Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-zqvvz Total loading time: 0.229 Render date: 2021-04-13T01:13:55.515Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A comparison between in vitro digestibility, in situ degradability and a gas production technique for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole-crop wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. T. Adesogan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT ADAS Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT
D. I. Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
Get access

Extract

Several published reports on the nutritive value of whole-crop wheat (WCW) have been based on estimations from laboratory techniques, some of which were developed for grass silage. However, there is little information on the accuracy of such estimations. Therefore the aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of predicting the in vivo digestibility of WCW from various less animal-dependent techniques.

Type
Overview of the in vitro technique
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abdalla, A. L., Sutton, J. D., Humphries, D. J. and Phipps, R. H. 1996. Digestibility of diets of grass silage and whole-crop wheat in the rumen of lactating dairy cows. Animal Science 63: 631 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Adesogan, A. T., Givens, D. I. and Owen, E. 1997. The chemical composition, digestibility and energy value of fermented and urea-treated whole crop wheat harvested at three stages of maturity. Grass and Forage Science 53: 6675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderman, G. 1985. Prediction of the energy value of compound feeds. In Recent advances in animal nutrition-1985(ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 352. Butterworths, London,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. J., Dhanoa, M. S. and Lister, S. J. 1989. Standard normal variate transformation and de-trending of near infrared diffuse reflectance spectra. Applied Spectroscopy 43: 772777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beuvink, J. M. W. and Kogut, J. 1993. Modelling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71:10411046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowman, M. G. 1993. Modifications to the neutral detergent cellulase digestibilty method for the prediction of the metabolisable energy of compound feedstuffs containing palm kernel meal. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 61: 327331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarquilly, C. 1981. Problemes particuliers aux ensilages.In [Prediction of the nutritional value of feeds for ruminants.] (ed. Demaquilly, C.), pp. 81104A. INRA, Versailles.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I., Cottyn, B. G., Dewey, P. J. S. and Steg, A. 1995. A comparison of the neutral detergent-cellulase method with other laboratory methods for predicting the digestibility in vivo of maize silages from three European countries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54: 5564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, D. I., Everington, J. M. and Adamson, A. H. 1989. The digestibility and metabolisable energy content of grass silage and their prediction from laboratory measurements. Animal Feed Science and Technology 24: 2743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, D. I., Moss, A. R. and Adamson, A. H. 1993. The digestion and energy value of whole crop wheat treated with urea. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43: 5164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis, Agriculture handbook no. 379, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Leaver, J. D. 1993. The intake, digestibility and rate of passage of whole crop wheat and grass silage by growing heifers. Animal Production 56: 443 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials, Reference book no. 427. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Norris, K. H., Barnes, R. F., Moore, J. E. and Shenk, J. S. 1976.Predicting foragequality by infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of Animal Science 43: 889897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Shenk, J. S. and Westerhaus, M. O. 1991. Population definition, sample selection and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Science 31: 469474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, M. K., Williams, B. A., Dhanoa, M. S., McAllan, A. B. and 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: 185197.CrossRefGoogle 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
Weisbjerg, M. R., Bhargava, P. K., Hvelplund, T. and Madsen, J. 1990. Use of degradation curves in feed evaluation.Report no. 679, National Institute of Animal Production. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugsforsog, Denmark.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th February 2018 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A comparison between in vitro digestibility, in situ degradability and a gas production technique for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole-crop wheat
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A comparison between in vitro digestibility, in situ degradability and a gas production technique for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole-crop wheat
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A comparison between in vitro digestibility, in situ degradability and a gas production technique for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole-crop wheat
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *