Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T15:51:58.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep:I. The effect of stage of maturity on the apparent digestibility of rye-grass, cocksfoot and timothy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Waite ,
Margaret J. Johnston  and
D. G. Armstrong
R. Waite
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Margaret J. Johnston
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Three species of grass, rye-grass (two varieties, S 23 and S 24) cocksfoot (variety S 37) and timothy (variety S 48) were cut at various stages of maturity, dried and given at several planes of nutrition to sheep in respiration chambers. The detailed chemical composition of the grasses and the apparent digestibility of the constituents were studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , June 1964 , pp. 391 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Armstrong, D. G. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspinall, G. O. & Cairncross, A. I. M. (1960). J. Chem. Soc. 3877.Google Scholar
Bolker, H. I. (1963). Nature, Lond., 197, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehority, B. A., Johnson, R. R., & Conrad, H. R. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, G. H., Matrone, G. & Maynard, L. A. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, P. E., Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, E. B., Duncan, C. W. & Huffman, C. F. (1940). J. Diary Sci. 23, 953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. E. (1959). Private communication.Google Scholar
Hercus, B. H. (1960). Proc. Sth Orassl. Conf. p. 443.Google Scholar
Howard, B. H., Jones, G. & Purdom, M. R. (1959). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 18, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. J. & Waite, R. (1964). (In preparation.)Google Scholar
McAnally, R. A. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Harris, C. E. (1959). Ann. Rep. Grassl. Res. Inst. Hurley, No. 11, 61.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. & Harris, C. E. (1960). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 15, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, C. van (1939). Vorratspfl. u. Lebensmittelforsch. 2, 22.Google Scholar
Stafford, H. A. (1962). Plant Physiol. 37, 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, C. & Shimazu, F. (1961). J. Fd Sci. 26, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, J. T. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towers, G. H. N. & Gibbs, R. D. (1953). Nature, Lond., 172, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R. & Gorrod, A. R. N. (1959 a). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 10, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R. & Gorrod, A. R. N. (1959 b). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 10, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardrop, A. B. (1958). Lignification of Plants in Relationto Ruminant Nutrition. Melbourne: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Youatt, G. (1958). Lignification of Plants in Relation to Ruminant Nutrition. Melbourne: C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar