Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:22:17.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of the effect of exposure in the reticulo-rumen of the cow on the strength of cotton, grass, hay and straw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. W. Evans ,
J. Burnett  and
J. A. Bines
E. W. Evans
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield Rending RG2 9AT
J. Burnett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield Rending RG2 9AT
J. A. Bines
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield Rending RG2 9AT
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. Changes in strength of cotton, Italian ryegrass leaf, hay stem and barley-straw stem on immersion in the contents of the reticulo-rumen, at two sites in the rumen and at one site in the reticulum, for periods of up to 56 h were measured using a cow on a hay diet. Specimens of the fibrous materials were immersed in the rumen digesta in such a way that they were not damaged by agitation or by rumination.

2. Load-to-fracture and elongation were measured on a machine using a constant-speed cross-head at a strain of about 10−3/s. The ratio strength:density (breaking load/mass per unit length) was determined.

3. Leaf of Italian ryegrass and stem of hay and of barley straw had strengths of about 37, 150 and 210 MN/m2. They lost strength at different rates when immersed in the rumen digesta, the times to half strength being in the ratio grass: hay: straw = 1:1.9:3.8. The similarity of this ratio to that for total time for eating and ruminating as given by Balch (1969), namely 1:2.0:3.5, for similar materials was noted.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 1974 , pp. 273 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Balch, C. C. (1969). Proc. 3rd gen. Mtg Eur. Grassld Fedn, Braunschweig, p. 245.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Line, C. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammell, S. B. & Osbourn, D. F. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 63A.Google Scholar
Cason, J. L., Ruby, E. S. & Stallcup, O. T. (1954). J. Nutr. 52, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colburn, M. W., Evans, J. L. & Ramage, C. H. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 1458.Google Scholar
Evans, P. S. (1964). N. Z. J1 agric. Res. 7, 508.Google Scholar
Evans, P. S. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes p. 227. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Makela, A. (1956). Suom. maatal. Seur. Julk. 85, I.Google Scholar
Smith, L. W., Goering, H. K., Waldo, D. R. & Gordon, C. H. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 71.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M., Ellis, W. L., Reid, R. S. & Murray, M. G. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, J. G. & Smith, A. M. (1969 a). J. Anim. Sci. 28, 813.Google Scholar
Welch, J. G. & Smith, A. M. (1969 b). J. Anim. Sci. 28, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar