Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:26:30.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the chemical nature and digestibility of roughage carbohydrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. H. Bondi  and
H. Meyer
A. H. Bondi
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot (Palestine)
H. Meyer
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot (Palestine)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Egyptian clover, sweet lupin, Lathyrus ochrus, Eragrostis tef and Vicia narbonnensis have been analysed as to their hexosan, pentosan and lignin content. The major part of the pentosan is soluble in 2 % HCl and therefore belongs to the hemicellulose fraction, whereas most of the hexosan is insoluble in 2 % HCl and forms part of the cellulose fraction.

2. The digestibility of hexosan, pentosan and lignin has been determined by experiments with sheep. The digestibility of soluble pentosan and of insoluble hexosan (2 % HCl) was found to be very constant. It ranged from 64·0 to 66·2 % for pentosan and from 74·1 to 76·5 % for hexosan. ·Lignin was in all cases digested comparatively well, the digestibility coefficients being markedly variable, depending on the plant material. They ranged between 35·1 and 64·0.

3. Faeces lignin yields lower methoxyl values than plant lignin. Therefore lignin appears to have been changed during passage through the animal body.

4. The partition of hexosan, pentosan and lignin on crude fibre and N-free extract prepared from different plant materials is markedly variable.

5. The major portion and best digestible fraction of plant lignin is soluble in alkali and is, therefore, contained in the N-free extract.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , July 1943 , pp. 123 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1943

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

Bondi, A. & Meyer, Ch. (1940). Bull. Rehovot Agric. Res. Sta. no. 27.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1939). Sci. Agric. 19, 345.Google Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). J. Nutrit. 15, 383.Google Scholar
Fraps, G. S. (1930). Bull. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 418.Google Scholar
Hallsworth, E. G. (1940). J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Lond., 59, 9.Google Scholar
Heller, V. G. & Wall, R. (1940). J. Nutrit. 19, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honcamp, F., Ries, F. & Müllner, H. (1914). Landw. VersSta. 84, 301.Google Scholar
Juon, P. (1934). Landw. VersSta. 120, 129.Google Scholar
Kalb, L. (1932). Analyse des Lignins. In Klein, G., Handbuch der Pflanzenanalyse, 3, 1, 156–204.Google Scholar
Norman, A. G. (1939). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 31, 751.Google Scholar
Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1934). Biochem. J. 28, 2147.Google Scholar
Phillips, M., Goss, M. G., Davis, B. I. & Stevens, H. (1939). J. Agric. Res. 59, 319.Google Scholar
Phillips, M., Weihe, H., Jones, D. B. & Csonka, F. A. (1929). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 26, 320, 1928–29.Google Scholar
Ritter, G. J., Mitchell, R. L. & Seborg, R. M. (1933). J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 55, 2989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogozinski, F. & Starzewska, M. (1927, 1928). Bull. intern, acad. polonaise, B, pp. 1243–52. Acta Biol. Exp. Warsaw, 1, no. 8, 1–9. (Copied from Chem. Abstr. 23, 3012.)Google Scholar
Simon, E. (1932). Biochem. Z. 247, 171.Google Scholar
Thomann, W. (1921). Vergleichende Versuohe über die Zusammensetzung und Verdaulichkeit von Rohstroh und aufgeschlossenem Stroh. Diss. E. T. H. Zürich, no. 273.Google Scholar
Tscherniak, A. (1936). Biedermans Zbl., Abteilung B, Tierernahrung, 8, 408.Google Scholar
Waksman, S. A. & Stevens, K. R. (1930). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 2, 167.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. & Olmsted, W. H. (1935). J. Biol. Chem. 108, 653.Google Scholar