Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:10:41.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The estimation of the metabolizable energy of forage from its cell-wall content and digestible cell wall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. W. Moir
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Brisbane, Australia

Summary

Published data are used in support of a hypothesis that equal amounts of digestible cell walls and digestible non-cell walls do not contribute equally to the energy value of forages. The relationship between the concentration in the organic matter of metabolizable energy (kcal/g organic matter) determined at the maintenance level of feeding, and the percentages of cell wall and digestible cell wall in the forage organic matter is defined by:

This equation derived from published data on 12 grasses appears to be applicable to both grasses and legumes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Armstrong, D. G. (1964). Evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. II. The energy value of cocksfoot, timothy and two strains of rye-grass at varying stages of maturity. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 399416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L. & Watte, R. (1964). The evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. III. The prediction of nutritive value from chemical and biological measurements. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. W. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1970). Pasture quality and ruminant nutrition. II. Carbohydrate and lignin composition of detergent-extracted residues from pasture grasses and legumes. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 591604.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. V. & Blaxter, K. L. (1964). The utilization of the energy of artificially dried lucerne. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63, 129–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1971). In vivo and in vitro digestible fractions in forage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 338–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1972 a). The effect of different extraction procedures on the recovery of cell walls in forage and faeces from cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 351–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1972 b). An assessment of the quality of forage from its cell-wall content and amount of cell wall digested. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 3551–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. (1973). The relationship between in vitro digestible cell wall and the cell-wall content of forage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 533–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Moore, L. A. (1965). New chemical methods for analysis of forage for the purpose of predicting nutritive value. Proceedings of the IX International Grassland Congress 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. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–5.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 digestibity of rye-grass, cocksfoot and timothy. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 62, 391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar