Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T05:21:51.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the suitability of different models for describing the gas production kinetics of whole-crop wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. T. Adesogan ,
E. Owen  and
D. I. Givens
A. T. Adesogan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6 AT Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6 AT
D. I. Givens
Affiliation:
Feed Evaluation and Nutritional Sciences, Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 9RQ
Get access

Extract

Menke et al. (1979), Beuvink et al. (1992) and Theodorou et al. (1994) developed techniques for measuring the time course of gas production of foods fermented in vitro with rumen fluid. These techniques require description of the fermentation profile with an appropriate mathematical model. Although several authors have used these techniques to study the ruminal fermentation of foods, little information is available on the suitability of the model chosen for describing the fermentation profile of the food under study. In this study, the models of Ørskov and McDonald (1979), France et al. (1993) and Beuvink and Kogut (1993) were fitted to the in vitro gas production profiles of 10 whole-crop wheat (WCW) forages (cv. Slepjner) to determine the model most suited to describing the data.

Type
Posters
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 22: In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants , 1998 , pp. 215 - 216
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 Kogut, J. 1993. Modelling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1041–1046.Google Scholar
Beuvink, J. M. W., Spoelstra, S. F. and Hogendorp, R. J. 1992. An automated method for measuring time-course of gas production of feedstuffs incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 40: 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J., Dhanoa, M. S., Theodorou, M. K., Lister, S. J., Davies, D. R. and Isaac, D. 1993. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163: 99–111.Google Scholar
Lavrenčič, A., Stefanon, B. and Susmel, P. 1997. An evaluation of the Gompertz model in degradability studies of forage chemical components. Animal Science 64: 423–431.Google Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. and Schneider, W. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro . Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 217–222.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theodorou, M. K., Barbara, A. W., Dhanoa, M. S., McAllan, A. B. and France, J. 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 185–197.Google Scholar