2006
DOI: 10.1590/s0102-09352006000400041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of acid detergent insoluble protein as an estimator of rumen non-degradable protein in tropical grass forages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the results, it can be inferred that the DM content of forages at baling time was appropriate and did not cause increase in temperature during storage, because according to Van Soest (1994), increase in ADIP levels occur when moisture is high and temperature reaches values above 55 °C. The estimate of this fraction becomes relevant due to its potential use as a predictor or estimator of protein, since ADIP is not available to rumen microorganisms or intestinal digestibility (Clipes et al, 2006). Aguiar et al (2006) studied tropical grass hays and found NDIP values ranging from 45.45 to 54.66%, while Gobbi et al (2005) studied Brachiaria decumbens Stapf.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the results, it can be inferred that the DM content of forages at baling time was appropriate and did not cause increase in temperature during storage, because according to Van Soest (1994), increase in ADIP levels occur when moisture is high and temperature reaches values above 55 °C. The estimate of this fraction becomes relevant due to its potential use as a predictor or estimator of protein, since ADIP is not available to rumen microorganisms or intestinal digestibility (Clipes et al, 2006). Aguiar et al (2006) studied tropical grass hays and found NDIP values ranging from 45.45 to 54.66%, while Gobbi et al (2005) studied Brachiaria decumbens Stapf.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Acid detergent fibre (ADF) and lignin (ADL) models have to be rejected because validation with 2013 data clearly fails (NRMSE = 0.4, NMAE = 0.4 for ADF; NRMSE = 0.5, NMAE = 0.4 for ADL). There is a possible reason for these difference within both fibre and digestibility (predictability of dNDF24 and NDF but not of dNDF240, ADF and ADL) considering the nature of these variables: cellulose and lignin are the vegetal component which less manifest themselves into visible effects (like greenness), and NDF digestibility at 240 hours is linked to their relative content more than in the case of NDF digestibility at 24 hours [Clipes et al, 2006;Casali et al, 2008].…”
Section: Fibrementioning
confidence: 99%
“…w ADICP in Eq. 15b is the mass fraction of acid detergent insoluble crude protein (ADICP) in feed dry matter, which is estimated from w NDICP using a relationship from Clipes et al (2006):…”
Section: Digestible Nutrientsmentioning
confidence: 99%