Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T09:23:32.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chemical composition and metabolisable energy content of four aquatic plants for sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

M. Sakarya
Affiliation:
University of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
A. Kamalak*
Affiliation:
University of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
O. Canbolat
Affiliation:
University of Bursa Uludag, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Bursa, Turkey
Y. Gurbuz
Affiliation:
University of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
N. Tursun
Affiliation:
University of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Crop Protection, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
C. O. Ozkan
Affiliation:
University of Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
Get access

Extract

Although some aquatic plants have been used for ruminant diets in some parts of Turkey there is a lack of information about their nutritive values. The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition and metabolisable energy (ME) content of four different aquatic plants using in vitro gas production technique.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. and Scneider, W. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when incubated with rumen liquor in vitro . Journal of Agricultural Science (Camb.) 92: 217222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar