Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T17:48:18.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The prediction of in vivo digestibility by laboratory techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2021

Conor Mc Entee
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. P. O'Mara
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. J. Caffrey
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. Reilly
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
D. Cunningham
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. Rath
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Get access

Extract

The in vivo digestibility of compound foodstuffs and ingredients can be predicted from laboratory techniques such as the in vitro rumen fluid (RF), the pepsin cellulase gammanase (PCG) and the neutral cellulase gammanase (NCG). There have been few comparative studies of these techniques using concentrate feed ingredients, especially since the addition of gammanase to the cellulase based techniques. Young et al. (1996) reported little difference between the cellulase based techniques in the accuracy of predicting in vivo organic matter digestibility (OMD) of concentrate ingredients, but both were superior to the rumen fluid technique. The objective of this study was to evaluate these techniques with a different set of foodstuffs which included less cereal and pulp samples but more maize by-products and oilseed meals.

Type
Programme
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Young, P., O'Mara, F. P., Rath, M., and Caffrey, P. J. 1996. The prediction of digestibility by rumen fluid and enzymatic methods. Animal Science, 62: 679. (Abstr.)Google Scholar