Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:43:58.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of natural herbage of the subtropics II. The effect of added concentrates on the digestibility of herbage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. H. Topps
J. H. Topps
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effect of feeding three levels of concentrates on the organic matter digestibility of two kinds of herbage was determined in four Latin square trials with four wether sheep.

2. Analysis of variance of the trials showed that the organic matter digestibility of all mixed feeds was significantly higher than that of the corresponding herbage. With one exception, the organic matter digestibility of the mixed feeds within each trial was not significantly different.

3. The digestibility coefficients of the concentrates, derived by difference, were invariably high and exceeded 100% for four levels of addition. This indicated a marked improvement of the digestibility of herbage when it was fed with certain levels of concentrate.

4. A possible explanation of the increase of digestibility was discussed and the practical implications of the results indicated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 1962 , pp. 393 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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 (1955). Official and Tentative Methods, 8th ed.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 51.Google Scholar
Bloom, S., Jacobson, N. L., Allen, R. S., McGilliard, L. D. & Homeyer, P. G. (1957). J. Dairy Sci. 40, 240.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C. & Pfander, W. H. (1958). J. Nutr. 65, 235.Google Scholar
Gall, L. S., Burroughs, W., Gerlaugh, P. & Edgington, B. H. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 441.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 281.Google Scholar
Hershberger, T. V., Bentley, O. G., Cline, J. H. & Tyznik, W. J. (1956). J. Agric. Food Chem. 4, 952.Google Scholar
Holter, J. A. & Reid, J. T. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1339.Google Scholar
Louw, J. G. & van der Wath, J. G. (1943). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 18, 177.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Kemp, C. D. (1961). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 16, 76.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. H. (1947). Feeds of the World. Their Digestibility and Composition. University of West Virginia Agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
Topps, J. H. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 58, 387.Google Scholar