The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility Studies
Abstract
Comparisons were made of the total fecal collection method and Acid-Insoluble Ash (AIA) natural marker method for determination of dry matter digestibility coefficients of rations by sheep. Three laboratory analytical procedures [Concentrated (Cone.) HCl, 4N HCl and 2N HCl] which differed in ashing sequence, ashing temperature and acid strength, were used to determine the AIA content of feed and fecal samples. The dry matter digestibility coefficients estimated by the AIA marker method, by all three analytical procedures, were not significantly different from the coefficients determined by the traditional total fecal collection method. However, the digestibility coefficients estimated using the 4N HCl marker were higher (P<.05) than those estimated using the Cone. HCl and 2N HCl markers. The mean and standard deviation of the recoveries of marker in feces estimated using the Cone. HCl and 2N HCl analytical procedures to determine the marker content were 96.7 ± 6.7% and 95.8 ± 6.1%, respectively, and were lower (P<.05) than the recovery (103.0 ± 7.1%) estimated using the 4N HCl procedure. However, none of these measurements of recovery were themselves significantly different from 100% recovery. There was no evidence of a diurnal pattern of AIA excretion which would influence the estimation of digestibility coefficient. The use of natural markers offers some distinct advantages over the total fecal collection method for digestibility studies. In addition to minimal time and labor involvement, quantitative measurements of feed intake and fecal output are not required and measurements can be made on single feed and fecal samples. AIA, therefore, has possible use in digestibility studies and feed testing laboratories where other methods may not be applicable. Of the three AIA analytical procedures evaluated, the 2N HCl procedure was simpler and more convenient than the Cone. HCl or the 4N HCl procedures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2 · Cited by 28,658
Rice straw, the role of silica and treatments to improve quality
Van Soest, P. J. (2006) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.01.023 · Cited by 478
Raffrenato, E., Fievisohn, R., Cotanch, K. W., Grant, R. J., Chase, L. E., & Van Amburgh, M. E. (2017) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12364 · Cited by 114
Peng, K., Shirley, D. C., Xu, Z., Huang, Q., McAllister, T. A., Chaves, A. V., Acharya, S., Liu, C., Wang, S., & Wang, Y. (2016) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.10.012 · Cited by 61
Huang, Q. Q., Jin, L., Xu, Z., Barbieri, L. R., Acharya, S., Hu, T. M., McAllister, T. A., Stanford, K., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.06.009 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Keulen, J., & Young, B. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1977-02-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 282-287
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3163
- OpenAlex
- W2281826643
- Cited by
- 1,777
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas1977.442282x
- The paper
- Van Keulen, J., & Young, B. A. (1977). Evaluation of Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Natural Marker in Ruminant Digestibility Studies. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.442282x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.