Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T14:42:48.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of pasture quality with young grazing sheep. II. Chemical composition, botanical composition and in vitro digestibility of herbage selected by oesophageal-fistulated sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Grimes ,
B. R. Watkin  and
J. R. Gallagher
R. C. Grimes
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of New England, New South Wales
B. R. Watkin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of New England, New South Wales
J. R. Gallagher
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of New England, New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. In a grazing experiment with sheep, cocksfoot, rye-grass and tall fescue were grown with and without white clover, under ‘short’ and ‘long’ management systems.

2. One sheep on each plot was fitted with an oesophageal fistula, from which herbage samples were collected at fortnightly intervals. The botanical composition of samples from the mixed swards was estimated by an optical point quadrat method. Samples were analysed for crude protein and cellulose, and digestibility was estimated in vitro.

3. Treatment difference within the mixed swards were not significant in terms of botanical composition. The mean proportions selected were 73% grass, 9% clover and 18% dead matter. The proportion of clover selected did not differ significantly between sample collections.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 113 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L. & Waite, R. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W., McManus, W. R., Bush, I. G. & Ball, J. (1964). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. An Husb. 4, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1964). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 7, 496.Google Scholar
Barnett, A. G. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 479.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). J. Nutr. 15, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. R., Watkin, B. R. & Grimes, R. C. (1966). J. Agric. Sci. 66, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, R. C., Watkin, B. R. & May, P. F. (1965). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 20, 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivins, J. D. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 459.Google Scholar
Large, R. V. & Spedding, C. R. W. (1964). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 19, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, H. A. & Wallace, H. S. (1954). Aust. J. Chem. 7, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neathery, M. W. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 18, 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, W. C., Meyer, J. H. & Lofgreen, G. P. (1959). Agron. J. 51, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, W. C. & Torell, D. T. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar