Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:16:20.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In situ and in vitro ruminal starch degradation of grains from different rye, triticale and barley genotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

J. Krieg ,
N. Seifried ,
H. Steingass  and
M. Rodehutscord
J. Krieg
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
N. Seifried
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
H. Steingass
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Rodehutscord*
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: inst450@uni-hohenheim.de
Get access

Abstract

In recent years, advances in plant breeding were achieved, which potentially led to modified nutritional values of cereal grains. The present study was conducted in order to obtain a broad overview of ruminal digestion kinetics of rye, triticale and barley grains, and to highlight differences between the grain species. In total, 20 genotypes of each grain species were investigated using in situ and in vitro methods. Samples were ground (2 mm), weighed into polyester bags, and incubated in situ 1 to 48 h in three ruminally cannulated lactating dairy cows. The in vitro gas production of ground samples (1 mm) was measured according to the ‘Hohenheim Gas Test’, and cumulative gas production was recorded over different time spans for up to 72 h. There were significant differences (P<0.05) between the species for most parameters used to describe the in situ degradation of starch (ST) and dry matter (DM). The in situ degradation rate (c) and effective degradability (assuming a passage rate of 8%/h; ED8) of ST differed significantly between all grains and was highest for rye (rye: 116.5%/h and 96.2%; triticale: 85.1%/h and 95.0%; barley: 36.2%/h and 90.0% for c and ED8, respectively). With respect to DM degradation, the ranking of the species was similar, and predicted c values exhibited the highest variation within species. The in vitro gas production rate was significantly higher (P<0.05) for rye than for triticale and barley (rye: 12.5%/h; triticale: 11.5%/h; barley: 11.1%/h). A positive relationship between the potential gas production in vitro and the maximal degradable DM fraction in situ was found using all samples (r=0.84; P<0.001) as well as rye (P=0.002) and barley (P<0.001) alone, but not for triticale. Variation in ruminal in situ degradation parameters within the grain species resulted from the high c values, but was not reflected in the ED estimates. Therefore, the usage of mean values for the ED of DM and ST for each species appears reasonable. Estimated metabolisable energy concentrations (ME, MJ/kg DM) and the estimated digestibility of organic matter (dOM, %) were significantly lower (P<0.05) for barley than for rye and triticale. Rye and triticale dOM and ME values were not significantly different (P=0.386 and 0.485).

