Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:52:05.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The assessment of herbage legume varieties. II. In vitro digestibility, water soluble carbohydrate, crude protein and mineral content of primary growth of clover and lucerne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Ellis Davies ,
G. ap Griffith  and
A. Ellington
W. Ellis Davies
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
G. ap Griffith
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
A. Ellington
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The primary growth of eight varieties of three species–white clover (3), red clover (4) and lucerne (1)–was sampled at fortnightly intervals and the percentage dry matter, in vitro digestibility, crude protein, water soluble carbohydrates, P, Ca, K, Na and Mg were determined.

Differences between species were nearly always significant and the general order of merit was white clover, red clover and lucerne. The exceptions were for dry-matter percentage where this order was reversed, and red clover had the lowest Na and highest Mg content.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1966 , pp. 351 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

ap Griffith, G., Jones, D. I. H. & Walters, R. J. K. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 16, 94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1962). J. Agric. Soc. Univ. Coll. Wales, 43, 37–48.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1964). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 7, 496–507.Google Scholar
Beeson, K. C. (1941). U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. no. 369.Google Scholar
Davies, W. Ellis (1964). Rep. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. 1963, Pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
Harkess, R. D. (1963). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18, 62–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehle, H. (1959). Z. Acker–u. PflBau, 108, 385–411.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. & Harris, C. E. (1960). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 15, 174–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riper, G. E. van & Smith, Dale (1959). Wisconsin Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. no. 4, Pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Smith, , Dale, , Paulsen, G. M. & Raguse, C. D. (1964). Plant Physiol. 39, 960–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, R. A. & Tilley, J. M. A. (1964). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19, 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B., Thompson, A., Oyenttoa, V. A. & Armstrong, R. H. (1952). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 20, 10–22.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18, 104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E. & Norman, D. B. (1933). J. Agric. Sci. 23, 419–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E., Evans, R. E. & Norman, D. B. (1934). J. Agric. Sci. 24, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yemm, E. W. & Willis, A. J. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 508–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar