Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:10:39.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of the quality of forage from its cell-wall content and amount of cell wall digested

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. W. Moir
K. W. Moir
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Brisbane, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Grasses and legumes comprising poor to good quality temperate and tropical species were fed to either cattle or sheep in 36 digestibility experiments. Cell wall in these forages was the ash-free and protein-free residue after sequential extraction with acidpepsin, organic solvents and either water for grasses or ammonium oxalate for legumes. The average amount of cell wall digested per 100 g forage OM was 40·0±0·59 g in grasses and 19·8±1·85 g in legumes. It was considered that within grasses and within legumes the physiology of ruminant digestion, rather than forage quality, was the main determinant of the average amount of cell wall digested and the difference between grasses and legumes was due to interaction of the ruminant digestion process with the physical structure of the cell wall. Of forage factors governing variation about the physiological average, the total cell wall had some effect on the amount of cell wall digested, but the lignin concentration in the cell wall had no effect.

Among grasses and legumes the average, apparently undigested, protein-free non-cell-wall component was 6·2±0·13 g per 100 g forage OM. This component and digestible protein relative to total protein varied among different sets of data. It was concluded that only the component of digestible organic matter which was governed by the relative proportions of cell walls and cellular contents was predictable from chemical composition. It was considered that selection in plant breeding should be based on both digestible cell wall and cell-wall content instead of digestible organic matter.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , June 1972 , pp. 355 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. Technical Reviews and Summaries, p. 202. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Mitchell, H. H. (1948). The factorization of the protein requirements of ruminants and of the protein value of feeds, with particular reference to the significance of the metabolic faecal nitrogen. J. Anim. Sci. 7, 351–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1970). Physical regulation of voluntary intake. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. Phillipson, A. T.). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Gaillard, B. D. E. (1962). The relationship between the cell-wall constituents of roughages and the digestibility of the organic matter. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 59, 369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holter, J. A. & Reid, J. T. (1959). Relationship between the concentrations of crude protein and apparently digestible protein in forages. J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1339–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1971 a). In vivo and in vitro digestible fractions in forage. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 22, 338–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1971 b). A time-saving apparatus for the determination of crude fibre. Lab. Pract. 20, 801—2.Google Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1972). The effectof different extraction procedures on therecovery of cell walls in forage and faeces from cattle and sheep. J. agric. Sci. Camb. 78, 351–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, E. C. (1967). Urea as a Protein Supplement, p. 340. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F. & Harris, C. E. (1954). The laboratory drying of herbage and faeces, and dry matter losses possible during drying. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 9, 120–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A., Terry, R. A., Deriaz, R. E. & Outen, G. E. (1960). The digestibility of structural carbohydrates of grasses by rumen micro-organisms in vitro. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 24, 238–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, K. L., Morrison, F. B. & Maynard, L. A. (1934). The nutritive value of the proteins of alfalfa hay and clover hay when fed alone and in combination with the proteins of corn. J. agric. Res. 48, 555–70.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1967). Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages. J. Anim. Sci. 26, 119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Moore, L. A. (1965). New chemical methods for analysis of forage for the purpose of predicting nutritive value. Proc. IX int. Grassld Congr., pp. 785–9.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 50, 50–5.Google Scholar
Waite, R. & Gorrod, A. R. N. (1959). The comprehensive analysis of grasses. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 10, 317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R., Johnston, M. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. I. The effect of stage of maturity on the apparent digestibility of rye-grass, cocksfoot and timothy. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 62, 391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar