Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:39:25.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of sample preparation methods for the determination of the rumen degradation characteristics of fresh and ensiled forages by the nylon bag technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. López ,
F. D. DeB. Hovell ,
B. Manyuchi  and
R. I. Smart
S. López
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
F. D. DeB. Hovell
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
B. Manyuchi
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. I. Smart
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Abstract

A study urns conducted to determine the best method of preparation of silage and freshly cut forage samples for the estimation of rumen degradability by the nylon bag technique. Three types of forage were evaluated: a grass silage, a fresh grass (ryegrass) and a fresh legume (white clover). For each forage, six preparation methods were compared: chopping fresh (FRS); chopping and macerating fresh (FMC); chopping, freezing, thawing and macerating (FRZ); freeze-drying (FD); low-temperature oven-drying (45°C, 72 h) (OVD); high-temperature oven-drying (160°C, 90 min) (DHD). Dried samples were hammer-milled (2·5-mm screen). Chemical composition and rumen degradability were affected by the method of preparation. Protein fractions were sensitive to drying method, and oven-drying reduced nitrogen (N) solubility and degradability as the severity of the heating was increased. OVD and DHD gave lower estimates of N and dry matter (DM) solubility and degradability than FD. The effect of drying method on DM degradability was to reduce solubility and effective degradability, calculated for an outflow rate of 0·033 per h, but not potential degradability.

Silage DM degradability was less affected than that of fresh forages. Freshly prepared samples (FRS, FMC, FRZ) gave lower estimates of N and DM solubility and degradability than FD, the differences being least with silage and FRZ, which was the most effective at rupturing plant structures of the FRS, FMC and FRZ methods. Of the six preparation methods, freeze-drying was the most effective preparation method. FRZ and OVD were less effective, but similar to each other. The small particles (calculated) produced by grinding dried samples may result in an overestimation of zero time losses and hence the degradability of the sample. These undesirable effects might be minimized by coarser grinding (4-mm screen) and correction for particulate matter loss.

Keywords

herbagerumen degradationsample processingsilage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 439 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Abdalla, H. O., Fox, D. G. and Van Soest, P. J. 1988. An evaluation of methods for preserving fresh forage samples before protein fraction determinations. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2646–2649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acosta, R. A. and Kothmann, M. M. 1978. Chemical composition of esophageal-fistula forage samples as influenced by drying method and salivary leaching. Journal of Animal Science 47: 691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1992. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: protein. Report no. 9 of the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 62: 787–835.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. G. P. and Firkins, J. L. 1993. Effects of forage species and particle size on bacterial cellulolytic activity and colonization in situ. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1623–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broesder, J. T., Gunter, S. A., Krysl, L. J. and Judkins, M. B. 1992. Digestion of ruminal masticate dried by three different methods. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burritt, E. A., Pfister, J. A. and Malechek, J. C. 1988. Effect of drying method on the nutritive composition of esophageal fistula forage samples: influence of maturity. Journal of Range Management 41: 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, F. B., Hotten, P. M. and Ørskov, E. R. 1993. Effects of dilute-acid hydrolysis treatment on the physico-chemical features and bio-utilization of wheat straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 42: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, A. T. and Endalew, F. 1993. The effect of drying method on the degradation characteristics of grass silage. Animal Production 56: 461 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Deaville, E. R. and Givens, D. I. 1993. Effect of drying temperature and method of analysis on the measurement of cell wall content in forages. Animal Production 56: 454 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S. 1988. On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43: 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Communities. 1984. Determination of crude fat. Publication leaflet no. 15, pp. 129–144. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). US Department of Agriculture, agriculture handbook no. 379. Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gonzales, H. and Chamberlain, A. T. 1992. Effect of different drying processes on speed of drying and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen content of grass. Animal Production 54: 506 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Hristov, A. 1992. Effect of sample pretreatment on alfalfa silage dry matter and protein degradability in sacco. Animal Feed Science and Technology 38: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabuga, J. D. and Darko, C. A. 1993. In sacco degradation of dry matter and nitrogen in oven dried and fresh tropical grasses and some relationships to in vitro dry matter digestibility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40: 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaumon, M. and Thewis, A. 1990. [Influence of the processing method of fresh forage on its chemical composition, in vitro organic matter digestibility and in sacco nitrogen degradability]. Reproduction Nutrition Development suppl. 2, pp. 159s–160s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, D. J., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Bajracharya, J. 1987. The effect of fineness of grinding of a sample on the loss of material from nylon bags incubated in the rumen of sheep. Animal Production 44: 496 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lindberg, J. E. 1985. Estimation of rumen degradability of feed proteins with the in sacco technique and various in vitro methods: a review. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 25: suppl., pp. 64–97.Google Scholar
Lopez, S., France, J. and Dhanoa, M. S. 1994. A correction for particulate matter loss when applying the polyester bag method. British journal of Nutrition 71: 135–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen, Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. 1970. Changes in chemical composition of freeze-stored herbage. New Zealand journal of Agricultural Research 13: 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, Y. 1989. Effect of heat treatments on degradation of ruminal nitrogenous compounds in roughages, Journal of the Japanese Society of Grassland Science 35: 40–49.Google Scholar
Michalet-Doreau, B. and Ould-Bah, M. Y. 1992. In vitro and in sacco methods for the estimation of dietary nitrogen degradability in the rumen: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1981. The analysis of agricultural materials. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1989. The conservation of grass. In Grass: its production and utilization (ed. Holmes, W.), pp. 173–213. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. 1988. In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: a review, Journal of Dairy Science 71: 2051–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olubobokun, J. A., Craig, W. M. and Pond, K. R. 1990. Effects of mastication and microbial contamination on ruminal in situ forage disappearance, Journal of Animal Science 68: 3371–3381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Ould-Bah, M. Y. and Michalet-Doreau, B. 1988. [Effect of the preparation of fresh forage samples on the in sacco protein degradation in the rumen.] Reproduction Nutrition Development 28: suppl. no. 1, pp. 103–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyraud, J. L. 1990. [Effect of the drying method and of the particle size of forage samples on the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen.] Reproduction Nutrition Development, suppl. 2, pp. 153s–154s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccaglia, R. and Galleti, G. C. 1987. Effect of sample drying on the determination of fibre and water-soluble carbohydrates of maize silage. Grass and Forage Science 42: 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Playne, M. J., Khumnualthong, W. and Echevarria, M. G. 1978. Factors affecting the digestion of oesophageal fistula samples and hay samples in nylon bags in the rumen of cattle, Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C. and Akin, D. E. 1984. Ingestive mastication and fragmentation of forages, Journal of Animal Science 58: 1567–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analysis of dietary fibre in food (ed. James, W. P. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
Seoane, J. R. 1982. Relationships between the physico-chemical characteristics of hays and their nutritive value. Journal of Animal Science 55: 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setäla, J. 1983. The nylon bag technique in the determination of ruminal feed protein degradation, Journal of the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland 55: 1–78.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. C. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, A. and Varvikko, T. 1989. Influence of sample preparation on the ruminal nylon bag degradation values of grass silage. Asian-Australian journal of Animal Sciences 2: 413–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Mason, V. C. 1991. The influence of the Maillard reaction upon the nutritive value of fibrous feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 32: 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vik-Mo, L. 1989. Degradability of forages in sacco. 1. Grass crops and silages after oven and freeze-drying. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39: 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weakley, D. C, Stern, M. D. and Satter, L. D. 1983. Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen, Journal of Animal Science 56: 493–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed