Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T23:37:41.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of grinding, supplementation and incubation period on cellulose digestibility in vitro and its relationship with cellulose and organic matter digestibility in vivo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. J. Wilkins  and
D. J. Minson
R. J. Wilkins
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia Division of Tropical Pastures, C.S.I.R.O., Cooper Laboratory, Lawes, Qld., Australia
D. J. Minson
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia Division of Tropical Pastures, C.S.I.R.O., Cooper Laboratory, Lawes, Qld., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The in vitro cellulose digestibility of thirteen cuts of perennial ryegrass, cocksfoot and two varieties of Rhodes grass was determined under different conditions. Cellulose digestibility was increased by increasing the length of the incubation period (1,2 and 6 days), the fineness of grinding of the samples and by addition of a supplement. The effects of fineness of grinding and of supplement were greatest after incubation for 1 day and least after 6 days. Between-run variation in cellulose digestibility was reduced by the supplement and by increasing the length of the incubation period.

In a comparison of different methods of predicting in vivo organic matter digestibility the lowest residual standard deviation ( ± 2·29) was with in vitro organic matter digestibility (1 mm screen and incubated with supplement for 2 days). Other residual errors were: in vitro cellulose digestibility ± 2·40, pepsin-soluble organic matter ± 4·93, total available carbohydrate ± 6·39, cellulose ± 6·40 and nitrogen ± 6·46.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , June 1970 , pp. 445 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

REFERENCES

Barnes, R. F. (1967). Collaborative in vitro rumen fermentation studies on forage substrates. J. Anim. Sci. 26, 1120–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, A. G. (1957). Studies on the digestibility of the cellulose fraction of grassland products. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 49, 467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgardt, B. R. & Oh, H. K. (1964). Evaluation of forages in the laboratory. IV. Within and among trial variability of the Wisconsin artificial rumen procedure. J. Dairy Sci. 47, 263–6.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Headley, H. G., Bethke, R. M. & Gerlaugh, P. (1950). Cellulose digestion in good and poor quality roughages using an artificial rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 9, 513–22.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W., Evans, J. L. & Stillions, M. G. (1963). Nitrogen source availability and activity of rumon micro-organisms. J. Dairy Sci. 46, 1431–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, D. J. & Petersen, R. G. (1960). Effect of several variables on in vitro rumen fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 43, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). The relation of cellulose and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds. J. Nutr. 15, 383–95.Google Scholar
Deinum, B., Van Es, A. J. H. & Van Soest, P. J. (1968). Climate, nitrogen and grass. II. The influence of light intensity, temperature and nitrogen on in vivo digestibility of grass and the prediction of these effects from some chemical procedures. Neth. J. agric. Sci. 16, 217–23.Google Scholar
Mcdougall, E. I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem. J. 43, 99–109.Google Scholar
Mcleod, M. N. & Minson, D. J. (1969). Sources of variation in the in vitro digestibility of tropical grasses. J. Br. Orassld Soc. 24, 244–9.Google Scholar
Naga, M. M. A. & El Shazly, K. (1963). The use of the in vitro fermentation technique to estimate the digestible energy content of some Egyptian forages. I. The in vitro digestion of cellulose as a criterion of energy content. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oellermann, R. A. (1964). Nutritive value of Themeda triandra. I. The influence of variables in the determination of the different protein fractions in forages and on the in vitro fermentation procedure employed. S. A/r. J. agric. Sci. 7, 633–47.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 20, 317–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18, 104–11.Google Scholar
Tomlin, D. C, Johnson, R. R. & Dehority, B. A. (1965). Relationship of lignification to in vitro cellulose digestibility of grasses and legumes. J. Anim. Sci. 24, 161–5.Google Scholar
Weinmann, H. (1947). Determination of total-available carbohydrates in plants. Pl. Physiol. Lancaster, 22, 279–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, R. J. (1966a). The application of the in vitro digestion technique to some arid-zone fodders. J. Br. Orassld Soc. 21, 65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1966b). The digestibility of forage and its relationship to lignification. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. New England.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1969). The potential digestibility of cellulose in forage and faeces. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. & Grimes, R. C. (1966). Herbage digestibility in sheep and estimates of digestibility in vitro. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 6, 334–9.Google Scholar