Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:11:00.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fermentation of sugar-beet pulp and sucrose in an artificial rumen, and the effect of linseed oil fatty acids on the fermentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. W. Czerkawski  and
Grace Breckenridge
J. W. Czerkawski
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Grace Breckenridge
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. An artificial rumen is described together with associated analytical and sampling procedures.

2. The equipment was used to study the effects of linseed oil fatty acids on the fermentation of sugar-beet pulp and of sucrose by rumen micro-organisms.

3. With sugar-beet pulp the addition of small amounts of linseed oil fatty acids had little effect on total gas production, utilization of sugar and the molar proportions of steam-volatile acids formed, but they strongly inhibited methane production, whereas large amounts of the fatty acids temporarily inhibited the production of gas and utilization of sugar.

4. With sucrose even the smaller amounts of fatty acids had a marked inhibitory effect on the production of gas and utilization of sugar.

5. The technique is assessed critically and the results are discussed in the light of previous experiments in vivo.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 51 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Alexander, R. H. & McGowan, M. (1966). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 21, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapperton, J. L. & Czerkawski, J. W. (1967). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 26, xxi.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1962). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error, p. 234. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Clapperton, J. L. (1968). Lab. Pract. 17, 994.Google Scholar
Dawson, R. M. C., Ward, P. F. V. & Scott, T. W. (1964). Biochem. J. 90, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. (1965). J. gen. Microbiol. 38, 161.Google Scholar
James, A. T. & Martin, A. J. P. (1952). Biochem. J. 50, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Biochem.J. 42, 564.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 99.Google Scholar
Slyter, L. L. & Putnam, P. A. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. (1956). Meth. biochem. Analysis 3, 180.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1956). J. gen. Microbiol. 14, 733.Google Scholar