Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T17:41:18.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical effectiveness of ensiled apple pomace and its effects on rumen passage rate of digesta in Holstein dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

S F Ghoreishi ,
R Pirmohammadi  and
A Teimouri Yansari
S F Ghoreishi
Affiliation:
Agriculture Organization, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran
R Pirmohammadi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran
A Teimouri Yansari
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Mazandaran University, Sari, Mazandaran, Islamic Republic of Iran
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Apple pomace (AP) is the by-product obtained when apples are pressed to make juice and is produced in huge (97,000 tons/year) amounts in Iran. It’s characterized by low starch and high NDF concentrations and accompanied by appreciable quantities of poorly identified components, including soluble carbohydrates and pectin. Optimal utilisation of diets by dairy cows is influenced by the chemical composition and physical characteristics of the ration. Physical characteristics can influence animal health, rumen fermentation and utilisation, animal metabolism, and milk fat production independently of the amount or composition of chemically measured components (Mertens, 1997). Water holding capacity may affect rumen liquid pool size and the rate and extent of rumen digestion (Allen and Mertens, 1988). The purposes of the current study were to determine the physical effectiveness of ensiled apple pomace (EAP) and its effects on passage rate from the rumen of Holstein dairy cows.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2009 , April 2009 , pp. 83
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2009

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

AFRC. 1995. Agriculture and food research council. Nutrition abstract review (series B) report NO.9.Google Scholar
Allen, M. S., and Mertens, D. R. 1988. J. Nutr. 118, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S. 2000. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 86, 53–69.Google Scholar
Mertens, D.R. 1997. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 1463–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Resaerch Council, (NRC) 1989. National Academy Press. Washington. D.C, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Osuji, P O, Nsahlai, I V and Khalili, H. 1993. Feed evaluation. ILCA Manual 5.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 1998. Version 8.2. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Udén, P, Colucci, P.E. Van Soest, P.J. 1980. J Sci Food Agric. Jul; 31(7), 625–32.Google Scholar
Wattiaux, M. A. 1990. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar