Methane production data are presented in Table 5. Total methane (g/day) was not signi®cantly different between groups. Moss (1994) recommended that units used for expressing methane production from ruminants should be extended beyond the traditional expression of methane energy as proportion of GE intake to methane production per kg of OM digested or per kg of animal product. Thus, the methane loss (per 100 g digestible OM or CHO) was signi®cantly higher on 92R : 8C than either 50R : 50C or 30R : 70C ratios, which did not differed in this respect. As the level of digested organic matter or carbohydrate was increased in the diet, methane production decreased signi®cantly (p < 0.05). Type of the roughage and also concentrate (starchy or oil cake) can substantially in¯uence on methane production (Moss and Givens, 1993). In their experiment, they offered isoenergetic forage (grass silage): concentrate (rolled barley or soyabean meal) diets of 1.0, 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 (DM basis ) level in wether sheep at maintenance level. It was found that the methane production (l kgÿ1 FOM) increase signi®cantly and linearly with decreasing forage concentrate for rolled Barley diet but was nonlinear for soyabean meal diets with low levels at forage concentrate ratio of 0.76 and 0.51.
Methane production data are presented in Table 5. Total methane (g/day) was not signi®cantly different between groups. Moss (1994) recommended that units used for expressing methane production from ruminants should be extended beyond the traditional expression of methane energy as proportion of GE intake to methane production per kg of OM digested or per kg of animal product. Thus, the methane loss (per 100 g digestible OM or CHO) was signi®cantly higher on 92R : 8C than either 50R : 50C or 30R : 70C ratios, which did not differed in this respect. As the level of digested organic matter or carbohydrate was increased in the diet, methane production decreased signi®cantly (p < 0.05). Type of the roughage and also concentrate (starchy or oil cake) can substantially in¯uence on methane production (Moss and Givens, 1993). In their experiment, they offered isoenergetic forage (grass silage): concentrate (rolled barley or soyabean meal) diets of 1.0, 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 (DM basis ) level in wether sheep at maintenance level. It was found that the methane production (l kgÿ1 FOM) increase signi®cantly and linearly with decreasing forage concentrate for rolled Barley diet but was nonlinear for soyabean meal diets with low levels at forage concentrate ratio of 0.76 and 0.51.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..

Methane production data are presented in Table 5. Total methane (g/day) was not signi®cantly different between groups. Moss (1994) recommended that units used for expressing methane production from ruminants should be extended beyond the traditional expression of methane energy as proportion of GE intake to methane production per kg of OM digested or per kg of animal product. Thus, the methane loss (per 100 g digestible OM or CHO) was signi®cantly higher on 92R : 8C than either 50R : 50C or 30R : 70C ratios, which did not differed in this respect. As the level of digested organic matter or carbohydrate was increased in the diet, methane production decreased signi®cantly (p < 0.05). Type of the roughage and also concentrate (starchy or oil cake) can substantially in¯uence on methane production (Moss and Givens, 1993). In their experiment, they offered isoenergetic forage (grass silage): concentrate (rolled barley or soyabean meal) diets of 1.0, 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 (DM basis ) level in wether sheep at maintenance level. It was found that the methane production (l kgÿ1 FOM) increase signi®cantly and linearly with decreasing forage concentrate for rolled Barley diet but was nonlinear for soyabean meal diets with low levels at forage concentrate ratio of 0.76 and 0.51.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
