Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T15:38:43.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutrition of Zebu cattle Part II. The techniques of digestibility trials with special reference to sampling, preservation and drying of faeces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. D. Juko ,
R. M. Bredon  and
B. Marshall
C. D. Juko
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
R. M. Bredon
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
B. Marshall
Affiliation:
Animal Health Research Centre, Entebbe, Uganda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some techniques of sampling, preserving, drying and for determination of nitrogen content of faeces were investigated.

It was found that any sample between 100 and 600 g., made up of 10 g. subsamples taken at random, is satisfactory.

Untreated faeces and those preserved by the addition of acetic acid, hydrochloric acid or toluene were dried in a large oven at 80° C. and compared with untreated samples dried at 105° C. for 8 hr. Duplicate samples of those dried at 80° C. were exposed to room temperature for 7 hr. and then dried. When dry-matter and crude-protein contents were compared no significant differences were found between the three groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1961 , pp. 93 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Bechtel, H. E., Shaw, A. O. & Atkeson, F. W. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, H. M., Gallup, W. D. & Darlow, A. E. (1946). J. agric. Res. 73, 167.Google Scholar
Colovos, N. F., Keener, H. A., Prescott, J. R. & Teeri, A. E. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drown, D. & Forbes, R. M. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eheart, J. F., Holdaway, C. W. & Pratt, A. D. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, E. R. & Knott, J. C. (1932). J. Agric. Ees. 45, 557.Google Scholar
Kane, E. A., Ely, R. E., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 327.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Harris, C. E. & Harker, V. G. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 302.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Harris, C. E. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. W. & Herman, H. A. (1944). J. Dairy Sci. 27, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B. & Smith, A. N. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 105.Google Scholar