Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T02:07:21.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The availability of calcium in three grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. Armstrong ,
Brynmor Thomas  and
D. G. Armstrong
R. H. Armstrong
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Brynmor Thomas
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
King's College (Newcastle upon Tyne), University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The availability of the calcium in three species of grass has been determined by a slaughter technique, using the rat as the experimental animal.

2. The calcium in both timothy and perennial rye-grass was found to be more available than that in cocksfoot, the differences between timothy and cocksfoot, and between perennial rye-grass and cocksfoot being of a significant order.

3. The grasses as a whole were found to be inferior to both the legumes and herbs in respect of calcium availability.

4. The significance of the high faecal calcium values found in rats receiving the cocksfoot diets has been discussed.

5. There was shown to be some indication of inverse relationships between fibre content and calcium availability, and between oxalic acid content and calcium availability.

No single one of the nine grassland plants so far investigated has proved to have a calcium availability which, when taken in conjunction with total calcium content, would be in the least likely to induce symptoms of deficiency in an animal fed on that species alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , November 1957 , pp. 446 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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, R. H. & Thomas, Brynmor (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, R. H., Thomas, Brynmor & Horner, K. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. J. L. (1952). Analyst. 77, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Pt. 1, p. 9. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M., Kon, S. K. & Watson, M. B. (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Pt. 1, p. 37. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. (1943). J. Nutr. 25, 303.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. E. & Greenberg, J. (1949). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 71, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, J. B., Fairbanks, B. W., Berryman, G. H. & Mitchell, H. H. (1940). J. Nutr. 20, 263.Google Scholar