Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T03:12:46.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the grinding and cubing process on the utilization of the energy of dried grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. L. Blaxter  and
N. McC. Graham
K. L. Blaxter
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
N. McC. Graham
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Eighteen determinations of the energy retention of six sheep were made when they were given the same batch of dried grass in the form of chopped material or as cubes. The cubes were made following hammer milling to a medium and fine particle size. The fasting heat production of each sheep was also determined, following subsistence on a standard ration.

2. Agreement between determinations of energy retention calculated from the carbon and nitrogen retentions and from the energy exchange was good. The mean discrepancy was 4 Cal./24 hr.

3. There were no statistically significant differences in energy retention as between the three materials at either a low (600 g./24 hr.) or a high (1500 g./24 hr.) level of feeding. Calculations of net energy/100 Cal. of food ingested showed that higher values occurred at the lower level of feeding. Standard errors of the means were small, about ±3% of the determined values. Further analysis showed that no large differences in the net energy value of the materials would appear within the normal feeding range, but slight extrapolation of the data indicated that the cubes would be superior at high feeding levels.

4. Faecal losses of energy were considerably greater when cubes were given and methane losses were much smaller. Individual sheep which showed low methane losses also showed high faecal energy losses. Faecal losses of energy were smaller at the lower feeding level. Urine energy losses were unaffected by the amount or physical form of the food given.

5. Heat losses were greater at the higher nutritional level and were considerably less for cubes than for chopped material. Constancy of net energy value in this study thus involved compensation of high faecal energy losses by low losses of energy as heat and methane.

6. The determinations of the digestibility of the carbohydrate fractions of the grass showed that a fall in the digestibility of the structural components of the cell was the major factor causing increased faecal losses. The digestibility of intracellular constituents fell very much less.

7. It is shown that evaluation of the grasses in terms of metabolizable or digested energy does not place them in their correct physiological order of nutritive value, and that estimates of nutritive value using Kellner's and other factors do not give their true nutritive worth.

8. It is pointed out that physical factors, which change the rate of passage of food through the gut, change the rate and nature of the microbial fermentation, and cause variation in the mechanical work involved in prehending, masticating and cudding food, are as important as the chemical composition of the food in determining its nutritive value.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1956 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Andersen, A. C. (1922). Biochem. Z. 130, 143.Google Scholar
Armsby, H. P. (1917). The Nutrition of Farm Animals. New York: Macmillan Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1940). Tierernährung, 12, 536.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1950–1951). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 20, 1.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955 a). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 292.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955 b). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 14, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Rook, J. A. F. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1955). In the Press.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Rook, J. A. F. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breirem, K. (1944). K. Landtbr Akad. Handl., Stockh., 83, 345.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. & Dijkstra, N. D. (1939). Versl. Rijkslandb Proefst., 's Grav. no. 45 (5), c, 119.Google Scholar
Cate, H. A., Lewis, J. M., Webb, R. J., Mansfield, M. E. & Garrious, U. S. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasemann, E. & Heinzl, O. (1943). Ber. schweiz. bot. Ges. [A], 53, 449.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Fries, J. A. & Braman, W. W. (1925). J. Agric. Res. 31, 987.Google Scholar
Heinzl, O. (1944). Der Einflüss der künstlichen Trocknung auf die energetische Wirkung von Jungras: festgestellt durch Gesamstoffwechselversuche am Schaf. Thesis, Zurich.Google Scholar
Kellner, O. (1920). Die Ernahrung der landwirt-schaftlichen Nutztiere, 9th ed.Berlin: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Møllgaard, H. (1954). Wissenschaftliche Grundbedingungen einer gemeinsamon europaischen Futtereinheit. In 100 Jahre Möckern, Festschrift, Bd II, p. 43. Dtsch. Akad. Landw., Berlin.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1954). The T.D.N. system of measuring nutritive energy. In 100 Jahre Möckern, Festschrift Bd II, p. 233. Dtsch. Akad. Landw., Berlin.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1948–1949). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 18, 1.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Zuntz, N. & Schumberg, H. (1901). Physiologie des Marches. Berlin: Hirschwald.Google Scholar