Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T13:08:36.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between in vitro gas production and in situ degradability for forage components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

T. Ichinohe ,
W. J. Shand ,
D. J. Kyle ,
X. B. Chen  and
E. R. Ørskov
T. Ichinohe
Affiliation:
Shimane University, Matsue-shi 690, Japan
W. J. Shand
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen AB21 9SB
D. J. Kyle
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen AB21 9SB
X. B. Chen
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen AB21 9SB
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen AB21 9SB
Get access

Extract

Recently in vitro and in situ techniques have been used for assessing forage nutritive value for ruminants instead of laborious in vivo trials. Although, Blummel and Ørskov (1993) have shown that an in vitro gas production technique gives reliable estimates of forage nutritive value, whether the estimates could be correlated with in situ degradation are not well established. There is little known about the differences in degradation characteristics of neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) and cellular contents (CC: soluble carbohydrates, lipids and crude protein) in the rumen, and also about the relationships between component degradation rate in the rumen and gas production rate for different forages. This is because most in situ kinetic studies have followed the disappearance of insoluble cell wall constituents and comparative studies of in vitro and in situ estimates was not performed sufficiently.

The objective of this experiment was to investigate the relationship between in situ degradation of forage components and in vitro gas production rate for the three forages.

Type
Posters
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 22: In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants , 1998 , pp. 244 - 246
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis, 13th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Blummel, M. and Ørskov, E. R. 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.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture handbook, US Department of Agriculture, no. 379.Google Scholar
Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M. T., Ribeiro, J. M. and Ørskov, E. R. 1993. A comparison of gas production during incubation with rumen contents in vitro and nylon bag degradability as predictors of the apparent digestibility in vivo and voluntary intake of hays. Animal Production 57: 105–112.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: 217–222.Google Scholar
NEWAY program. 1996. An Excel® application program for processing feed degradability data. User manual. Rowett Research Institute, UK.Google 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: 499–503.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Mills, C. R., Spanghero, M. and Stefanon, B. 1995. The prediction of the nutritive value and degradability of Mediterranean forages by in vitro gas production. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animate 21: (suppl.) 135–142.Google Scholar