Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-vpjr5 Total loading time: 0.265 Render date: 2021-04-20T16:55:41.875Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A history of in vitro techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

D. J. Minson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT
Get access

Abstract

Regressions relating in vivo digestibility to chemical composition of the food have residual standard deviations that are unacceptably high. The development of the two-stage in vitro technique inoculated with rumen liquor (Tilley and Terry, 1963) allowed dry-matter digestibility to be predicted with greater accuracy. This success was followed by a series of developments which replaced rumen liquor with inoculum produced from fresh or preserved faeces collected from sheep or cattle. Other methods used inoculum from a continuous fermentation containing rumen micro-organisms and enzymes produced by fungi. Another modification was to use gas production as a measure of in vitro digestion. The range of nutritional problems that could be measured by in vitro techniques was extended to include the estimation of voluntary food intake and protein degradation. All these in vitro techniques require standardization using food samples that have previously been analysed in vitro or offered as the sole diet to animals. The relative merits of these two calibration methods are discussed. Special facilities are required for storing and distributing these standard foods.

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

Akhter, S., Owen, E., Tembo, S. L., Theodrou, M. K. and Deaville, E. R. 1995. Repeatability of in vitro digestibility assays of forages when using fresh, frozen or freeze-dried cow faeces instead of sheep rumen liquor as sources of micro-organisms. Animal Production 60: 540 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Axelsson, J. 1938. [Determination of the nutritive (energy) value of feedstuffs on the basis of chemical composition.] Biedermanns Zentralbatt [B] Tierernährung 10: 238242.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Franks, N. A., Gerlaugh, P. and Beaulieu, Y. 1950. Preliminary observation upon factors influencing cellulose digestion by rumen micro-organisms. Journal of Nutrition 40: 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, B. A., Sniffen, C. J., Hoover, W. H. and Johnson, L. L. 1978. Solvents for soluble nitrogen measurements in feedstuffs. Journal of Dairy Science 61: 437 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. and Breckenridge, G. 1977. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulator technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38: 371384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowman, M. G. and Collins, F. C. 1982. The use of enzymes to predict the digestibility of animal feeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33:689696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Shaer, H. M., Omed, H. M., Chamberlain, A. G. and Axford, R. F. E. 1987. Use of faecal organisms from sheep for the in vitro determination of digestibility. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 257259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, W. L., Couchman, J. F. and Freitas, J. de., 1961. Storage of hay. 3. Effect of temperature and moisture on loss of dry matter and changes in composition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 293297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R., Thivend, P. and Demarquilly, C. 1970. Development of a cellulolytic enzyme digestion for predicting the nutritive value of forages. Proceedings of the ninth international grassland congress, Surfers Paradise, Australia, pp. 762766.Google Scholar
Jones, D. I. H. and Hayward, M. V. 1975. The effect of pepsin pretreatment of herbage on the prediction of dry matter digestibility from solubility in fungal cellulase solutions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26: 711718.Google Scholar
Kivimae, A. 1960. Estimation of the digestibility of grassland crops from their chemical composition. Proceedings of the eighth international grassland congress, Reading, England,pp. 466470.Google Scholar
Laredo, M. A. and Minson, D. J. 1973. The voluntary intake and digestibility by sheep of leaf and stem fractions of five grasses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24: 875888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBee, R. H. 1953. Manometric method for evaluation of microbial activity of rumen with application to utilization of cellulose and hemicellulose. Applied Microbiology 1: 106110.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. and Minson, D. J. 1969. Sources of variation in the in vitro digestibility of tropical grasses. Journal of the British Grassland Society 24:244249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. 1943. A note on the relationship between crude fibre and the digestibility of the organic matter. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology, A 25: 152153.Google Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. and Schneider, W. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 217222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. 1982. Effect of chemical composition on feed digestibility and metabolizable energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 52: 591615.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. and McLeod, M. N. 1972. The in vitro technique: its modification for estimating digestibility of large numbers of pasture samples. Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures technical paper no 8, pp. 115. CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Owen, E., Jayasuriya, M. C. N., Hamilton, R. and Lalenta, M. 1991. Use of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec) to provide micro-organisms for in vitro digestibility assays. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 116: 297301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, M. K. and Brooks, A. E. 1990. Evaluation of a new laboratory procedure for estimating the fermentation kinetics of tropical feeds.Report of the AFRC Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A., , Deriaz, R. E. and Terry, R. A. 1960. The in vitro measurement of herbage digestibility and assessment of nutritive value. Proceedings of the eighth international grassland congress, Reading, England, pp. 533537.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.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: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th February 2018 - 20th 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 history of in vitro techniques
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 history of in vitro techniques
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 history of in vitro techniques
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *