European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nutritive Evaluation of Some Trees and Browse Species from Scotland 316 > L. sylvatica > P. sylvestris > J. effusus > V. myrtillus > P. sitchensis > P. menziesii > C. vulgaris >F. sylvatica (Table 4). Table 3: Degradation characteristics of the Scottish plant species as described by p = a + b (1-e -ct ) Species a b c RSD A B (A+B) Fagus sylvatica 19.4 11.3 0.0325 0.447 16.4 14.3 30.7 Brassica oleracea 37.2 62.8 0.1077 5.839 62.3 37.7 100 Pseudotsuga menziesii 26.3 19.7 0.0516 1.643 32.7 13.3 46.0 Lolium perenne 11.5 80.4 0.0671 6.114 32.3 60.3 92.6 Calluna vulgaris 12.0 31.7 0.0374 1.443 10.4 32.1 42.5 Chamaenerion angustifolium 6.5 91.5 0.0440 8.352 24.2 73.8 98.0 Luzula sylvatica 10.0 56.2 0.0178 4.117 16.1 50.0 66.1 Pinus sylvestris 18.7 41.1 0.0366 2.193 20.9 38.9 59.8 Picea sitchensis 27.6 18.8 0.0401 1.303 24.5 21.9 46.4 Acer pseudoplatanus 10.9 62.5 0.0831 3.809 27.5 45.9 73.4 Vaccinum myrtillus 18.3 37.9 0.0387 3.717 18.6 37.6 56.2 Juncus effusus 7.5 59.2 0.0179 1.608 16.7 50.0 66.7 a = solubility and small particle loss b = insoluble but fermentable fraction c = rate constant. A = Washing loss (%) B = Degradation of water insoluble (%) A+B = Potential degradability (%) Table 4: Ranking of Scottish species according to in vitro gas production, DMD and in vivo digestibility Species Ranking of 48hr invitro Ranking of 48hr Ranking of in vivo Gas DMD digestibilty Fagus sylvatica 3 (33.69) 12 (27.70) 8 (36.81) Brassica oleracea 1 (55.75) 1 (100.00) 1 (77.83) P. menziesii 10 (23.07) 10 (43.79) 9 (35.38) Lolium perenne 2 (40.61) 3 (87.84) 2 (71.96) Calluna vulgaris 6 (27.43) 11 (38.65) 6 (45.15) Chamaenerion angustifolium 5 (32.08) 2 (90.61) 10 (34.66) Luzula sylvatica 9 (26.45) 5 (54.77) 5 (47.72) Pinus sylvestris 8 (26.63) 6 (53.64) 12 (33.28) Picea sitchensis 11 (19.91) 9 (43.82) 3 (58.13) Acer pseudoplatanus 4 (32.74) 4 (70.91) 11 (34.40) Vaccinum myrtillus 12 (18.76) 8 (50.90) 7 (36.88) Juncus effusus 7 (26.75) 7 (50.93) 4 (48.44) The ranking is shown from the highest to the lowest (1 to 12) with the actual values in brackets Species had significant effect on the in vivo DM digestibility of the forage species. B. oleracea had the highest % (77.83) in vivo DM digestibilty as observed with in vitro gas production and in sacco DM degradability. P. sylvestris had the lowest in vivo digestibility (33.28%). The ranking of the forages in terms of in vivo DM digestibility was B. oleracea (77.83%) > L. perenne > (72.00%) > P. sitchensis (58.13%) > J. effusus (48.44) > L. sylvatica (47.72) > C. vulgaris (45.15%) > V. myrtillus (36.88%) > F. sylvatica (36.81%) > P. menziesii (35.38%) > C. angustifolium (34.66%) > A. pseudoplatanus (34.40) > P. sylvestris (33.28%). The ranking of the species according to in vitro gas production, DMD and in vivo digestibility is shown in Table 4. Some plant species (B. oleracea, P. menziesii and L. perenne) showed consistency / position in the three rankings. There was a high positive correlation co-efficient between gas production and in sacco. DM degradability at both 48hr and 72hr (0.72 and 0.71 respectively). The correlation co-efficient of the relationship between 12hr in vitro gas production and in vivo digestibility was 0.71 while that of 16hr in sacco. DM degradability and in vivo digestibility was 0.71. The correlation co-efficient of 48hr in
317 Odeyinka, S.M, Hector, B.L and Ørskov, E.R vitro gas production and in vivo digestibility was 0.65 while that of 48hr in sacco. DM degradability and in vivo digestibility was 0.51. Either in vitro gas or Dmd can be used to predict in vivo digestibility. The increase in gas production with the addition of PEG (P
Page 1 and 2: European Journal of Scientific Rese
Page 3 and 4: appropriate. Manuscripts may be rej
Page 5: A Comparative Analysis of Gibberell
Page 8 and 9: Nutritive Evaluation of Some Trees
Page 16 and 17: Determination of Sample Size 320 mi
Page 18 and 19: Determination of Sample Size 322 sa
Page 20 and 21: Determination of Sample Size 324 [2
Page 24 and 25: 328 Amin Yazdanpanah Goharrizi and
Page 30 and 31: Investigation of Complex Formation
Page 36 and 37: Germination Studies in Selected Nat
Page 44 and 45: 348 Moronkola, O.A and Aladesanyi,
Page 52 and 53: 356 Maryam Nooritajer, Faezeh Nouro
Page 54 and 55: 358 Maryam Nooritajer, Faezeh Nouro
Page 56 and 57: Aetiology and Epidemiology of Sever
Page 62 and 63:
Aetiology and Epidemiology of Sever
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
European Journal of Scientific Rese
Page 70 and 71:
374 Nazenin Ruso cultures for Turki
Page 72 and 73:
376 Nazenin Ruso b) Literate/ Illit
Page 74 and 75:
378 Nazenin Ruso thinking of God”
Page 76 and 77:
380 Nazenin Ruso Our mosques capaci
Page 78 and 79:
382 Nazenin Ruso The last pie chart
Page 80 and 81:
384 Nazenin Ruso will be free to do
Page 82 and 83:
386 Nazenin Ruso note at this point
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
390 Amani Michel Kouassi, Koffi Fer
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Seedling Growth of Gmelina Arborea
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
A Comparative Analysis of Gibberell
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Research of the Characteristics of
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
428 Nooritawati Md Tahir, Aini Huss
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
436 Rahman G.A, Alabi.B.S, Afolabi.
Page 134 and 135:
438 Rahman G.A, Alabi.B.S, Afolabi.
Page 136 and 137:
Health Impact Assessement of Multin
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Development of Organic Carbon Seque
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
show all

European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?