Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T12:19:11.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of some in vitro methods used for animal nutrition research and extension work in Europe: the differences between the references and the truth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

C. R. Mills
C. R. Mills*
Affiliation:
European Network of Feed Information Centres, Dipartimento di Scienze della Produzione Animale, Università degli Studi di Udine, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
Get access

Extract

As animal nutritionists are generally very cautious about using chemical analysis only for defining nutritional needs for livestock and as in vivo experiments are long, costly and subject to animal welfare legislation, much emphasis is placed on various in vitro analyses which are often regarded as being very informative in the absence of in vivo data. In vitro analyses may be applied to dry- (DMD) and organic-matter (OMD) digestibility and crude protein (CP) degradability (DG) and may involve ‘live’ cultures such as rumen fluid or gastric juices or ‘dead’ extracts containing enzymes. As part of an EU-funded Concerted Action (see Acknowledgements), a survey of the methods adopted for in vitro determinations (in vitro OMD, in vitro DG) for ruminants, pigs and poultry is underway: this paper presents a progress report of the information received to date concerning ruminant methods.

The participants in the Concerted Action were asked to provide details of the in vitro methods actually in use in their countries, with particular attention to the methods used by the so-called Feed Information Centres (i.e. Feed Evaluation Units) for routine analyses (i.e. not experimental work). The participants supplied details of modifications and/or references to methods and this information was collated and circulated for checking and comment.

Type
Posters
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 22: In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants , 1998 , pp. 338 - 340
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

Alexander, R. H. and McGowan, M. J. 1966. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages — an investigation of the problems associated with continuous large-scale operation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 21:140–147.Google Scholar
Antoniewicz, A. M. and Kosmala, I. 1995. Predicting ruminal degradability of lucerne and grass forage protein from in vitro solubility with non-specific bacterial protease or pancreatin. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 4:341–350.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J. and Cartailler, D. 1988. Mise au point d'une methode de laboratoire de prevision de la degradabilite des proteines alimentaires dans le rumen. Annates de Zootechnie 37:255–270.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J. and Michalet-Doreau, B. 1988. Comparison of methods for predicting digestibility of feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 20:203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boever, J. L. de, , Cottyn, B. G., Buysse, F. X., Wainman, F. W. and Vanacker, J. M. 1986. The use of an enzymatic technique to predict digestibility, metabolisable and net energy of compound feedstuffs for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14:203–214.Google Scholar
Boever, J. L. de, , Cottyn, B. G., Vanacker, J. M. and Boucqué, Ch. V. 1994. An improved enzymatic method by adding gammanase to determine digestibility and predict energy value of compound feeds and raw materials for cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 47:1–18.Google 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: 689–696.Google Scholar
Kosmala, I., Antoniewicz, A., De Boever, J., Hvelplund, T. and Kowalczyk, J. 1996. Use of enzymatic solubility with ficin (EC 3.4.22.3) to predict in situ feed protein degradability. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59: 245–254.Google Scholar
Meer, J. M. van der, 1985. CEC workshop on methodology of feedingstuffs for ruminants: European in vitro ringtest — manual. Personal communication/Internal report I.V.V.O. no. 178. Instiruut voor Veevoedingsonderzoek (I.V.V.O.), Runderweg 2, Postbus 160, 8200 AD Lelystad, Nederland.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage method for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18:104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trinder, N. and Hall, R. J. 1972. Observations on the effect of the temperature of drying on the in vitro determination of the digestible organic matter of silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 23:557–566.Google Scholar