X2 the crude-fibre content.

Digestible dry matter or energy can be estimated very accurately from dry matter or energy intake and from crude-fibre content.

There is a highly significant linear relation between dry matter or energy digestibility and nitrogen concentration of the faeces, especially with grass.

Dry-matter digestibility is also influenced by the physical form of the feeds and by individual factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , February 1972 , pp. 135 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Blaxter, K. L. (1962). The Energy Metabolism of Buminanls. London: Hutchinson Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
Beent, B. E., Richardson, D., Tsien, W. S. & Menzies, C. S. (1961). Digestibility studies on levels of concentrates in complete pelleted rations for fattening lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 20, 526–28.Google Scholar
Bbown, R. H., Blaser, R. E. & Fontenot, J. P. (1968). Effect of spring harvest date on nutritive value of orchardgrass and timothy. J. Anim. Sci. 27, 662–67.Google Scholar
Colburn, M. W., Evans, J. L. & Ramage, C. H. (1968). Apparent and true digestibility of forage nutrients by ruminant animals. J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1450–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P. & Reid, G. W. (1963). Effects of season of growth and digestibility of herbage on intake by grazing dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 5, 119–29.Google Scholar
Cottyn, B. G., Boucgue, C. V. & Buysse, F. X. (1970). L'influence de différents rapports pellets de foin/concentrés sur la digestibilité, les bilans azotés et les produits de fermentation du rumen. Revue Agric. Brux. 23, 285–310.Google Scholar
De Baebe, R., Paquay, R. & Lousse, A. (1966 a). Nouvelle méthode de détermination de la valeur calorifique des matières fécales, des urines et du lait. Annls Méd. vét. 110, 81–94.Google Scholar
De Baebe, R., Paquay, R. & Lousse, A. (1966 b). Nouvelle méthode de détermination de la valeur calorifique des matières fécales, des urines et du lait. Extension à l'analyse des matières minérales et discussion des résultats. Annls Méd. vét. 110, 602–18.Google Scholar
Demabqutlly, C. & Jarrige, R. (1964). Valeur alimentaire de l'herbe des prairies temporaires aux stades d'exploitation pour le pâturage. I. Composition chimique et digestibilité. Annls Zootech. 13, 301–39.Google Scholar
Den Braver, E. J. (1969). Determination of metabolizable energy in dried forage crops. LantbrHögsk. ‘Annl 35, 921–34.Google Scholar
Fenner, H., Dickinson, F. N. & Barnes, H. D. (1967). Relationship of digestibility and certain rumen fluid components to level of feed intake and time of sampling after feeding. J. Dairy Sci. 50, 334–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Reid, G. W. (1969). The herbage consumption and milk production of cows grazing S24 ryegrass and S37 cocksfoot. J. Br. OrassldSoc. 24, 98–103.Google Scholar
Jentsch, W., Hoffmann, L., Schiemann, R. & Hoffmann, B. (1969). Ergebnisse vergleichender Untersuchungen iiber die Verdaulichkeit von Rationen bei Rind und Schaf unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Pansenphysiologischer Parameter. Arch. Tierernähr. 19, 531–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlands, J. P. (1969). Studies on the nutritive value of the diet selected by grazing sheep. Anim. Prod. 11, 379–87.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D., Campling, R. C. & Holmes, W. (1969). The effect of level of feeding on the digestibility of diets for sheep and cattle. Anim. Prod. 11, 11–18.Google Scholar
Lister, E. E., Heaney, D. P. & Pigden, W. J. (1968). Performance of Holstein–Friesian steers fed an allconcentrate ration diluted with ground hay. J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1946–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, T. A. (1969). A study of factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cattle. Anim. Prod. 11, 145–53.Google Scholar
McC. Graham, N. (1969). The net energy value of artificially dried subterranean clover harvested before flowering. Aust. J. agric. Res. 20, 365–72.Google Scholar
Miller, W. J., Clifton, C. M., Brooks, O. L. & Beaty, E. R. (1965). Influence of harvesting age and season on digestibility and chemical composition of pelleted coastal bermudagrass. J. Dairy Sci. 48, 209–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Kemp, C. D. (1961). Studies in the digestibility of herbage. IX. Herbage and faecal nitrogen as indicators of herbage organic matter digestibility. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 16, 76–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, L. A. (1964). Nutritive value of forages as affected by physical form. J. Anim. Sci. 23, 230–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nehring, K., Klippel, W., Uhlemann, H. & Hoffmann, B. (1970). Über den Futterwert verschiedener Getreidemüllereiprodukte. Arch. Tierernähr. 20, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, B. D., Ellzey, H. D., Morgan, E. B. & Allen, M. (1968). Effects of feeding lactating dairy cows varying forage-to-concentrate ratios. J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1796–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquay, R., Lomba, F., Lousse, A. & Bienfet, V. (1968). Statistical research or the fate of dietary mineral elements in dry and lactating cows. 1. Calcium. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquay, R., De Baere, R. & Lousse, A. (1970). Statistical research on the fate of water in adult cow. I. Dry cows. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74, 423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquay, R., De Baere, R. & Lousse, A., Lomba, F., Chauvaux, G., Fumière, I. & Bienfet, V. (1970). Effect of grass maturity stage in dry cows. 2. Digestibility of the organic components and nitrogen balance. Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Fvttermittelk. 26, 332–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rémond, B. (1969). Influence d'un apport croissant d'orge sur le comportement alimentaire de la vache laitiere et la digestion. Annls Zootech. 18, 55—64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, H. & Lamming, G. E. (1970). Studies on the nutrition of ruminants. I. The effect of diets containing up to 70% ground barley straw on the liveweight gain and carcass composition of yearling Friesian cattle. Anim. Prod. 12, 63–70.Google Scholar
Tomlin, D. C., Johnson, R. R. & Dehority, B. A. (1965). Relationship of lignification to in vitro cellulose digestibility of grasses and legumes. J. Anim. Sci. 24, 161–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanbelle, M. (1964). Aspects théoriques et pratiques nouveaux dans le domaine de la nutrition énergétique des ruminants. Agricultura, Louvani 12, 785–876.Google Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. & Nijkamp, H. J. (1966). The maintenance requirement of cows. Energy balance experiments with rations of hay and of hay and concentrates. Neth. J. agric. Sci. 14, 178–97.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1969). The potential digestibility of cellulose in forage and faeces. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar