Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:14:38.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The total digestible nutrients and gross digestible energy of ruminant feeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Glover
Affiliation:
East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
D. W. Duthie
Affiliation:
East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
H. W. Dougall
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Station, Kitale, Kenya

Extract

It is shown that reasonable estimates of the average amounts of total digestible nutrients and gross digestible energy of ruminant feeds can be derived from knowledge of only the crude-protein and crude-fibre contents of such material as fed. These estimates do not appear to be markedly affected, if at all, by differences in class of feed or species of ruminant whether cattle, sheep or goat.

A table of the average estimates of digestible crude protein and total digestible nutrients, to be expected at different levels of crude protein and crude fibre, is presented for use in the estimation of the average nutritive value of feeds whose digestibility has not been studied in detail by means of numerous animal trials.

Inherent in the relationship between either total digestible nutrients or gross digestible energy and the proximate partial composition of the feed is a suggestion that if a low plane of protein nutrition is prolonged, that is when the crude protein of the dry diet lies persistently below some 5% in the dry feed, there is likely to be a sharp fall in the total digestibility of the feed.

Type
Research Article
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

Axtmayer, J. H. et al. (1950). J. Agric. Univ. P.R. 22, 455, 24, 1.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). Advavc. Protein Chem. 9, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, W. D. & Briggs, H. M. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. et al. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. & Dougall, H. W. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Glover, J. & Duthie, D. W. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. & French, M. H. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, P. B. et al. (19241942). Mem. Dep. Agric. India, Chem. 7, 77; 9, 63, 235; 10, 169, 181, 193. Indian J. Vet. Sci. 1, 177; 2, 141; 6, 117. Misc. Bull. Imp. Counc. Agric. Res. India, no. 16.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1957). Feeds and Feeding, 22nd ed.New York: Morrison Publ. Co.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1947). Feeds of the World. West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. H. et al. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B. H. et al. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warth, F. J. et al. (19261930). Mem. Dep. Agric. India, Chem. 9, 37; 10, 1; 11, 53, 73, 85.Google Scholar