Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T12:16:58.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of calluna vulgaris IV. Digestibility at three, seven and fourteen years after burning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

1. The digestibility of samples of heather of 3, 7 and 14 years of age has been determined.

2. The experimental technique was the same as that used in the previous digestibility studies of heather.

3. The digestibility of the organic matter, and of all its components other than crude fibre and ether extractives, was found to decline with advancing age. This decline became apparent in heather of 7 years of age.

4. Gross digestible energy values were determined for the three ages of heather under investigation. Starch equivalents derived from these values proved to be lower than starch equivalents calculated in the usual way.

5. Confirmation of earlier conclusions concerning the value of heather as a source of energy has been obtained.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1956 , pp. 468 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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
Clapperton, J. L. (1953). B.Sc. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Dougall, H. W. (1955). Private communication.Google Scholar
Frear, D. E. H. (1952). Agricultural Chemistry, 1, p. 502. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Hallsworth, E. G. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 54.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
Honcamp, F. & Blanck, E. (1918). Landw. VersSta. 91, 223.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 344.Google Scholar
Maynard, L. A. (1937). Animal Nutrition, p. 264. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1941). Feeds and Feeding, p. 48. New York: The Morrison Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Smith, A. N. (1953). B.Sc. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. & Dougall, H. W. (1947). Scot. J. Agric. 27, 35.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. & Smith, A. N. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 104.Google Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Hepburn, W. R. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 298.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Horton, A. E. (1936). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 4, 25.Google Scholar
Wedemeyer, K. (1899). Landw. VersSta. 51, 375.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1952). B.Sc. Thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Rations for Livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric., Land., no. 48.Google Scholar