Cited by 555Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyPasture and Agricultural Systems

Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants.

Allen, M S·1996·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Voluntary dry matter intake (VDMI) of forages by ruminants may be limited by distention resulting from restricted flow of digesta through the gastrointestinal tract. An animal's capacity for fill depends on the weight and volume of digesta that causes distention and the flow rate of digesta from the organ in which distention occurs. The reticulorumen is generally regarded as the site in the gastrointestinal tract for which distention limits VDMI with high-fill diets, although evidence suggests that distention of the abomasum may also limit VDMI. Linear decreases in VDMI have been noted with increasing amounts of inert fill inserted into the reticulorumen, but results have not been consistent across several experiments. Reduction in VDMI depends on the extent to which intake is limited by fill before insertion of inert fill; hence animals with high energy requirements consuming relatively low-energy, high-fill diets are affected to the greatest extent. Because NDF generally ferments and passes from the reticulorumen more slowly than other dietary constituents, it has a greater filling effect over time than non-fibrous feed components and has been found to be the best single chemical predictor of VDMI. However, many other factors affect fill, including particle size, chewing frequency and effectiveness, particle fragility, indigestible NDF fraction, rate of fermentation of the potentially digestible NDF, and characteristics of reticular contractions. These factors are only partially accounted for in models that have been developed to predict VDMI. Increased accuracy of prediction of VDMI is expected as models continue to evolve.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/1996.74123063x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High starch content and smaller particle size of maize silages could partly explain faster degradation and clearance from the rumen.

    “The high starch content and smaller particle size of maize silages could partly explain the faster degradation and clearance from the rumen.85,86,90,91”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allen, M. S.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Allen, M S
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
1996
Volume
74
Issue
12
Pages
3063
ISSN
0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2295427871
Cited by
555
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 35
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
voluntary dry matter intake, ruminants, filling, reticulo-rumen, abomasum, neutral detergent fiber, particle size, chewing frequency, forage intake
MeSH terms
Animals, Digestive System, Digestive System Physiological Phenomena, Eating, Feeding Behavior, Models, Biological, Models, Theoretical, Rumen, Ruminants, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review