Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:57:37.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritional value of some tropical grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. M. Grieve  and
D. F. Osbourn
C. M. Grieve
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Unit and Department of Agriculture, University of the West Indies, Trinidad
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Unit and Department of Agriculture, University of the West Indies, Trinidad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Twenty feeding and digestibility trials were carried out on seven tropical grasses to determine their nutritional value at different stages of growth, and to study their suitability as possible pasture grasses.

2. Content of crude protein was relatively high at immature growth stages of the forages, and declined rapidly with the onset of flowering.

3. Digestibility of dry matter and gross energy increased in most of the forages tested to the 5-week stage of regrowth but declined rapidly in mature stages of forages tested at 6 or 8 weeks of regrowth. Digestibility of crude protein declined with increasing maturity of the forages.

4. The Nutritive Value Index of each forage was highest at four or five weeks of regrowth. The optimum time to graze the forages tested would occur between 4 and 5 weeks of regrowth, at the stage when flowering commences. This would combine high yield of forage with high nutritional value.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1965 , pp. 411 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Official Methods of Analysis, 9th edn. Washington, D.C.: Assn. Off. Agric. Chem.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 51.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wilson, R. S. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 351.Google Scholar
Butterworth, M. H. (1961). Trop. Agriculture, Trin., 38, 189.Google Scholar
Butterworth, M. H. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W., Donefer, E. & Lloyd, L. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, J. G. P. & Van Hoof, H. A. (1960). Tijdschr. Pl.Zie.ht. 66, 344.Google Scholar
Grieve, C. M. & Beacom, S. E. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, E. (1942). Trop. Agriculture, Trin., 19, 147.Google Scholar
Kelsheimer, E. G., Jones, D. W. & Hodges, E. M. (1953). Flor. Agric. Exp. Sta. Circ. S–64.Google Scholar
National Research Council U.S.A. (1956). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, publication 464.Google Scholar
National Research Council U.S.A. (1957). Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, publication 504.Google Scholar
National Research Council U.S.A. (1958). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, publication 579.Google Scholar
Oakes, A. J. (1960). Proc. 8th Inter. Grassl. Cong. Paper 16/a/6.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. R., Mott, G. O., Bisschoff, W. V. A. & Da Rocha, G. L. (1962). Boletim da Industria Animal DPA 20, or Ibec Research Institute Bull. no. 28. Brazil.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N., Fewkes, D. W. & Emsley, M. G. (1962). Trop. Agriculture, Trin., 39, 49.Google Scholar