Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:59:43.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnesium metabolism in the dairy cow IV. The availability of the magnesium in various feedingstuffs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A. F. Rook  and
R. C. Campling
J. A. F. Rook
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, near Reading
R. C. Campling
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, near Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The ‘availability’ of the magnesium of diets consisting solely of roughage or succulent feeds, including herbages cut at different seasons and at different stages of growth, and of diets of hay supplemented with various concentrate feeds, was assessed in metabolism trials conducted with two non-pregnant, non-lactating Shorthorn cows.

2. The highest daily intakes of magnesium (1720 g./day) were provided by a diet of red clover: grasses and hays generally gave a considerably lower intake of magnesium (8–10 g./day), and most of the other diets provided intermediate amounts. However, with timothy hay and barley straw, intakes of 5 and 2 g./day, respectively, were recorded. Supplements to a diet of hay of dairy cubes or of oilcakes rich in protein gave a massive increase in magnesium intake but a supplement of flaked maize provided little additional magnesium.

3. The ‘availability’ of the magnesium of the diets was generally low, within the range of 5–30%. With diets of single feeds no clear distinction between the various roughages and succulents in the ‘availability’ of their magnesium was established, though within the group of herbages the lowest values tended to occur with grasses cut at an early stage of growth and the highest values at the mature stage. A supplement of flaked maize increased the ‘availability’ of dietary magnesium and one of protein-rich oil cakes decreased the ‘availability’ of dietary magnesium.

4. The results are discussed in relation to the development of hypomagnesaemia in cattle grazing spring pasture.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , October 1962 , pp. 225 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Balch, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & McGill, R. F. (1956). Vet. Rev. & Annot. 2, 35.Google Scholar
Carberry, M., Chatterjee, I. & Talapatra, S. K. (1937). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 7, 155.Google Scholar
Care, A. D. (1960). Res. Vet. Sci. 1, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, I. J. (1934). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 16, 81.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1952). Analyst, 77, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. C. (1959). Nature, Land., 183, 983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. C. (1961). Brit. J. Nutr. 15, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E. B. & Beegle, F. M. (1916). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 295.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Beegle, F. M., Fritz, C. M., Morgan, L. E. & Rhue, S. N. (1917). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 308.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., French, E. B. & Letonoff, T. V. (1928–1929). J. Nutr. 1, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Halverson, J. O. & Morgan, L. E. (1918). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 330.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Schulz, J. A., Hunt, C. H., Winter, A. R. & Remler, R. F. (1922). J. Biol. Chem. 52, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, W. C. (1950). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 1, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A. (1960). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 8, 281.Google Scholar
Kemp, A., Deijs, W. B., Hemkes, O. I. & van Es, A. J. H. (1961). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 9, 134.Google Scholar
Larvor, P. & Brochart, M. (1960). Ann. Zootech. 9, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, D. C., Care, A. D. & Nolan, B. (1959). Nature, Lond., 184, 736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, H. G., Brandt, P. M. & Jones, R. C. (1924). Amer. J. Physiol. 69, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, H. G., Yates, W. W., Jones, R. C. & Brandt, P. M. (1925). Amer. J. Physiol. 72, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, C. F. (1924). J. Dairy Sci. 7, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, C. F. & Perkins, A. E. (1925). J. Dairy Sci. 8, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, A. E. & Monroe, C. F. (1925). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 376.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Balch, C. C. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F., Balch, C. C. & Line, C. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar