Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:44:38.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of different extraction procedures on the recovery of cell walls in forage and faeces from cattle and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. W. Moir
K. W. Moir
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Brisbane, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Forages and faeces from 28 digestibility experiments with cattle or sheep were extracted with neutral detergent solution, with and without sodium sulphite, or sequentially extracted with acid-pepsin, ethyl alcohol, diethyl ether and either ammonium oxalate or hot water. Ammonium oxalate was used to extract small amounts of non-protein material not extracted from legumes by hot water. Compared with sequential extraction the average protein-free organic residues after extraction with detergent, with and without sodium sulphite, were significantly lower in legumes and faeces, but not in grasses. The largest differences occurred in faeces from grasses for which the recoveries of cell walls as percentages of the faecal organic matter were found to be 59·2, 62·0 and 66·4 respectively, after extraction with neutral detergent plus sodium sulphite, neutral detergent alone and sequential extraction with various solvents. It was considered that the differences were due to extraction of cell-wall constituents by both detergent and sulphite.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , June 1972 , pp. 351 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Moir, K. W. (1971). In vivo and in vitro digestible fractions in forage. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 22, 338–41.Google Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1972). An assessment of the quality of forage from its cell-wall content and amount of cell wall digested. J. agric. Sci., Camb., 78, 355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Moore, L. A. (1965). New chemical methods for analysis of forage for the purpose of predicting nutritive value. Proc. IX int. Grassld Congr., pp. 785–9.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 50, 50–5.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Wine, R. H. & Moore, L. A. (1966). Estimation of the true digestibility of forages by the in vitro digestion of coll walls. Proc. X int. Grassld Congr., pp. 438–41.Google Scholar
Waite, R. & Gorrod, A. R. N. (1959). The comprehensive analysis of grasses. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 10, 317–26.Google Scholar
Waite, R., Johnston, M. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1964). 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. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 62, 391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar