Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T21:26:56.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of Calluna Vulgaris: III. Digestibility at four and ten years after burning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Brynmor Thomas  and
Allan N. Smith
Brynmor Thomas
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Allan N. Smith
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The necessity for further information on the digestibility of heather, with particular reference to the effect of age, has been discussed.

2. The digestibility of well-defined samples of heather of 4 and 10 years of age has been determined.

3. Four-year-old Blackface wethers in crates were fed diets containing 50% of heather and 50% of medium-quality meadow hay.

4. The younger sample of heather was found to have appreciably higher digestibility coefficients for all nutritive constituents other than crude fibre.

5. Agreement between duplicate sheep in respect of their capacity to digest crude protein was found to be good, and faecal metabolic nitrogen outputs were similar.

6. Faecal metabolic nitrogen output was inversely related to the percentage of heather contained in the diet. No relationship between faecal metabolic nitrogen and bulk, as measured on a basis of volume per unit weight, could be established.

7. It has been concluded that heather, though inferior as a source of protein, provides rather more energy than a poor-quality meadow hay, and is thus of value as a winter feed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , October 1954 , pp. 104 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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. & Thomas, B. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Common, R. H. (1946). Private communication.Google Scholar
Crowther, C. & Woodman, H. E. (1917). J. Agric. Sci. 8, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougall, H. W. (1939). M.Sc. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Frazer, A. (1945). Sheep Farming, p. 93. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, Ltd.Google Scholar
Guiliani, R. (1939). Riv. Zootec., Firenze, 16, 465.Google Scholar
Halnan, E. T. & Garner, F. H. (1946). The Principles and Practice of Feeding Farm Animals, p. 241. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Hofstra, S. T. (1952). Private communication.Google Scholar
Honcamp, F. & Blanck, E. (1918). Landw. VersSta. 91, 223.Google Scholar
Isaachsen, H. & Ulvesli, O. (1933). Meld. Norg. LandbrHoisk. 13, 675.Google Scholar
Lauder, A. & Comrie, A. (1936). Scot. J. Agric. 19, 148.Google Scholar
Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1934 a). Biochem. J. 28, 2147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1934 b). Biochem. J. 28, 2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presthegge, K. (1943). Meld. Norg. LandbrHaisk. 23, 301.Google Scholar
Proctor, F. & Wright, N. C. (1927). J. Agric. Sci. 17, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B. (1934). J. Agric. Sci. 24, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, B. & Dougall, H. W. (1947). Scot. J. Agric. 27, 35.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. & Armstrong, D. G. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulvesli, O. & Nordbo, R. (1945). Tidsskr. norske Landbruk. 52, 156.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Horton, A. E. (1936). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 4, 25.Google Scholar
Wiegner, G. (1926). Anleitung zum quantitativen agrikulturchemischen Praktikum, p. 249. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1952). B.Sc. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Rations for livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar