HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Han, Y. W. Articles by Cheeke, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Han, Y. W. Articles by Cheeke, P. R.

Responses of Weanling Meadow Voles to a Diet Containing Fermented Straw

USDA, ARS^,1 , Department of Microbiology^,2 and and Animal Science, Oregon State University³, Corvallis 97331

Abstract

Ryegrass straw contains sufficient carbohydrate to make it a potentially good feed for ruminants, but poor digestibility and low protein content limit its usefulness. Microbial fermentation offers a possible means of overcoming these limitations. Ryegrass straw was hydrolyzed with sulfuric acid, and yeasts were grown on the resulting sugars. The fermentation increased the protein content of straw from 3.1 to 10.8% and the in vitro dry matter digestibility from 32.7 to 46.7%. The increase in feed quality as determined by chemical analyses, however, was not reflected in a feeding study with meadow voles (Microtus canicaudus). The animals responded poorly to fermented straw, even though its digestibility was improved. Feed efficiency values for corn, fermented straw, and untreated straw were 6.6, 17.0, and 9.9, respectively. Voles fed fermented straw showed rough hair, lethargy, and unkempt appearance, indicating either poor nutrition or toxicity. The undesirable effect of fermented straw for the voles probably was introduced during the fermentation process, not during acid hydrolysis or ammoniation.

¹ Contribution of Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. Technical Paper No. 4150 of the latter. This research was supported in part by Research Applied to National Needs Program, National Science Foundation, Grant No. ERP 75 17497.

² This paper reports results of research only. Mention of trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that may also be suitable.