Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Donkeys

Tassone, Sonia; Fortina, Riccardo; Valle, Emanuela; Cavallarin, Laura; Raspa, Federica; Boggero, Silvia; Bergero, Domenico; Giammarino, Mauro; Renna, Manuela

doi:10.3390/ani10112100

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The digestibility values observed in the trial were in the range reported for rabbit diets [ 9 ]. Higher values were observed in vivo than in vitro, as already found in rabbit [ 7 ], in horse [ 20 ] and donkey [ 23 ] respectively. Statistical differences were observed with the fecal inoculum only, while with the multienzyme the results were similar to the in vivo data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…For each method, a linear regression analysis (PROC REG, procedure in SAS) was used to assess: (1) the relationships between in vivo and in vitro digestibility; (2) the regression equations for predicting the in vivo digestibility from each in vitro method. Reproducibility of the methods was calculated as reported by Tassone et al [ 23 ] and it was expressed as coefficient of variation (SD/mean × 100).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use for example of feces as inoculum for in vitro digestibility could be an alternative for rabbits. Different authors have already demonstrated on horses [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ] and donkeys [ 22 , 23 ]—the closest livestock species to rabbits—that feces are a suitable source of microbial inoculum for in vitro digestibility studies. In particular, Earing et al [ 20 ] demonstrated that when equine feces are used as inoculum for the in vitro methodology developed for the Ankom Daisy incubator, it could produce accurate estimates of in vivo equine dry matter and NDF digestibility, particularly with an incubation period of 72 h.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Rabbits

Tassone

Fortina

Mabrouki

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The apparent dry matter digestibility of diets for rabbits was measured in vivo (ADMDvv) and in vitro with the Ankom DaisyII Incubator. Four diets were tested: low fiber (LF), LF + 5% of pregerminated fenugreek seeds (PGFS) (LF5), LF + 10% PGFS (LF10), and high fiber (HF). For the ADMDvv, feces samples were collected from 56 White New-Zealand × Californian rabbits fed the 4 diets; animals were randomly allocated into 4 groups and housed in individual cages. For the in vitro trial, 3 methods were tested: fecal inoculum (FA) with Kansans State buffer; fecal inoculum with artificial saliva (FB); and multienzyme (ENZ). Fecal inocula were collected at slaughtering from the distal colon of rabbits fed ad libitum the LF diet. For FA and FB methods, the digestibility was measured at 36 and 48 h. The in vitro methods ranked the apparent dry matter digestibility of diets in the same order as in vivo, but ENZ values were always higher than FA and FB at 36 and 48 h. The prediction equations of in vivo digestibility with the ENZ method showed higher coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.69) and lower SE (0.190) than FA and FB; also, reproducibility was higher with ENZ (CV = 3.1%). In conclusion, different methods can be applied to the Ankom DaisyII Incubator to study the digestibility in rabbits. In our trial, the better reproducibility was observed with the multienzyme method than FA and FB were probably related to the variability of inocula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Rabbits

Tassone

Fortina

Mabrouki

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this method has as its weaknesses, including the need to use cannulated animals as cecal microflora donors. An alternative that replaces ruminal or cecal fluid and does not require surgical intervention is the use of equine feces, since they have fermentable activity that allows for their use as an inoculum for in vitro fermentation studies [ 13 , 14 ]. While the technique used by Theodorou et al [ 14 ] initially relied on rumen fluid as a source of microbial inoculum, the use of feces has proven to be a successful alternative source of microbial inoculum in ruminant, equid, and other non-ruminant studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative Effects between Forages and Concentrates on In Vitro Fermentation of Working Equine Diets

Gandarillas

Keim

Gapp

2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Horses are hindgut fermenters, and it is therefore important to determine the postgastric nutritive value of their feedstuffs and diets. Moreover, it has been demonstrated in other animal species that the fermentation of diets results in different values than those expected from pure ingredients. Therefore, the general objective of this work is to evaluate the gas production (GP) and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration, as well as the associative effects, of mixtures of different forages and concentrated foods, which are representative of the traditional diets of high-performance horses. Methods: An in vitro gas production experiment was conducted to assess the fermentation of two forages and three concentrates that are typical in horse diets. The combination of 70% of forage and 30% concentrates was also assessed to determine potential associative effects. Results: Concentrates and grains produced higher GP and VFA than forages when evaluated alone. When experimental diets were incubated, GP parameters and VFA concentrations of forage–concentrate mixtures had unexpected differences from the values expected from the fermentation of pure ingredients, suggesting the occurrence of associative effects. Conclusions: Our results indicate that there is a need to evaluate the fermentation of diets, rather than predicting from the values of pure ingredients.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, accurate measurement of the ME values of any given diet requires the execution of in vivo digestibility trials with animals, and sometimes the measurement of the Gross Energy (GE) of feed, feces, urine and methane. Most such measurements can only be made in research centers specially prepared to do so, as well as being costly; consequently, to solve these difficulties, some approaches to estimated energy concentrations from nutrient composition or in vitro digestibility measurements have been proposed [26,27]. Because of the relative constancy of both the GE of digestible organic matter for most forages other than silage and the proportions of energy lost in urine and methane, highly significant correlations are normally found between ME and organic matter digestibility (OMD), such that approximate conversions of in vitro OMD (IVOMD) values to ME values may be made [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Energy Concentrations in Wooded Pastures of NW Spain Using Empirical Models That Relate Observed Metabolizable Energy to Measured Nutritional Attributes

Hernández

González

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wooded pastures serve as a traditional source of forage in Europe, where forest grazing is valued as an efficient tool for maintaining the diversity of semi-natural habitats. In a forest grazing setting with diverse diet composition, assessing the energy content of animal diets can be a difficult task because of its dependency on digestibility measures. In the present study, prediction equations of metabolizable energy (ME) were obtained performing stepwise regression with data (n = 297; 44 plant species) on nutritional attributes (Acid Detergent Fiber, lignin, silica, dry matter, crude protein, in vitro organic matter digestibility) from 20 representative stands of Atlantic dry heathlands and pedunculate oak woodlands. The results showed that the prediction accuracy of ME is reduced when the general model (R2 = 0.64) is applied, as opposed to the use of the specific prediction equations for each vegetation type (R2 = 0.61, 0.66, 0.71 for oak woodlands; R2 = 0.70 heather-gorse dominated heathlands, R2 = 0.41 continental heathlands). The general model tends to overestimate the ME concentrations in heaths with respect to the observed ME values obtained from IVOMD as a sole predictor, and this divergence could be corrected by applying the specific prediction equations obtained for each vegetation type. Although the use of prediction equations by season would improve accuracy in the case of a Winter scenario, using the general model as opposed to the prediction equations for Spring, Summer or Fall would represent a much smaller loss of accuracy.

show abstract

Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Donkeys

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Rabbits

Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility in Rabbits

Associative Effects between Forages and Concentrates on In Vitro Fermentation of Working Equine Diets

Estimating Energy Concentrations in Wooded Pastures of NW Spain Using Empirical Models That Relate Observed Metabolizable Energy to Measured Nutritional Attributes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About