Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T20:58:39.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of host diet on the gas production profile of hay and high-temperature dried grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. A. Huntington
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Drayton, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
C. Rymer
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Drayton, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
D. I. Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Drayton, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
Get access

Abstract

One of the sources of variation in the in vitro gas production (GP) technique is the inoculum source that is used and this could be greatly affected by the diet that is given to the donor animal. To study the effect of the host diet on the gas production profiles of grass hay and high temperature dried grass, two cows were offered either a silage: barley diet (80:20 dry-matter (DM) basis; GSB) or barley straw (ad libitum; STR). An adaptation period of 3 weeks was used and each animal experienced each diet type twice. Rumen fluid and solids were collected at the end of each 3-week period and used to inoculate the substrate cultures. The volume of gas produced (mllg DM) was 379 and 289 for GSB and STR respectively; gas yield (mllg organic matter degraded) was 442 and 411. The maximum fractional rates of degradation (per h) were 0·067 and 0·061 and the time (h) taken to reach these rates were 5·3 and 12·6. None of these differences was significant. There were also no significant differences in the concentration of total volatile fatty acids (VFA) in the final incubation media, or in the molar proportions of individual VFA. These results suggest that the fermentation stoichiometry was not affected by donor animal diet and, while microbial activity from STR was lower, this did not significantly affect the GP profile. The difference in microbial activity between the two diets was perhaps minimized by taking the sample of rumen contents before the morning meal.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Beuvink, J. M. W. and Spoelstra, S. F. 1992. Interactions between substrate, fermentation end-products, buffering systems and gas production upon fermentation of different carbohydrates by mixed rumen micro-organisms in vitro. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 37:505509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabro, S. and Williams, B. A. 1998. Differences between fermentative abilities of rumen fluid from buffalo and dairy cows to measure cumulative gas production. In In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants (ed. Deaville, E. R., Owen, E., Adesogen, A. T., Rymer, C., Huntington, J. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), proceedings of an international symposium, British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 22 In press.Google Scholar
Cone, J. W., Gelder, A. H. van, Visscher, G. J. W. and Oudshoorn, L. 1996. Influence of rumen fluid and substrate concentration on fermentation kinetics measured with a fully automated time related gas production apparatus. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61:113128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debersaques, F. M. A. and Williams, B. A. 1998. The cumulative gas production method for in vitro fermentation of concentrates. In In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants (ed. Deaville, E. R., Owen, E., Adesogen, A. T., Rymer, C., Huntington, J. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), proceedings of an international symposium, British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 22 In press.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, L. M. B. O. and Borba, A. E. S. 1996. Study of gas production capacity by three sources of inocula. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 127: 511515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar