Nutritive Value Estimates in Apomictic Lines of Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.)¹

Abstract

The cell wall content of a forage and the digestibility of the cell wall determine to a large extent the digestibility of the forage. A study was conducted with buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) to determine whether cell wall digestibility differences among lines are related to components of the cell wall or the total cell wall content. Seven lines of buffelgrass were evaluated in an in vivo digestibility study. Leaf, stem, and whole plant samples of 15 lines were evaluated at two harvests in an in vitro digestion study. Significant differences in dry matter digestibility were detected among lines in both the in vivo and in vitro studies. About 66% of the variation in digestibility was associated with the digesibility of cell wall. Correlations of digestibility with various cell wall components or component ratios were not sufficiently high to be of significance for prediction purposes. There were no differences among lines in in vitro dry matter digestibility of leaves, but there were for stems and whole plants. Differences in digestibility of cell wall were obtained for leaves, stems, and whole plants. Experimental lines differed in agronomic characteristics such as rhizome development, density, seed production, and color, but no significant correlations of these variables with digestibility could be shown. The most useful procedure for screening buffelgrass plants for quality seems to be in vitro dry matter digestibility with an associated neutral detergent fiber determination, whereby both cell wall content and cell wall digestibiity could be estimated.

Seasonal Variation ofin situDigestibility of Dry Matter, Crude Protein and Cell Wall of Total Plant Leaves and Stems of Nueces Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliarisL.)

“…In this study, L fraction had higher rumen digestion than S fraction. This finding was also reported by Lovelance et al (1972) in 15 lines of buffelgrass, Akin (1990) in warm seasoning grasses and Rainirez et al (2001) in com mon b u ffelgr ass ~…”

The relative importance of the total cell wall and quantity of digested cell wall in the regulation of the voluntary intake of grass hays by sheep

“…When selecting for high digestible cell wall, cognizance should be taken of the cell wall, and it may be necessary to compare varieties at different stages of growth so that their cell-wall contents are similar. The finding here that the cell wall was relatively more important than the digested cell "wall appears to disagree with the findings of Lovelace et al (1972) that the plant breeder should place considerably more emphasis on the digestibility of the cell wall than the cell-wall content when making quality evaluations to bring about needed improvements. The difference, however, is not in the conclusion but in the different methods of expressing the digestibility of the cell wall.…”

Polymorphism of Cenchrus ciliaris L. a perennial grass of arid zones

“…In our study, we note a negative correlation between heading date and number of spikes per tuft in our data set, expressed by their opposite loadings on axis 1. That correlation is similar to the negative correlation between seed head density and rhizome development found by Lovelace et al. (1972) that worked on 7–15 genetic lines of C. ciliaris.…”