Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-25T00:12:28.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of the rate and extent of cell wall degradability in forages; a comparison of three methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

E. R. Deaville  and
D. I. Givens
E. R. Deaville
Affiliation:
Feed Evaluation Unit, ADAS Dairy Research Centre, Drayton, Stratford on Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
D. I. Givens
Affiliation:
Feed Evaluation Unit, ADAS Dairy Research Centre, Drayton, Stratford on Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
Get access

Extract

Forage cell wall content (CWC), accounting for 400 to 600 g kg-1 dry matter (DM) (Van Soest, 1982) and its rumen degradability (CWD) are major factors influencing the animal's energy supply from forages. Therefore, in order to maximise the nutritional potential of forages for ruminants, the ability to accurately and rapidly measure CWD is crucial. This is becoming increasingly important as feed evaluation methods move towards assessing nutrient supply. While the measurement of CWD is largely based on the polyester bag technique an experiment was undertaken to study the potential of measuring CWD in vitro for different forage types.

Three methods of measuring CWD were compared using four samples each of grass (G), grass silage (GS), maize silage (MS) and straw (S) in a factorial design. The methods were; 1) fresh (undried) forage, chopped to 1 cm lengths using an homogeniser, was incubated in the rumens of sheep in polyester bags (pore size 43um) for different lengths of time (0, 3, 8, 16, 24, 45 and 72h).

Type
Techniques and Methods
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1995 , March 1995 , pp. 111
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Goering, H. K. and Van Soesl, P. I. 1970. Agricultural Handbook No. 379. USD A, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
McDonald, I., 1981. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 96: 251–252.10.1017/S0021859600032081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I., 1979. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 92: 499–504.10.1017/S0021859600063048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Spanghero, M., 1990. Animal production, 51: 515–526.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, M. R. and Hvelplund, T. A., 1993. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. Aarhus. Denmark. 16-19 August 1993.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., 1982. The Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. O and B Books, Corvallis, OR. 374 pp.Google Scholar