Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-br6r8 Total loading time: 0.18 Render date: 2022-11-27T13:24:02.963Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The comparative digestibility of feed ingredients by cattle and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2021

John Coyle
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. P. O'Mara
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. J. Drennan
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. Rath
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. J. Caffrey
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Get access

Extract

Most measurements of digestibility are earned out with sheep rather than cattle because of the smaller amounts of feed and faeces involved. Yet the results are most often used with cattle. It is widely believed that digestibility in sheep is poorer than cattle with low digestibility feedstuffs and better with high digestibility feedstuffs, but that the magnitude of the differences is small. However, this belief is largely based on work with forages and there have been few direct comparisons between cattle and sheep fed concentrate ingredients. The objective of this experiment was to compare the digestibility by cattle and sheep of five samples of concentrate ingredients: citrus pulp, molassed beet pulp, corn gluten feed, barley and grain screenings.

Type
Techniques
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

MAFF. 1992. Feed Composition. UK tables of feed composition and nutritive value for ruminants. Second Edition. Chalcombe Publications.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The comparative digestibility of feed ingredients by cattle and sheep
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The comparative digestibility of feed ingredients by cattle and sheep
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The comparative digestibility of feed ingredients by cattle and sheep
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *