Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:50:23.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on rumen retention time, fermentation rate and dry-matter digestibility in zebu and european-type cattle on a grass hay ration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. Phillips ,
R. E. Hungate ,
A. MacGregor  and
D. P. Hungate
G. D. Phillips
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
R. E. Hungate
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
A. MacGregor
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
D. P. Hungate
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Experiments are described in which retention time of digesta in the reticulo-rumen, fermentation rates of rumen contents, and dry-matter digestibilities were studied simultaneously in four grade European and three zebu steers.

2. Fermentation rates and rumen retentions were significantly negatively correlated.

3. Correlations between digestibility and the other two factors were not significant at a high level.

4. The multiple regressions calculated for retention time and fermentation rate were significant at the 5% level and that for digestibility approached this level.

5. While only fermentation rates show significant differences for the two types of cattle, the results suggest that grades and zebus differ also in the rate of passage of digesta through the rumen.

6. The loss in weight of substrate per unit of fermentation products was measured in in vitro experiments.

7. Using certain assumptions, estimates are made of the extent to which the measured fermentation rates could account for the loss in weight of dry matter during digestion, and are compared with the loss actually found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 1960 , pp. 417 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Balch, C. C. (1950). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, 361.Google Scholar
Carroll, E. J. & Hungate, R. E. (1954). Appl. Microbiol. 2, 205.Google Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956). Brit. J. Nutr. 10, 17.Google Scholar
French, M. H. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 503.Google Scholar
French, M. H. (1956). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 24, 235.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E., Fletcher, D. W., Dougherty, R. W. & Barentine, B. F. (1955). Appl. Microbiol. 3, 161.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E., Phillips, G. D., Htjngate, D. P. & MacGregor, A. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 54, 196.Google Scholar
Phillips, G. D. (1959). Unpublished.Google Scholar
Walter, W. G. (1952). Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State College.Google Scholar