Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:14:08.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of three laboratory techniques for the estimation of the digestibility of feedstuffs for ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. M. Omed ,
R. F. E. Axford ,
A. G. Chamberlain  and
D. I. Givens
H. M. Omed
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
R. F. E. Axford
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
A. G. Chamberlain
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK
D. I. Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS, Research and Development Service, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three in vitro methods, one enzymic and two microbial, were applied satisfactorily to the determination of the dry matter digestibility of forages, but failed when applied to a variety of concentrate feeds. The microbial methods had the advantage that the proportion of weight lost from forages during the in vitro process approximated closely with their determined in vivo digestibilities.

The microbial method based on sheep faeces was as effective as that using rumen liquor in digesting ruminant feedstuff's in vitro. Since sheep faeces are readily obtained from intact animals, the faeces liquor method would seem to have a distinct advantage in use.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 35 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Davies, O. L. & Goldsmith, P. L. (1972). Statistical Methods in Research and Production. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Ei Shaer, H. M.Omed, H. M., Chamberlain, A. G. & Axford, R. F. E. (1987). The use of faecal organisms from sheep for the in vitro determination of digestibility. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarridge, P., Thivend, P. & Demarquilly, C. (1970). Development of cellulolytic enzyme digestion for predicting the nutritive value of forages. Proceedings of the 11th International Grassland Congress, Queensland, Australia. University of Queensland Press, pp. 262–505.Google Scholar
Jones, D. I. H. & Hayward, M. V. (1973). A cellulase digesting technique for predicting the dry matter digestibility of grasses. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 24, 1419–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. I. H. & Hayward, M. V. (1975). The effect of pepsin pretreatment of herbage on the prediction of dry matter digestibility from solubility in fungal cellulase solution. Journal ofthe Science of Food and Agriculture 26, 711–718.Google Scholar
Pace, V., Barge, M. T., Settineri, D. & Mallosini, F. (1984). Comparison of forage digestibility in-vivo with enzymic solubility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, R. A., Mundell, D. C. & Osbourn, D. F. (1978). Comparison of two in vitro procedures using rumen liquor pepsin or pepsin-eellulase for prediction of forage digestibility. Journal of the British Grassland Society 33, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A., Deriaz, R. E. & Terry, R. A. (1960). The in vitro measurement of herbage digestibility and assessment of nutritive value. Proceedings of the 8th International Grasslands Congress, Reading, Berks., pp. 533–537. British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar