Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:28:01.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of cumulative gas and volatile fatty acid production to predict in vitro fermentation kinetics of Italian ryegrass leaf cell walls and contents at various time intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Jeroen C. J. Groot ,
Barbara A. Williams ,
Arno J. Oostdam ,
Huug Boer  and
Seerp Tamminga
Jeroen C. J. Groot
Affiliation:
C. T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology, Department of Agronomy, Agricultural University, Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands
Barbara A. Williams*
Affiliation:
Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, Animal Nutrition Group, Agricultural University, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
Arno J. Oostdam*
Affiliation:
Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, Animal Nutrition Group, Agricultural University, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
Huug Boer
Affiliation:
Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, Animal Nutrition Group, Agricultural University, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
Seerp Tamminga
Affiliation:
Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, Animal Nutrition Group, Agricultural University, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author:Dr Barbara A. Williams, fax +31 317 484260, email [email protected]
††Present address:Cehave n.v., PO Box 200, 5460 BC Veghel, The Netherlands.
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.

Differences between the fermentation characteristics of cell contents (CC) and protease-treated cell walls (CW) of young leaves of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) cultivar Multimo (tetraploid), were studied in vitro. Gas and volatile fatty acid (VFA) production rates were measured at regular intervals, as was the degradability of organic matter (OM) of CW. The measured VFA were used to predict the gas production and fermentable OM using stoichiometric calculations. For CW the volume and kinetics of measured gas production were the same as those predicted from the VFA formed. In contrast, the measured gas production for CC was consistently less than predicted, indicating that the stoichiometric equations were not valid for rapidly fermenting substrates. For both CC and CW, the relative rate of acetic acid production levelled off more slowly than for other VFA, resulting in an increasing gas yield (in ml/g fermentable OM) after 12 (CW)-24 (CC)h incubation. Consequently, the fermentation of OM was not linearly related to gas production kinetics. For CW, the kinetics of decline of degradable OM and fermentable OM were the same, after correction for a constant ‘lost fraction’ of degradable OM of 205 g/kg OM. This work indicates the value of detailed studies of fermentation processes to evaluate herbage quality. In particular, the role of CC and the difference between degradation and fermentation require further attention.

Keywords

FermentationGrassVolatile fatty acids
Type
Animal Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , June 1998 , pp. 519 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1998

References

Beuvink, JMW & Spoelstra, SF (1992) Interactions between substrate, fermentation end-products, buffering systems and gas production upon fermentation of different carbohydrates by mixed rumen organisms in vitro. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 37, 505–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümmel, M & Ørskov, ER (1993) Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, A (1993) Mechanistic models of forage cell-wall degradation. In Forage Cell-wall Structure and Digestibility, pp. 347–376 [Jung, HG, Buxton, DR, Hatfield, RD and Ralph, J, editors]. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Erwin, ES & Elliston, NG (1959) Rapid method of determining digestibility of concentrates and roughages in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 18, 1518.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee (1993) Genstat 5 Release 3 Reference Manual. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goering, HK & Van, Soest PJ (1970) Forage Fiber Analysis. Agricultural Handbook 279. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Groot, JCJ, Cone, J, Williams, BA, Debersaques, FD & Lantinga, EA (1996) Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hespel, RB (1979) Efficiency of growth by ruminal bacteria. Federation Proceedings 38, 2707–2712.Google Scholar
Hungate, RE (1966) The Rumen and Its Microbes. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leedle, JAZ & Greening, RC (1988) Postprandial changes in methanogenic and acidogenic bacteria in the rumens of steers fed high- or low-forage diets once daily. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54, 502–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, KW, Patterson, JA & Ladish, MR (1985) Anaerobic fermentation: microbes from ruminants. Enzyme Microbiology and Technology 7, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TA, Bae, HD, Jones, GA & Cheng, K-J (1994) Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 72, 3004–3018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchen, NR & Bourquin, LD (1994) Processes of digestion and factors influencing digestion of forage-based diets by ruminants. In Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization, pp. 564–612 [Fahey, GC Jr, editor]. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Miller, TL (1995) Ecology of methane production and hydrogen sinks in the rumen. In Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction, pp. 317–331 [Engelhardt Von, E, Leonhard-Marek, S, Breves, G and Giesecke, D, editors]. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Hovell, FDDeB & Mould, F (1980) The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5, 195–213.Google Scholar
Pell, AN & Schofield, P (1993) Computerized monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1063–1073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB & Wallace, RJ (1988) Energy yielding and consuming reactions. In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem, pp. 185–215 [Hobson, PN, editor]. Essex: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Salvador, V, Cherbut, C, Barry, J-L, Bertrand, D, Bonnet, C & Delort-Laval, J (1993) Sugar composition of dietary fibre and short-chain fatty acid production during in vitro fermentation by human bacteria. British Journal of Nutrition 70, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiner, AA (1984) The universal nutrient solution. In Proceedings of the VIth International Congress on Soilless Culture, pp. 633–650. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Secretariat of the International Society for Soilless Culture, ISOSC.Google Scholar
Theodorou, MK, Williams, BA, Dhanoa, MS, McAllan, AB & 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, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, JMA & Terry, RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in-vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Houtert, MFJ (1993) The production and metabolism of volatile fatty acids by ruminants fed roughages: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43, 189–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ (1994) Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant: Ruminant Metabolism, Nutritional Strategies, the Cellulolytic Fermentation and the Chemistry of Forages and Plant Fibers. Oregon: O&B Books Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, MJ (1975) Interactions between bacterial species in the rumen. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 1452–1459 [McDonald, IW and Warner, AC, editors]. Armidale: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Wolin, MJ (1979) The rumen fermentation: a model for microbial interactions in anaerobic ecosystems. Advances in Microbial Ecology 3, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar