Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:53:57.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rumen degradability of organic matter, nitrogen and fibre fractions in forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. Susmel
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animale, via S. Mauro, 2 - 33010, Pagnacco, Italy
B. Stefanon
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animale, via S. Mauro, 2 - 33010, Pagnacco, Italy
C. R. Mills
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animale, via S. Mauro, 2 - 33010, Pagnacco, Italy
M. Spanghero
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animale, via S. Mauro, 2 - 33010, Pagnacco, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Rumen degradability of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), nitrogen (N), neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin was evaluated with the in situ technique for maize silage and cocksfoot, timothy, fescue, lucerne and meadow hays. The degradability of each of the six forages was studied separately, each forage being used in turn as the main component of the diet offered to four fistulated cows. For each forage 300 g were mordanted with sodium dichromate and placed in the rumen when the same forage was studied. Faecal grab samples were collected to measure the forage transit time. Digestibility was evaluated using both lignin as an indicator and by an in vitro method.

Rumen outflow rate was higher for cocksfoot and lucerne hays than for maize silage and the meadow, timothy and fescue hays (P < 0·01). The effective degradabilities of DM and OM were higher in maize silage, fescue and lucerne than in cocksfoot, timothy or meadow hay (P < 0·01). Effective degradability of N was highest in lucerne and lowest in timothy and meadow hay (P < 0·01). The degradability of NDF, hemicellulose and cellulose for fescue was always the highest of the six forages (P < 0·01; P < 0·05; F < 0·01 respectively).

Rumen outflow rate was statistically correlated with the c value of DM (r = 0·47), N (r = 0·54), NDF (r = 0·43) and hemicellulose (r = 0·43). High correlations were observed between rate constants of degradation of NDF and hemicellulose, cellulose or lignin (0·93, 0·75 and 0·79 respectively). The regression between in vitro and lignin-derived digestibility was highly significant (P < 0·001, r2 = 0·902 residual s.e. 0·017). The multiple regression analysis between lignin-based digestibility and degradability coefficients, effective degradability and coefficients of faecal chromium excretion was highly significant (r = 0·748; residual s.e. = 0·03).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Suppl. No. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Akin, D. E. 1988. Biological structure of lignocellulose and its degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21: 295310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association Of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Barton, F. E. 1988. Chemistry of lignocellulose: methods of analysis and consequences of structure. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21: 279286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, F. E., Akin, D. E. and Windham, W. R. 1981. Scanning electron microscopy of acid detergent fibre digestion by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 29: 899903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brice, R. E. and Morrison, I. M. 1982. The degradation of isolated hemicellulose and ligninhemicellulose complexes by cell free, rumen hemicellulase. Carbohydrate Research 101: 93100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, K. J., Stewart, C. S., Dinsdale, D. and Costerton, J. W. 1984. Electron microscopy of bacteria involved in the digestion of plant cell walls. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10: 93120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of paniculate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 14451456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C., France, J. and Gale, D. L. 1985. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 663671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehle, F. R. 1984. Influence of feed particle density on paniculate passage from rumen of Holstein cow. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 693697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elimam, M. E. and Ørskov, E. R. 1984. Estimation of rates of outflow of protein supplement from the rumen by determining the rate of excretion of chromium-treated protein supplements in faeces. Animal Production 39: 7780.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Wylie, M. J. and Matis, J. H. 1988. Dietary digestive interactions determining the feeding value of forages and roughage. In Feed Science (ed. Ørskov, E. R.), pp. 177269.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 379.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 313329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, B. J., Broderick, G. A., Koegel, R. G., Shinners, K. J. and Straub, R. J. 1988. Effect of shredding alfalfa on cellulolytic activity, digestibility, rate of passage, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 15461555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. and Murphy, M. R. 1988. The nutritional implications of differential passage of particles through the ruminant alimentary tract. Nutrition Research Reviews 1: 189208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keyserlingk, M. A. G. Von and Mathison, G. W. 1989. Use of the in situ technique and passage rate constants in predicting voluntary intake and apparent digestibility of forages by steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 973987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysl, L. J., Gal Yean, M. L., Estell, R. E. and Sowell, B. F. 1988. Estimating digestibility and faecal output in lambs using internal and external markers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111: 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martz, F. A. and Belyea, R. L. 1986. Role of particle size and forage quality in digestion and passage by cattle and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 19962008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocek, J. E. and Grant, A. L. 1987. Characterization of in situ nitrogen and fibre digestion and bacterial nitrogen contamination of hay crop forages preserved at different dry matter percentages. Journal of Animal Science 64: 552564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Ojwang, I. and Reid, G. W. 1988a. A study on consistency of differences between cows in rumen outflow rate of fibrous particles and other substrates and consequences for digestibility and intake of roughages. Animal Production 47: 4551.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. and Kay, M. 1988b. Prediction of intake by cattle from degradation characteristics of roughages. Animal Production 46: 2934.Google Scholar
Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Ferreiro, H. M. and Sutton, J. D. 1988. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 60: 571595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppi, D. P., Hendricksen, R. E. and Minson, D. J. 1985. The relative resistance to escape of leaf and steam particles from the rumen of cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105: 914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. and Ternouth, J. H. 1981. Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of large feed particles. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 123137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Fadel, J. G. and Tamminga, S. 1986. Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15: 249271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, R. D., Nytes, A. J., Satter, L. D. and Jorgensen, N. A. 1986. Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 15451559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, R. D., Satter, L. D. and Jorgensen, N. A. 1988. Impact of forage fibre content on digestion and digesta passage in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 15561565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Package For The Social Sciences. 1985. SPSS Users' Guide. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Stefanon, B. and Ovan, M. 1988. [Use of sodium dichromate to measure rumen outflow rate of concentrate.] Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animate 15: 431436.Google Scholar
Susmel, P. and Stefanon, B. 1987. [System for the evaluation of feed protein for ruminants]. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale 13: 567582.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Colitti, M. 1989. The evaluation of PDI concentrations in some ruminant feedstuffs: a comparison of in situ and in vitro protein degradability. Annales de Zootechnie 26: 231249.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Piasentier, E. 1990a. [Use of different mathematical models and effect of milling and sieving on in situ degradability of dry matter and nitrogen] Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale 16: 157166.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Spanghero, M. 1990b. [Evaluation of mathematical models for the study of rumen outflow rate of forages] Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale 16: 207218.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W. and Cox, E. L. 1972. Model of cellulose disappearance from the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 55: 125129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar