Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:07:13.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of chromium sesquioxide to measure the digestibility of carotene by goats and cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Chanda ,
Helen M. Clapham ,
Mary L. McNaught  and
E. C. Owen
R. Chanda
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Helen M. Clapham
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Mary L. McNaught
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
E. C. Owen
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The digestibility of carotene in dried grass was measured by the Cr2O3 method in both cows and goats. In the goats the direct method was simultaneously used for comparison with the Cr2O3 method.

The main conclusions were:

1. When mixed with the concentrate portion of the ration of lactating goats, Cr2O3 was recovered in the faeces in four experiments in amounts equal to 100·0, 99·1, 99·1 and 96·0% of the amount ingested.

2. The apparent digestibility of carotene in the goat was measured both directly by the use of metabolism crates and indirectly by using Cr2O3 as an indicator of equivalence of faeces and food. By the former method digestibilities of carotene in four goats were 68·7, 62·7, 61·8 and 59·6%. The corresponding digestibilities obtained from the same faeces samples by the Cr2O3 method were 67·4, 62·9, 61·8 and 58·9%.

3. In six cows, on the diet similar to that of the goats, the Cr2O3 method showed that 59·3, 54·0, 54·4, 54·4, 57·1 and 55·5% of carotene was apparently digested.

4. Reasons for preferring the use of added Cr2O3 to natural constituents of the food as a marker are discussed.

5. The individual results from cows and goats have been statistically analysed to partition the various sources of variance, and it has been shown that fewer animals for a longer time give a more reliable result than more animals for a shorter time.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , January 1951 , pp. 179 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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. (1934). Skand. Arch. Physiol. 69, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, A. C. & Fredriksen, L. (1935). Biederm. Zbl. B, 5, 334.Google Scholar
Bergeim, O. (1926). J. Biol. Chem. 70, no. 29, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, A. & Meyer, H. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 248.Google Scholar
Cama, H. R. & Goodwin, T. W. (1949). Biochem. J. 45, 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Jackson, I. R. C. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. E., Miller, C. O. & Lindahl, I. L. (1947). J. Agric. Res. 74, 285.Google Scholar
de Saint-Rat, L. (1948). Compt. rend. Paris, 227, 150 (Chem. Abstr. 42, 8885 h.)Google Scholar
Druce, E. & Willcox, J. S. (1949). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 17, 188.Google Scholar
Edin, H. (1918). Fran Centralanst. f. forsoksvasendet pa Jodbruksomradet. Med. 105.Google Scholar
Edin, H. (1926). Fran Centralanst. f. forsoksvasendet. pa Jordbruksomradet Husdjursaud. No. 50, Stockholm. Med. 309.Google Scholar
Elms, G. H., Matrone, G. & Maynard, L. A. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 285.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S. (1949). Ann. Roy. Agric. Coll. Sweden, 16, 167.Google Scholar
Filmer, J. F. (1950). Ann. Rep. 1948–49 Anim. Res. Div. N.Z. Hep. Agric. (Also personal communication.)Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B. & Beegle, F. M. (1916). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 295.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B. & Swift, R. W. (1943). Bull. Pa Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 452.Google Scholar
Fraps, G. S. & Kemmerer, A. R. (1937). Bull. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 657.Google Scholar
Gallup, W. D. & Kuhlman, A. H. (1931). J. Agric. Res. 42, 665.Google Scholar
Gallup, W. D. & Kuhlman, A. H. (1936). J. Agric. Res. 52, 889.Google Scholar
Grushkio Ya, M. (1948). Biokhimiya, 13, 124. (Chem. Abstr. 42, 8302 i.)Google Scholar
Hale, E. B., Duncan, C. W. & Huffmann, C. F. (1939). Proc. Soc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32, 389.Google Scholar
Hamilton, T. S., Mitchell, H. H., Kick, C. H. & Carman, G. G. (1927–8). 41st Ann. Rep. Ill. agric. Exp. Sta. pp. 119.Google Scholar
Hardwick, P. J. (1950). Analyst, 75, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, V. G., Breedlove, C. H. & Likely, W. (1928). J. Biol. Chem. 79, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarl, F. (1946). Husdjursfors. Anst. med. 20, 1.Google Scholar
Jarl, F. (1949). Annal. Roy. Agric. Coll. Sweden, 16, 785.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. M. & Baumann, C. A. (1947). J. Biol. Chem. 171, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1950). J. Nutrit. 41, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, J. C., Murer, H. K. & Hodgson, R. E. (1936). J. Agric. Res. 53, 553.Google Scholar
Kreula, M. S. (1947). Biochem. J. 41, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnally, R. A. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougall, D. & Delong, W. A. (1948). Canad. J. Res. B, 26, 457, 464.Google Scholar
Marshall, R. A. (1949). Brit. J. Nutrit. 3, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, L. A. & Winter, O. B. (1934). J. Dairy Sci. 17, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, E. C. (1951). J. Dairy Res. 18, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pazur, J. H. & DeLong, W. A. (1948). Sci. Agric. 28, no. 1, 39.Google Scholar
Raysarker, B. C. & Sen, K. C. (1943). Indian J. vet. Sci. 13, 219.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Woolfolk, P. G., Richards, C. R., Kangmann, R. W., Loosli, J. K., Turk, K. L., Miller, J. I. & Blaser, R. E. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandell, E. B. (1936). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal. ed.), 8, 336.Google Scholar
Schultze, A. B. & Turner, C. W. (1945). Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 392.Google Scholar
Schurch, A. F., Lloyd, L. E. & Crampton, E. W. (1950). J. Nutrit. 41, 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seshan, P. A. & Sen, K. C. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skulmowski, J., Szymanski, A. & Wyszynski, T. (1943). Landw. Forschungsanst. des Oeneralgouvernements, 1, 76.Google Scholar
Snowden, F. J. & DeLong, W. A. (1949). Sci. Agric. 29, 409.Google Scholar
Swift, R. W., Thacker, E.-J., Black, A., Bratzler, J. W. & James, W. H. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 432.Google Scholar
Tscherniak, A. (1950). Mitt. Lebensm. Hyg., Bern, 41, 181.Google Scholar