Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:14:51.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The degradability characteristics of fifty-four roughages and roughage neutral-detergent fibres as described by in vitro gas production and their relationship to voluntary feed intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Blümmel  and
K. Becker
M. Blümmel
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim(480), D-70593, Stuttgart, Germany
K. Becker
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim(480), D-70593, Stuttgart, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Fifty-four roughages of known voluntary dry-matter intakes (DMI; range 7·8−35·2 g/kg live weight per d) were examined in vitro in a gas production test. Samples (200 mg) of roughage and roughage neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) respectively were incubated in a mixed suspension of rumen contents for 96 h and the gas volumes recorded after 4,6,8,12,24,30,36,48,54,60 and 96 h. The kinetics of gas production were derived from the volume recordings described by the exponential equation Y=A+B(l—e-ct) where A is the intercept and ideally reflects the fermentation of the soluble and readily available fraction of the feed, B describes the fermentation of the insoluble (but with time fermentable) fraction and c the fractional rate at which B is fermented per h; A+B describes total fermentation. In vitro true dry matter (TD) and NDF degradabilities (NDF-D) after 24 h incubation were also determined. Of the variation in DMI, 75% was accounted for by the in vitro gas production parameters A, B and c in stepwise multiple regressions; 82% of the variation in DMI was explained by the parameters (ANDF+BNDF) and cNDF as obtained from the incubation of roughage NDF. The rate constants (c) were less important than parameters related to the extent of gas production, accounting for only 6·5 (whole roughage) and 4·1% (NDF) of the variation in DMI. There was no statistical advantage in the use of the exponential model describing extent and rate of fermentation over some of the simple gas volume measurements: 75% of the variation in DMI was accounted for by in vitro gas production of whole roughage after 8 h of incubation. On average gas production from NDF measured from 24–96 h accounted for 81% of the variation in DMI. A combination of gas volume measurements after a short period of incubation (4–8 h) with a concomitant determination of NDF-D after many hours (≥24 h) can render NDF preparations and long incubation times redundant. A method is suggested to obtain two results for DMI prediction in one single incubation. Of the variation in DMI 80% was accounted for by the incubation of 500 mg whole roughage when incubation was terminated after 24 h and the residual undegraded substrate quantified.

Keywords

Gas productionNeutral-detergent fibreVoluntary feed intake
Type
Animal Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , May 1997 , pp. 757 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1997

References

REFERENCES

Beuvink, J. M. V. & Kogut, J. (1993). Modelling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered ruminal fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71, 104–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blümmel, M. & Ørskov, E. R. (1993). Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in prediction of feed intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümmel, M., Steingass, H. & Becker, K. (1994). The partitioning of in vitro fermentation products and its bearing for voluntary feed intake. Proceedings of the Society for Nutritional Physiology 3, 123 Abstr.Google Scholar
Blümmel, M., Steingass, H. & Becker, K. (1997). The relationship between in vitro gas production, in vitro microbial biomass yield and 15N incorporation and its implications for the prediction of voluntary feed intake of roughages. British Journal of Nutrition 77 (In the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesson, A. & Forsberg, C. W. (1988). Polysaccharide degradation by rumen micro-organisms, In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem, pp. 251–284 [Hobson, P. N., editor]. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S. (1988). On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43, 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadel, J. G. (1992). Application of theoretically optimal sampling schedule designs for fiber digestion estimation in sacco. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2184–2189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
France, J., Dhanoa, M. S., Theodorou, M. K., Lister, S. J., Davies, D. R. & Isac, D. (1993). A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis. Agricultural Handbook no. 379. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M. T., Ribeiro, J. M. & Ørskov, E.R. (1993). A comparison of gas production during incubation with rumen contents in vitro and nylon bag degradability as predictors of apparent digestibility in viva and the voluntary feed intake of hays. Animal Production 57, 105–112.Google Scholar
Krishnamoorthy, U., Soller, H., Steingass, H. & Menke, K.H. (1991). A comparative study on rumen fermentation of energy supplements in vitro. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. (1973). Application of a theoretical model to cell wall digestion and forage intake in ruminants. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. (1987). Predicting feed intake and digestibility using mathematical models of rumen function. Journal of Animal Science 49, 1085–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, J. D. (1990). Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. (1985). Evaluation of specific variables affecting in situ estimates of ruminal dry matter and protein digestion. Journal of Animal Science 60, 1347–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. & Kay, M. (1988). Prediction of intake of cattle from degradation characteristics of roughages. Animal Production 46, 29–34.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Ryle, M. (1990). Energy Nutrition in Ruminants. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F. (1978). Principles governing the use of chemical methods for assessing the nutritive value of forages: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 3, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pell, A. N. & Schofield, P. (1993). Computerizing monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1063–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaw, D. E. K., Osuji, P. O. & Nsahlai, I. V. (1993). Evaluation of multipurpose tree germplasm: the use of gas production and rumen degradation characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 120, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (1988). SAS/STAT, version 6.1. Cary, NC: SAS Inc.Google Scholar
Theodorou, M. K., Williams, B. A., Dhanoa, M. S. & McAllan, A. B. (1991). A new laboratory procedure for estimating kinetic parameters associated with the digestibility of forages. International Symposium on Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility, B3. Madison, WI: US Dairy Forage Research Centre and USDA Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Theodorou, M. K., Williams, B. A., Dhanoa, M. S., McAllan, A. B. & France, J. (1994). A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grasslands Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Mertens, D. R. & Deimum, B. (1978). Preharvest factor influencing the voluntary feed intake of forages. Journal of Animal Science 47, 712–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Robertson, J. B. (1985). A Laboratory Manual for Animal Science 612. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Xiong, Y., Bartle, J., Preston, R. L. & Meng, Q. (1990). Estimating starch availability and protein degradation of steam-flaked and reconstituted sorghum grain through a gas production technique. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3880–3885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar