Degradability characteristics of dry matter and crude protein of forages in ruminants

Keyserlingk, M.A.G. von; Swift, M. L.; Puchała, R.; Shelford, J. A.

doi:10.1016/0377-8401(95)00865-9

Cited by 60 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned earlier, the variance of the current data set was high for all degradability parameters. In addition and similar to the literature (von Keyserlingk et al, 1996;Hvelplund and Weisbjerg, 2000), the rate of degradation had the greatest CV among degradability parameters. Moreover, for FF the CV of NDF c was greater than that of DM c and CP c (Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…A key component to explain this improvement is the variance of the data sets. We measured variance with the CV and in accordance with the literature (von Keyserlingk et al, 1996;Hvelplund and Weisbjerg, 2000;Hackmann et al, 2010), the variance of the current data set was high for all degradability parameters. However, group separation reduced the CV in most parameters in FF and some parameters in NF compared with ALL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…These factors limit its use for routine evaluation of feeds by the feed industry and in practice tabulated values are used to estimate ruminal degradability of nutrients and to formulate diets for ruminants. A considerable variability has been documented around these tabulated values (von Keyserlingk et al, 1996;Hvelplund and Weisbjerg, 2000) that may lead to imbalances in diet formulation at farm level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prediction of rumen degradability parameters of a wide range of forages and non-forages by NIRS

Foskolos

Calsamiglia

Chrenková

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinetics of nutrient degradation in the rumen is an important component of feed evaluation systems for ruminants. The in situ technique is commonly used to obtain such dynamic parameters, but it requires cannulated animals and incubations last several days limiting its application in practice. On the other hand, feed industry relies strongly on NIRS to predict chemical composition of feeds and it has been used to predict nutrient degradability parameters. However, most of these studies were feedstuff specific, predicting degradability parameters of a particular feedstuff or category of feedstuffs, mainly forages or compound feeds and not grains and byproducts. Our objective was to evaluate the potential of NIRS to predict degradability parameters and effective degradation utilizing a wide range of feedstuffs commonly used in ruminant nutrition. A database of 809 feedstuffs was created. Feedstuffs were grouped as forages (FF; n = 256), non-forages (NF; n = 539) and of animal origin (n = 14). In situ degradability data for dry matter (DM; n = 665), CP (n = 682) and NDF (n = 100) were collected. Degradability was described in terms of washable fraction (a), slowly degradable fraction ( b) and its rate of degradation (c). All samples were scanned from 1100 to 2500 nm using an NIRSystems 5000 scanning in reflectance mode. Calibrations were developed for all samples (ALL), FF and NF. Equations were validated with an external validation set of 20% of total samples. NIRS equations to predict the effective degradability and fractions a and b of DM, CP and NDF could be evaluated from being adequate for screening (r 2 > 0.77; ratio of performance to deviation (RPD) = 2.0 to 2.9) to suitable for quantitative purposes (r 2 > 0.84; RPD = 3.1 to 4.7), and some predictions were improved by group separation reducing the standard error of prediction. Similarly, the rate of degradation of CP (CP c ) and DM (DM c ) was predicted for screening purposes (RPD ⩾2 and 2.5 for CP c and DM c , respectively). However, the rate of degradation of NDF was not predicted accurately (NDF c : r 2 < 0.75; RDP < 2).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of rumen degradability parameters of a wide range of forages and non-forages by NIRS

Foskolos

Calsamiglia

Chrenková

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Refluxing with detergent solution is assumed to safely remove microbes attached to residue particles without altering RUP. However, it is generally understood that concentrate feeds have little microbial attachment, and microbial contamination was assumed uniform when comparing differences of co-products (de Boer et al, 1987;von Keyserlingk et al, 1996). Nonetheless, this technique is effective in comparing rumen degradability of feed samples with similar particle size (de Boer et al, 1987;Kononoff et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of protein fractionation and ruminal and intestinal digestibility of corn milling co-products

Kelzer

Kononoff

Tedeschi

et al. 2010

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel corn milling co-products developed from technological advancements in ethanol production vary widely in chemical composition and nutrient availability. The objectives of this study were to characterize feed protein fractions and evaluate differences in rumen-undegradable protein (RUP) and its digestible fraction (dRUP), amino acid concentration, and in vitro gas production of 7 corn milling co-products. The crude protein (CP; % of dry matter) of co-products was 12.7 for germ, 26.9 for dried distillers grains plus solubles that had no heat exposure before fermentation (DDGS1), 45.4 for highprotein dried distillers grains (HPDDG), 12.7 for bran, 30.2 for wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS), 23.1 for wet corn gluten feed (WCGF), and 26.0 for dried distillers grains plus solubles that had heat exposure before fermentation (DDGS2). Two ruminally and duodenally fistulated Holstein steers weighing 663 ± 24 kg were used to determine RUP and dRUP with the in situ and mobile bag techniques. Samples of each feed were ruminally incubated for 16 h, and mobile bags were exposed to simulated abomasal digestion before insertion into the duodenum and subsequent collection in the feces. Protein fractions A, B 1 , B 2 , B 3 , and C were characterized as follows (% CP): germ = 30.0, 15.0, 38.1, 13.5, 3.4; DDGS1 = 17.0, 7.0, 67.0, 4.8, 4.2; 0.6, 82.4, 8.8, 0.8; bran = 33.5, 4.0, 54.3, 6.0, 2.2; WDGS = 18.6, 2.4, 53.1, 11.0, 14.9; WCGF = 36.6, 15.9, 33.2, 10.1, 4.1; and DDGS2 = 17.9, 2.1, 41.1, 11.1, 27.9. The proportions of RUP and dRUP were different and are reported as follows (% CP): DDGS2 = 56.3, 91.9; HPDDG = 55.2, 97.7; WDGS = 44.7, 93.1; DDGS1 = 33.2, 92.1; bran = 20.7, 65.8; germ = 16.5, 66.8; and WCGF = 11.5, 51.1. The concentrations of Lys and Met in the RUP were different and are listed as follows (% CP): germ = 2.9, 2.0; DDGS1 = 1.9, 2.0; HPDDG = 2.0, 3.2; bran = 3.2, 1.5; WDGS = 1.9, 2.3; WCGF = 3.5, 1.6; and DDGS2 = 1.9, 2.4. In vitro gas production (mL/48 h) was highest for germ (52.1) followed by bran (50.1), WDGS (40.7), DDGS2 (40.1), WCGF (39.0), DDGS1 (38.6), and HPDDG (37.5). Comparison of co-products defined differences in chemical composition, protein fractionation, ruminal availability, and microbial fermentation.

show abstract

“…Information on the relationship between chemical composition and in situ rumen degradation characteristics of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), CP, starch and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of maize silages in the scientific literature is scarce. Several in situ studies have been conducted on maize silages to determine the effect of individual factors such as maturity stage (Johnson et al, 1999;Di Marco et al, 2002;Jensen et al, 2005), chop length (Fernandez et al, 2004) and ensiling (González et al, 2010) of maize crop on the rumen degradation of specific nutrients like DM (Von Keyserlingk et al, 1996), OM (Arieli et al, 1998), CP (Von Keyserlingk et al, 1996;Shannak et al, 2000), starch (Fernandez et al, 2004;Hindle et al, 2005) and NDF (Varga and Hoover, 1983;Stensig et al, 1994;Jensen et al, 2005). In addition, often in these studies only a limited number (n = 1 to 12) of samples were investigated and compared with other feedstuffs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between chemical composition and in situ rumen degradation characteristics of maize silages in dairy cows

Ali

Duinkerken

Cone

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several in situ studies have been conducted on maize silages to determine the effect of individual factors such as maturity stage, chop length and ensiling of maize crop on the rumen degradation but the information on the relationship between chemical composition and in situ rumen degradation characteristics remains scarce. The objectives of this study were to determine and describe relationships between the chemical composition and the rumen degradation characteristics of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), CP, starch and aNDFom (NDF assayed with a heat stable amylase and expressed exclusive of residual ash) of maize silages. In all, 75 maize silage samples were selected, with a broad range in chemical composition and quality parameters. The samples were incubated in the rumen for 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 72 and 336 h, using the nylon bag technique. Large range was found in the rumen degradable fractions of DM, OM, CP, starch and aNDFom because of the broad range in chemical composition and quality parameters. The new database with in situ rumen degradation characteristics of DM, OM, CP, starch and aNDFom of the maize silages was obtained under uniform experimental conditions; same cows, same incubation protocol and same chemical analysis procedures. Regression equations were developed with significant predictors (P < 0.05) describing moderate and weak relationships between the chemical composition and the washout fraction, rumen undegradable fraction, potentially rumen degradable fraction, fractional degradation rate and effective rumen degradable fraction of DM, OM, CP, starch and aNDFom.

show abstract

Degradability characteristics of dry matter and crude protein of forages in ruminants

Cited by 60 publications

References 23 publications

Prediction of rumen degradability parameters of a wide range of forages and non-forages by NIRS

Prediction of rumen degradability parameters of a wide range of forages and non-forages by NIRS

Evaluation of protein fractionation and ruminal and intestinal digestibility of corn milling co-products

Relationship between chemical composition and in situ rumen degradation characteristics of maize silages in dairy cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About