Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T21:37:26.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of drying temperature and method of analysis on the measurement of cell mall content in forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

E.R. Deaville  and
D.I. Givens
E.R. Deaville
Affiliation:
ADAS Drayton, Feed Evaluation Unit, Stratford-on-Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
D.I. Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Drayton, Feed Evaluation Unit, Stratford-on-Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
Get access

Extract

Since the cell wall content (CWC) and cell wall digestibility are the main factors influencing the animal's energy supply from forages, the ability to accurately measure CWC is crucial. This is becoming increasingly important as feed evaluation methods move towards a more dynamic approach of assessing nutrient supply from a wide range of substrates in order to reflect the two-stage nature of digestion in ruminants. Originally developed for forages, the neutral detergent fibre (NDF) procedure of Goering and Van Soest (1970) is generally regarded as providing a satisfactory measure of CWC despite the fact that varying amounts of cell wall pectins are soluble in neutral detergent solution (Chesson, 1986). However, previous work (IVVO, 1991) suggests that sample drying temperature and other factors can influence the measurement of CWC. An experiment was undertaken to study the effect of different drying temperatures and method of NDF analysis on the measurement of CWC in different forage types.

Type
Silage and Feeding Behaviour
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1993: Winter meeting , March 1993 , pp. 140
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1993

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

Chesson, A., 1986. In: Livingstone, R. M. (Ed.) Feedstuffs Evaluation, Modern Aspects, Problem, Future Trends. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, pp. 18–25.Google Scholar
Goering, H.K. & Van Soest, P.J., 1990. Agriculture Handbook No. 379, USDA, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
IVVO, 1991. Research Institute for Livestock Feeding and Nutrition, Annual Report 1990, Lelystad, p.5.Google Scholar
Mascarenhas-Ferreira, A., Kerstens, J. and Gast, C.H., 1983. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 9: 19–28.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A., 1991. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar