Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:34:29.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparative in vitro digestion trial using inocula of livestock from South Turkana and Kitale, Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. L. Coppock
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, U.S.A.
J. E. Ellis
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, U.S.A.
S. K. Waweru
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Laboratory, P.O. Box 450, Kitale, Kenya

Summary

The dry-matter digestibilities of 13 important herbaceous and browse forages from an arid rangeland in north-western Kenya were evaluated in a comparative in vitro trial using rumen fluid from indigenous sheep, goats, a camel, and Merino sheep kept at an agricultural laboratory. All inoculum donors had varied diets preceding the experiment, but little substantial difference was observed in the ability of each fluid to digest test materials. Tt was concluded that the Merino sheep inoculum provided an adequate substitute for inocula from indigenous animals for studies of the nutritional ecology of free-ranging livestock.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Coppock, D. L. (1985). Feeding ecology, nutrition, and energetics of livestock in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
Ecosystems Ltd. (1983). Turkana District resources survey, Vol. 3. Unpublished report, Kenya Ministry of Energy and Regional Development, Nairobi.Google Scholar
Hobbs, N. T., Baker, D. L. & Gill, R. B. (1983). Comparative nutritional ecology of montane ungulates during winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 47, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B., Engelhardt, W. V. & White, R. G. (1980). The digestive physiology of wild ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Rukebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 743761. Westport, Connecticut: Avi Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, M. A., Dyson-Hudson, N., Dyson-Hudson, R., Ellis, J. E. & Swift, D. M. (1984). Human biology and the development of an ecosytem approach. In The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology (ed. Moran, E. F.), pp. 103131. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
McCabe, J.T. (1983). Land use among the pastoral Turkana. Rural Africana 15–16, 109126.Google Scholar
Milchunas, D. G. & Baker, D. L. (1981). In vitrodigestion–sources of within- and between-trial variability. Journal of Range Management 35, 199203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milchunas, D. G., Dyer, M. I., Wallmo, O. C. & Johnson, D. E. (1978). In-vivo/in-vitro relationships of Colorado mule deer forages. Special Report No. 43. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado Division of Wildlife.Google Scholar
Rittenhouse, L. R., Streeter, C. L. & Clanton, D. C. (1971). Estimation of digestible energy from digestible dry and organic matter in diets of grazing cattle. Journal of Range Management 24, 7375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggerio, L. & Whelan, J. B. (1976). A comparison of in vitro and in vivo food digestibility by white-tailed deer. Journal of Range Management 29, 8283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar