1993
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1993.1109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Model to Interpret Gas Accumulation Profiles Associated with In Vitro Degradation of Ruminant Feeds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
217
0
56

Year Published

1997
1997
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 368 publications
(278 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
5
217
0
56
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, there are large differences in the FRD among the LE 0 , MM and GM models (Figure 3), resulting from different underlying assumptions included in the models. The LE 0 , MM and GM models are developed on the basis of the conception of microbial growth and substrate degradation (Wang et al, 2011), enzyme reactions (Groot et al, 1996) and substrate surface and complete invasion by microbes (France et al, 1993), respectively. It is widely accepted that FRG and the FRD are different concepts Ló pez et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, there are large differences in the FRD among the LE 0 , MM and GM models (Figure 3), resulting from different underlying assumptions included in the models. The LE 0 , MM and GM models are developed on the basis of the conception of microbial growth and substrate degradation (Wang et al, 2011), enzyme reactions (Groot et al, 1996) and substrate surface and complete invasion by microbes (France et al, 1993), respectively. It is widely accepted that FRG and the FRD are different concepts Ló pez et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Curve fitting The LE 0 (Wang et al, 2011), the EXP LAG (Schofield et al, 1994), the GM (France et al, 1993) and the MM (Groot et al, 1996) models were compared for their ability in revealing fermentation processes from the gas production curve (Table 2 and Figure 3). The NLREG version 5.4 software (Sherrod, 1995) was used to calculate fermentation parameters with the four models tested.…”
Section: Logistic-exponential (Le) Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For faba beans, maize and peas, the k d remained the same despite the marked reduction of the washout fraction when using the new rinsing method, whereas for barley, oats and wheat the k d decreased compared with the washing machine rinsing method. These observations would suggest that the washout fraction of starch has a lower degradation rate than the non-washout fraction, which seems to be unrealistic based on the physical state of this fraction (France et al, 1993). An alternative explanation for this decrease in degradation rate is the process of particle size reduction during the incubation in combination with particulate matter loss, which was different for the two rinsing methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The degradation rate of this washout fraction cannot be measured in situ and therefore in various feed evaluation systems assumptions on this degradation rate are made to be able to estimate the fermentability of the washout fraction (Offner et al, 2003;van Duinkerken et al, 2011;Volden, 2011). The washout fraction of starch is relatively large and highly variable between feeds (Offner et al, 2003;de Jonge et al, 2013) and is generally considered to be rapidly degradable based on theoretical assumptions about the degradation of small particles (France et al, 1993) and comparison between in situ and in vivo data (van Duinkerken et al, 2011). However, the assumption that material washed out of nylon bags is rapidly and completely degraded in the rumen is not supported by in vitro gas production results (Yang et al, 2005;Cone et al, 2006;Stevnebø et al, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%