Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T23:03:42.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of processing of barley-based supplements on rumen pH, rate of digestion and voluntary intake of dried grass in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov  and
C. Fraser
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. In one experiment the effect on rumen pH of feeding with restricted amounts of whole or pelleted barley was studied. With whole barley there was little variation in rumen pH associated with feeding time, but with pelleted barley the pH decreased from about 7.0 before feeding to about 5.3, 2–3 h after feeding.

2. The rate of disappearance of dried grass during incubation in the rumens of sheep receiving either whole or pelleted barley was studied in a second experiment. After 24 h incubation only 423 mg/g incubated had disappeared in the rumen of sheep receiving pelleted barley while 625 mg/g incubated had disappeared when it was incubated in the rumen of sheep receiving whole barley.

3. The voluntary intake of dried grass by lambs was studied in a third experiment when they received supplements of either 25 or 50 g whole or pelleted barley/kg live weight0.75. At the high level, pelleted barley reduced intake of dried grass by 534 g/kg but whole barley reduced it by only 352 g/kg. The digestibility of acid-detergent fibre was reduced more by pelleted barley than by whole barley but there was a tendency for a small increase in digestibility of the barley due to processing.

4. The implications of these findings on supplementation of roughages with cereals are discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , November 1975 , pp. 493 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Balch, C. C. (1950). Br. J. Nutr. 4, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 51.Google Scholar
Davidson, I., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C. & Ørskov, E. R. (1974). Anim. Prod. 18, 75.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 43, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R., Poutiainen, E. R. & Tayler, J. C. (1971). Anim. Prod. 13, 461.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, J. D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1968). J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 14, 15.Google Scholar
Mann, S. O. & Ørskov, E. R. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Sot. 34, 63A.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1956). Feeds and Feeding, 22nd ed.Ithaca, New York: The Morrison Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1973). Res. vet. Sci. 14, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Gordon, J. G. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McHattie, I. (1974). Anim. Prod. 18, 85.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Smart, R. S. & Mehrez, A. Z. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, E. A., De Wet, P. J. & Burger, W. J. (1972). Agroanimulia 4, 35.Google Scholar
Thomson, F. & Lamming, G. E. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar