Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:14:57.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The indirect estimation of the digestibility of pasture herbage II. Regressions of digestibility on faecal nitrogen concentration; their determination in continuous digestibility trials and the effect of various factors on their accuracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. F. D. Greenhalgh ,
J. L. Corbett  and
I. McDonald
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
J. L. Corbett
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A mixed sward was divided into two areas receiving high (H) or low (L) levels of fertilizer nitrogen, and on two occasions, in spring and summer, herbage cut from each area was given to three steers in a continuous digestibility trial lasting 45 days. Digestibility and faecal nitrogen concentration were measured for each animal for each 24 hr. period, and equations relating these variables were calculated for each trial from the unit 24 hr. observations and from averages over three animals and over successive 2-, 3-, 5- and 9-day periods.

2. In the two spring trials herbage digestibility remained constant for the first 12 days and then declined by about 0·4 units per day. In the summer trials digestibility declined throughout by 0—25 units per day. The nitrogen content of the herbage was consistently 25% higher for treatment H, and declined steadily throughout each trial.

3. Both season of cutting and fertilizer treatment had a significant effect on the faecal index regressions obtained. Equations calculated from average values for three animals and 3 days predicted digestibility coefficients from 3% faecal nitrogen as follows: equation (1) spring H, 76·5; (2) spring L, 77·5; (3)summer H, 71·8; (4) summer L, 72·8.

4. The joint residual standard deviation for equations (1) to (4) had the low value of ± 0·90 units of digestibility, indicating that ‘single-sward’ regressions are considerably more accurate than those embracing a great variety of herbages. Even greater accuracy was obtained when digestibility and faecal nitrogen concentrations were measured for periods longer than 3 days; in general, residual variance varied inversely with period length. Using values for individual animals in the regressions increased the residual variance slightly, but because differences between animals in the digestibility-faecal nitrogen relationship were small and generally nonsignificant, the increase was by a factor of the order of 1·6, not 3.

5. Standard errors of prediction were calculated, although there is evidence to suggest that these underestimate the error of digestibility coefficients predicted for free-grazing animals. It is concluded that faecal index regressions are accurate enough for measuring digestibility per se in grazing experiments. In the measurement of herbage consumption, however, the experimental error is likely to be high, partly because indigestibility is the factor required to be predicted, but mainly because of large differences in appetite among similarly treated animals.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1960 , pp. 377 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Axelsson, J. & Kivimäe, A. (1951). Acta agric. Scand. 1, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 98.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Brit. J. Nutr. 10, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1957). Unpublished observations.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1960). Int. Grassl. Congr. VIII. Reading.(in the Press).Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & McDonald, I. (1960). Brit. J. Nutr. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Corbett, J. L. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 371.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech, A, 34, 131.Google Scholar
Hardison, W. A., Reid, J. T., Martin, C. M. & Woolfolk, P. G. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homb, T. (1953). Acta agric. Scand. 3, 1.Google Scholar
Jarl, F. & Helleday, T. (1951). K. Lanthr Akad. Tidskr., Stockh., 90, 315.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. K., Carter, A. H. & Lancaster, R. J. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 627.Google Scholar
Lancaster, R. J. (1954). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 36, 15.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1958). Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Raymond, W. F. (1958). Exp. Qrassl. Res. Inst. Hurley, 10, 92.Google Scholar
Pearson, E. S. & Hartley, H. O. (1954). Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, vol. I. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Kemp, C. D., Kemp, A. W. & Harris, C. E. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 69.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Minson, D. J. & Harris, C. E. (1956). Int. Grassl. congr. VII. Palmerston North, N. Z., p. 123.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Kennedy, W. K., Turk, K. L., Slack, S. T., Trimberger, G. W. & Murphy, R. P. (1959). Agron. J. 51, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Woolfolk, P. G., Hardison, W. A., Martin, C. M., Brundage, A. L. & Kaufmann, R. W. (1952). J. Nutr. 46, 255.Google Scholar
Soni, B. K., Murdock, F. R., Hodgson, A. S., Blosser, T. H. & Mahanta, K. C. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 474.Google Scholar