Cellulose Digestion In Vitro as a Measure of the Digestibility of Forage Cellulose in Ruminants

Quicke, George V.; Bentley, Orville G.; Scott, Harold W.; Moxon, A. L.

doi:10.2527/jas1959.181275x

Cited by 45 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences between or among time periods were highly signif icant in all trials except trial 2 of experiment 2. In general, these re-sults agree with those reported in the literature with res ods investigated (Quicke, et al, 1959;Hershberger, et al, 1959;Donefer, et al, 1960).…”

Section: Time Of Fermeniafionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Dehority et al (1960) found the sediment of rumen fluid sedimented between 1500 x G and 3000 x G to contain the majority of the cellulolytic activity. In addition, Quicke et al (1959) reported 48hour in vitro cellulose digestibility values for four pasture forages using these three methods of inocula preparation and indicated slightly higher digestion values with the centrifuged and resuspended rumen microorganisms. However, their inocula was obtained from a steer fed a good quality alfalfa hay, whereas in this experiment the inocula came from a cow fed a low qual-ity oat hay.…”

Section: Influence Of Inoculum Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…inoculum sample was processed by a procedure reported by Quicke et al (1959) involving extracting strained rumen juice with a phosphate buffer, centrifuging t h e b u f fe r extract through a Sharples super-centrifuge, and resuspending the sediment. The resuspended sediment was then used to inoculate individual tubes.…”

Section: Source Of Inoculummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2) a p h o s p h a t e buffer extract of t h e rumen pulp; and 3) phosphate buffer extract which had been centrifuged, p 1 a n t debris discarded, and bacterial cells resuspended in phosphate buffer following, in general, the procedures of Quicke, et al (1959).…”

Section: Source Of Inoculummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Micro-Methods for Nutritive Evaluation of Range Forages

Dyne¹

1962

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for their suggestions, to Mr. A. A. Aguirre for his technical assistance, and to the staff of the Hopland Field Station for their cooperation in these investigations. This project partially supported by federal funds from Regional Research Project W-34-Range Livestock Nutrition. aClark, K. W. 1958. The adaptation of an artificial rumen technique to the estimation of the gross digestible energy of forages. Ph.D. Diss. Purdue Univ. 110 pp. Processing Of Inoculum And In Vitro Operation In the first series of trials the :

show abstract

Section: Time Of Fermeniafionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Influence Of Inoculum Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Source Of Inoculummentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Source Of Inoculummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Micro-Methods for Nutritive Evaluation of Range Forages

Dyne¹

1962

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nutrient and buffer solutions are added to the centrifuge tubes at the beginning of the trial as described below. The nutrient media and buffer solutions vary according to the purposes of the investigation, but modifications of those suggested by Quicke et al (1959) have proved satisfactory. Enzymatic casein hydrolysate (2.5 ml/tube of a 20 mg/ml solution) is added to Quicke's original mixture.…”

Section: Ph Confrolmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Artificial Rumen System for Range Nutrition Studies

Dyne¹

1963

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

In vivo and in vitro digestible fractions in forage

Moir

1971

J Sci Food Agric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faeces and the residues from the in vitro digestion of 13 forages were sequentially extracted with acidpepsin, ethyl alcohol, hot water and diethyl ether and the quantity of the extracts was adjusted to a protein-free basis and expressed per 100 g of original forage organic matter. Undigested material in in vivo and in vitro experiments were respectively, 3.37 and I .88 g (&O. 12) for ethyl alcohol extracts, 1.13 and 1.10 g (*O.OS) for hot water extracts, 0.15 and 0.12 g (kO.02) for diethyl ether extracts and 1.44 ( 5 0 . 2 2 ) and Og for 0.1 N-HC~ extracts. The diflerence between values for in vivo and in vitro experiments was considered to represent endogenous material present in faeces.The quantity of cell walls digested in vivo per 100 g forage organic matter was 41 ' 5 g i I 'OI for grasses and 21.5 & 0.74 for legumes.

show abstract

Cellulose Digestion In Vitro as a Measure of the Digestibility of Forage Cellulose in Ruminants

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

Micro-Methods for Nutritive Evaluation of Range Forages

Micro-Methods for Nutritive Evaluation of Range Forages

An Artificial Rumen System for Range Nutrition Studies

In vivo and in vitro digestible fractions in forage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About