Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:15:48.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comparative digestibility of palm kernel cake, extracted palm kernel meal and undecorticated cottonseed cake.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Charles Crowther  and
Herbert Ernest Woodman
Charles Crowther
Affiliation:
(Institute for Research in Animal Nutrition, The University, Leeds.)
Herbert Ernest Woodman
Affiliation:
(Institute for Research in Animal Nutrition, The University, Leeds.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The interest aroused recently in the utilisation as feeding-stuffs of the residual cake or meal remaining from the extraction of oil from palm kernels has directed attention to the scantiness of our information as to the digestibility of these products. The average digestion-coefficients given in the commonly-used tables of Kellner are based in each case upon only three experiments with two different consignments of material, and showing in certain particulars a very wide range of variation in the individual results. With one exception, where an ox was used, these experiments were carried out with sheep and all date from the ’seventies of last century (1, 2).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1917 , pp. 429 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

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

1.G., Kühn et al. Amtbl. f. d. landw. Vereine Kngr. Sachsen, 1872, p. 137.Google Scholar
2.E., Wolff et al. Landw. Jahrbücher, V. 1876, p. 513.Google Scholar
3.E., Weiniger. Landw. Versuchsstat., LXXII. 1910, p. 143.Google Scholar
4.F., Barnstein, Landw. Versuchsstat., LIV. 1900, p. 327.Google Scholar
5.A., Morgen et al. Landw. Versuchsstat., LXXXV. 1914, p. 1.Google Scholar
6.O., KellnerDie Ernährung der landw. Nutztiere, 1 Auf., p. 32.Google Scholar
7.T., Pfeiffer. Journ. f. Landw. XXXI. 221; XXXIII 149; XXXIV. 425. Zeits. f. physiol. Chem. X. 170, 561; XI. 1.Google Scholar
8.T., Katayama. Landw. Versuchsstat. LXIX. 1908, p. 321.Google Scholar
9.A., Morgen et al. Landw. Versuchsstat. LXXI. 1909, p. 1; LXXIII. 1910, p. 285; LXXV. 1911, p. 265.Google Scholar