Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T05:52:59.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the chemical composition of maize plant lignin on the digestibility of maize stalk in the rumen of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Nadia F. Cymbaluk ,
A. J. Gordon  and
T. S. Neudoerffer
Nadia F. Cymbaluk
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
A. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
T. S. Neudoerffer
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Digestibility of maize stalk from Troyer Reid (Tr) maize and its isogenic mutant (bm1) was studied by suspending nylon bags containing ground tissue in the rumen of a fistulated steer. The animal was given a grass hay–concentrate (5:3) diet or a maize silage–grass hay–concentrate (4:1:3) diet.

2. The digestibility of the organic matter of the mutant maize stalk was greater than that of the normal maize stalk.

3. Adaptation of the rumen to maize silage increased the organic-matter digestibility of the maize stalk.

4. Lignin content was determined by two methods, namely organic matter insoluble in 72% sulphuric acid (method of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 1960) (AOAC-lignin) and the organic matter lost from the ligno-cellulose complex (represented by acid-detergent fibre) by oxidation with potassium permanganate. The AOAC-lignin concentration was twice the permanganate-lignin concentration, but the amount of lignin estimated by both methods showed a significant negative relation to organic-matter digestibility. The AOAC-lignin concentration was greater in Tr than in bm1 maize but the permanganate-lignin concentration in Tr was slightly lower than in bm1.

5. There was an irregular relationship between the amount of lignin extractable with dimethylformamide (DMF) and digestibility of organic matter due to the solution of some of the DMF-lignin during digestion. The loss of lignin was greater from the mutant maize stalk tissue than from the parent maize stalk tissue.

6. The chemical composition of DMF-lignin determined by analysis showed a significant correlation between the syringealdehyde, p-hydroxybenzaldehyde and vanillin concentrations, and digestibility of organic matter.

7. Higher concentrations of both phenolic aldehydes and acids were found in the less digestible Tr material than in the bm1 stalk tissue.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

REFERENCES

Allinson, D. W. & Oshourn, D. F. (1970). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Methods of Analysis p. 91. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Bondi, A. & Meyer, H. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cymbaluk, N. F. & Neudoerffer, T. S. (1970). J. Chromat. 51, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehority, B. A., Johnson, R. R. & Conrad, H. R. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, R. E., Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, M. S., Nelson, O. E. & Kuć, J. (1968). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 123, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuć, J. & Nelson, O. E. (1964). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 105, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1963). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1137, 3rd ed.Google Scholar
Neathery, M. W. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, A. R. & Gieseker, L., (1942). J. Anim. sci. 1, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigden, W. J. & Stone, J. E. (1952). Sci. Agric. 32, 502.Google Scholar
Quicke, C. V. & Bentley, O. G. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. H. & Potter, J. C. (1930). Pulp Pap. Mag. Can. 24, 549.Google Scholar
Sncdecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1968). Statistical Methods 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stone, J. E., Blundell, M. J. & Tanner, K. G. (1951). Can. J. Chem. 29, 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J. T. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B. & Armstrong, D. G. (1949). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 39, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1966). J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 49, 546.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1968). J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 51, 780.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D. L. & Quicke, G. V. (1964). Sci. Fd Agric. 15, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar