Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:23:29.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some aspects of the utilization of tropical forages. 2. Pangola and coastal Bermuda hays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. H. Butterworth  and
Juanita P. Butterworth
M. H. Butterworth
Affiliation:
Facultad de Giencias Veterinarian, Universidad Central de Venezuela
Juanita P. Butterworth
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigaciones Veterinarias, Ministerio de Agricultura y Cria, Maracay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Three hays of Coastal Bermuda (Oynodon dactylon) grass and three hays of Pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) from grasses cut at different stages of maturity were used for the determination of digestibility coefficients, voluntary intake, rate of passage through the gut, production of total and individual volatile fatty acids, total counts of bacteria determined microscopically and examination of bacterial types present using Gram-stained smears. The animals used were individually housed sheep.

2. The hays of Coastal Bermuda were significantly superior to those of Pangola from the point of view of digestibility. Significant differences did not exist within grasses.

3. The hays of Coastal Bermuda were superior to those of Pangola from the point of view of intake although this was not significant.

4. No relation was evident between digestibility of the various hays and rate of passage through the digestive tract; it was concluded that intake was not limited by rate of passage through the gut.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1965 , pp. 389 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Annison, E. F. & Lewis, D. (1959). Metabolism in the Rumen. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1962). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 4, 351.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. P. & Doetsch, R. N. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, M. H. (1965). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956). Brit. J. Nutr. 10, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. & Hibbs, J. W. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, C. E., Flatt, W. P., Moore, L. A. & Stewart, W. E. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. M. & Loosli, J. K. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, M. H. (1956). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 24, 53.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1961). The Fire of Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. J. & Macartney, J. E. (1953). Handbook of Practical Bacteriology. Amsterdam: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Maki, L. R. & Foster, E. M. (1957). J. Dairy Sci. 40, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, R. J. (1951). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, R. J. & Williams, V. J. (1950). Aust. J. Sci. Res. 3, 381.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. (1964). Proc. Brit. Nutr. Soc. 23, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnovkaja, E. A. (1959). Zivotnovodstvo, 7, 61.Google Scholar
Todd, J. R. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topps, J. H. & Elliott, R. C. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 63, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar