Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T06:22:30.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of processing of cereals on rumen fermentation, digestibility, rumination time, and firmness of subcutaneous fat in lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
C. Fraser  and
J. G. Gordon
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. G. Gordon
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effects of processing cereals on aspects of rumen metabolism, physiology and pathology were investigated in five experiments with lambs. Three experiments studied the effects of diets containing loose whole, pelleted whole or pelleted rolled barley on rumen volatile fatty acid ratios, rumen pH and digestibility. In a 4th experiment the effects, on the same measurements, of pelleting whole barley, maize, oats or wheat compared to feeding the whole grains in the loose form were studied. The firmness of subcutaneous fat was measured in two of these experiments when injections of cyanocobalamin or hydroxycobalamin were given and in one experiment when the diets were supplemented with two levels of cobalt. In a 5th experiment, the effect on rumination time of pelleting whole barley compared to feeding loose whole grain was assessed.

2. When the diet contained whole barley in a loose mix and also when it contained whole maize, oats or wheat, the proportion of acetic acid in the rumen fluid was significantly increased and that of propionic acid decreased in comparison with the proportions observed when the pelleted diets were offered.

3. The pH of the rumen liquor was not significantly changed by feeding pellets based on rolled or whole barley, but when barley, maize, oats or wheat was given in loose form, there was an increase in the pH by about 1 unit in comparison with the pelleted diets. This increase in pH was, for all cereals, associated with complete elimination of ruminitis which, except for the oat diet, was always apparent with the pelleted feeds.

4. In general the digestibilities were not affected greatly by processing and in two experiments there were no significant differences. In one experiment pelleted whole barley was better digested than pelleted rolled barley. In another experiment the digestibility of barley was slightly greater when it was fed whole and loose compared to pelleted, while the digestibility of whole wheat was less than that of pelleted wheat. The mean digestibilities of organic matter for barley, maize, oats and wheat were 0.791, 0.832, 0.687 and 0.846 respectively.

5. Neither injections of vitamin B12 nor cobalt supplementation of the diet had any effect on the firmness of subcutaneous fat. Feeding diets containing loose whole barley increased the firmness of the subcutaneous fat, and this was associated with a decrease in the proportion of propionic acid in the rumen fluid.

6. The feeding of loose whole barley instead of pelleted whole barley caused an increase in time of rumination from 3.6 to 6.6 h/24 h.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , July 1974 , pp. 59 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. C. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, I. H. & Rook, J. A. F. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, I., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donefer, E., Lloyd, L. E. & Crampton, E. W. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, W. R. H., Ørskov, E. R. & Garton, G. A. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 20A.Google Scholar
Duncan, W. R. H., Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Garton, G. A. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C. & Ørskov, E. R. (1973). Anim. Prod. 18, 85.Google Scholar
Garton, G. A., Hovell, F. D. & Duncan, W. R. H. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, J. G. (1955). Rumination in the sheep. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. G. (1968). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 9, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovell, F. D. (1972). The utilization of salts of volatile fatty acids by growing lambs. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 68A.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and Its Microbes. London, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1966). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 6, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClymont, G. L. & Vallance, S. (1962). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 21, xli.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1973). Res. vet. Sci. 14, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Allen, D. M. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Flatt, W. R., Moe, P. W., Munson, H. W., Hemken, R. W. & Katz, I. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Fraser, C. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 100A.Google Scholar
Putnam, P. A., Yarns, D. A. & Davis, R. E. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. W. & Woods, W. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, C. E. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 101 [Phillipson, A. T., editor’. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963 a). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963 b). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Eadie, J. M., Mann, S. O. & Reid, R. S. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar