Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-jtv8x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-06T07:14:00.927Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Studies on the production of volatile fatty acids from grass by rumen liquor in an artificial rumen: I. The volatile acid production from fresh grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. John
Division of Agricultural Biochemistry, Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Aberdeen
G. Barnett
Division of Agricultural Biochemistry, Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Aberdeen
R. L. Reid
Division of Agricultural Biochemistry, Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Aberdeen


1. A study has been made over two growing seasons of the volatile fatty acid production from ley grass obtained from a single area of one field, under the action of rumen liquor in vitro.

2. The acida estimated were acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric and caproic. On only one occasion did the last named appear in measurable amount.

3. The main acid produced in early stages of the year is acetic acid, but as the season advances propionic acid becomes the acid of major production.

4. In parallel cellulose runs it was found that propionic acid was invariably produced in greater amount than any other acid.

5. An attempt has been made to eliminate, by using cellulose as a standard, the effects of using different rumen liquor samples.

6. The dried samples, corresponding to the fresh material, were invariably found to yield acetic acid in greater proportion than propionic acid. The average percentages of acids obtained from the dried grass were similar to those found by other workers. It is suggested that the variations between the fresh and dried grass results are due to changes in carbohydrate content resultant upon storage of the latter.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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.)



Archbold, H. K. (1938). Ann. Bot., Lond., 11, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, H. A. (1940). Leeuwenhoek ned. Tijdschr. 6, 201.Google Scholar
Bornstein, B. T. & Barker, H. A. (1948). J. Biol. Chem. 172, 659.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Frank, N. A., Gerlaugh, P. & Bethke, R. M. (1950). J. Nutr. 40, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, F. D. & Shorland, F. B. (1945). N.Z. J. sci. Tech. 26, 372.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. E. B. (1954). Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. E. B. & Porteous, J. W. (1953). Analyst, 78, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. T. (1945). J. Exp. Biol. 22, 51.Google Scholar
Elsden, S. T., Hitchcock, M. W. S., Marshall, R. A. & Phillipson, A. T. (1946). J. Exp. Biol. 22, 191.Google Scholar
El-Shazly, L. H. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, F. V. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, F. V., Pilgrim, A. F., Rodda, H. J. & Weller, R. A. (1952). J. Exp. Biol. 29, 57.Google Scholar
McClymont, G. L. (1951). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, B. J. (1951). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, A. G. (1935). J. Agric. Sci. 25, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, R. J. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.Google Scholar
Pennington, R. J. & Sutherland, T. M. (1954). Biochem. J. 58, vii.Google Scholar
Pfander, W. H. & Phillipson, A. T. (1953). J. Physiol. 122, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1953). Biochem. J. 54, iii.Google Scholar
Scarisbrick, R. (1952). Biochem. J. 50, xxxiv.Google Scholar
Tappenheimer, H. (1884). Z. Biol. 20, 52.Google Scholar