Keywords

rumencereal grainsruminant feedingin vitrostarch
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1745 - 1753
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Anele, UY, Refat, B, Swift, M-, Zhao, YL, Doublier, C, McAllister, TA and Yang, WZ 2015. In vitro ruminal fermentation of ground and dry-rolled barley grain differing in starch content. Animal Feed Science and Technology 203, 88–94.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Graviou, D, Demarquilly, C, Vérité, R, Michalet-Doreau, B and Chapoutot, P 1991. Predicting in situ degradability of feed proteins in the rumen by two laboratory methods (solubility and enzymatic degradation). Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 97–116.Google Scholar
BeMiller, JN and Whistler, RL 2009. Starch: chemistry and technology, third edition. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Benninghoff, J, Paschke-Beese, M and Südekum, KH 2015. In situ and in vitro ruminal degradation of maize grain and untreated or xylose-treated wheat, barley and rye grains. Animal Feed Science and Technology 210, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal Veevoederbureau (CVB) 2011. Livestock Feed Table. Product Board Animal Feed, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Deutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft (DLG) 1997. DLG-Futterwerttabellen Wiederkäuer, 7th edition. DLG-Verlags-GmbH, Frankfurt a.M, Germany.Google Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie (GfE) 1995. Ausschuss für Bedarfsnormen der Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie. Zur Energiebewertung beim Wiederkäuer. Proceedings of the Society of Nutrition Physiology 4, 121–123.Google Scholar
Hansen, HB, Møller, B, Andersen, SB, Jørgensen, JR and Hansen, Å 2004. Grain characteristics, chemical composition, and functional properties of rye (Secale cereale L.) as influenced by genotype and harvest year. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52, 2282–2291.Google Scholar
Khorasani, GR, Helm, J and Kennelly, JJ 2000. In situ rumen degradation characteristics of sixty cultivars of barley grain. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 691–701.Google Scholar
Kleen, J, Hooijer, G, Rehage, J and Noordhuizen, J 2003. Subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA): a review. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 50, 406–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozubek, A and Tyman, JHP 1999. Resorcinolic lipids, the natural non-isoprenoid phenolic amphiphiles and their biological activity. Chemical Reviews 99, X1–X25.Google Scholar
Lestingi, A, Bovera, F, De Giorgio, D, Ventrella, D and Tateo, A 2010. Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilisation on triticale grain yield, chemical composition and nutritive value. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 2440–2446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, B, McKinnon, JJ, Thacker, P and Yu, P 2012. Molecular structure and metabolic characteristics of the proteins and energy in triticale grains and dried distillers grains with solubles for dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 60, 10064–10074.Google Scholar
López, S, France, J, Dhanoa, MS, Mould, F and Dijkstra, J 1999. Comparison of mathematical models to describe disappearance curves obtained using the polyester bag technique for incubating feeds in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1875–1888.Google Scholar
McAllister, TA and Cheng, KJ 1996. Microbial strategies in the ruminal digestion of cereal grains. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62, 29–36.Google Scholar
McAllister, TA, Gibb, DJ, Beauchemin, KA and Wang, Y 2006. Starch type, structure and ruminal digestion. Cattle Grain Processing Symposium, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, OK, pp. 30–41.Google Scholar
McAllister, TA, Phillippe, RC, Rode, LM and Cheng, KJ 1993. Effect of the protein matrix on the digestion of cereal grains by ruminal microorganisms. Journal of Animal Science 71, 205–212.Google Scholar
Menke, KH and Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Nikokyris, PN and Kandylis, K 1997. Feed protein fractions in various solvents of ruminant feedstuffs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 75, 198–204.Google Scholar
Nikolaev, YA, Loiko, NG, Stepanenko, IY, Shanenko, EF, Martirosova, EI, Plakunov, VK, Kozlova, AN, Borzenkov, IA, Korotina, OA, Rodin, DS, Krupyanskii, YF and El-Registan, GI 2008. Changes in physicochemical properties of proteins, caused by modification with alkylhydroxybenzenes. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology 44, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Offner, A, Bach, A and Sauvant, D 2003. Quantitative review of in situ starch degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 81–93.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Ramsey, PB, Mathison, GW and Goonewardene, LA 2001. Relationships between ruminal dry matter and starch disappearance and apparent digestibility of barley grain. Animal Feed Science and Technology 94, 155–170.Google Scholar
Rodehutscord, M, Rückert, C, Maurer, HP, Schenkel, H, Schipprack, W, Bach Knudsen, KE, Schollenberger, M, Laux, M, Eklund, M, Siegert, W and Mosenthin, R 2016. Variation in chemical composition and physical characteristics of cereal grains from different genotypes. Archives of Animal Nutrition 70, 87–107.Google Scholar
Schiemann, R, Nehring, K, Hoffmann, L, Jentsch, W and Chudy, A 1971. Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Seifried, N, Steingass, H, Hoffmann, N and Rodehutscord, M 2016a. In situ starch and crude protein degradation in the rumen and in vitro gas production kinetics of wheat genotypes. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, doi: 10.1111/jpn.12529, published online by Wiley online library 9 June 2016.Google Scholar
Seifried, N, Steingass, H, Schipprack, W and Rodehutscord, M 2016b. Variation in ruminal in situ degradation of crude protein and starch from maize grains compared to in vitro gas production kinetics and physical and chemical characteristics. Archives of Animal Nutrition 70, 333–349.Google Scholar
Seifried, N, Steingaß, H and Rodehutscord, M 2015. In vitro and in situ evaluation of secondary starch particle losses from nylon bags during the incubation of different cereal grains. Animal Feed Science and Technology 210, 26–36.Google Scholar
Silveira, C, Oba, M, Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2007. Selection of barley grain affects ruminal fermentation, starch digestibility, and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2860–2869.Google Scholar
Stevnebø, A, Seppälä, A, Harstad, OM and Huhtanen, P 2009. Ruminal starch digestion characteristics in vitro of barley cultivars with varying amylose content. Animal Feed Science and Technology 148, 167–182.Google Scholar
Vanzant, ES, Cochran, RC and Titgemeyer, EC 1998. Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2717–2729.Google Scholar
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 2007. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs-und Untersuchungsmethodik Bd. III: Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, M, Bhargava, P, Hvelplund, T and Madsen, J 1990. Anvendelse af nedbrydningsprofiler i fodermiddelvurderingen: use of degradation curves in feed evaluation. Report No. 679, National Institute of Animal Science, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y, Yan, S, He, Z, Anele, UY, Swift, ML, McAllister, TA and Yang, W 2016. Effect of starch content and processing method on in situ ruminal and in vitro intestinal digestion of barley grain in beef heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 216, 121–128.Google Scholar
Ziegler, JU, Steingass, CB, Longin, CFH, Würschum, T, Carle, R and Schweiggert, RM 2015. Alkylresorcinol composition allows the differentiation of Triticum spp. having different degrees of ploidy. Journal of Cereal Science 65, 244–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Krieg supplementary material

Tables S1-S4

Download Krieg supplementary material(File)
File 226.3 KB