4.6 Article

NDF degradability of hays measured in situ and in vitro

Journal

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 1-4, Pages 201-208

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(02)00327-9

Keywords

degradability; in situ; in vitro; NDF; hays

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The NDF degradability (d(NDF)) of hays measured by an in situ method (nylon bag technique) was compared with in vitro fermentation, using the Daisy(II) incubator (Ankom(R), Tech. Co., Fairport, NY, USA). Eighteen hays were produced from mountain areas (about 700 m.s.l.) from plots subjected to different cutting frequencies (two to four cuts per season) and types of N fertilisation (slurry and slurry plus mineral). Hay samples from each cut were incubated (in situ) in the rumens of three cows (incubation times: 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48 and 72 h; sample weight: 15 mg/cm(2) of free bag area) or inserted (in vitro) into three different digestion jars Oar volume: 2 1; bag size 5 cm x 3 cm; sample weight: 250 mg per bag) that were placed into the Daisy(11) incubator for 48 h. The forages showed large variation in effective d(NDF) (assumed rumen turn over rate: 3% per hour) which ranged from 38 to 43% for hays with two cuts to 58-65% for the hays with four cuts per season. The d(NDF) obtained in situ (Y, effective) and in vitro (X, after 48 h of incubation) were highly correlated (P < 0.01) and the regression equation was Y = 0.74(+/-0.05)X + 6.39(+/-2.90), n = 18, S.D. = +/-1.96, r(2) = 0.94. The variability (coefficient of variation, CV) of the in vitro measurements (among jar repeatability) was 2.8%, which is close to that generally found for some chemical analyses of feedstuffs and lower than that obtained for the in situ measures (among cow repeatability, CV: 3.7%). The Daisy(II) incubator produces repeatable in vitro d(NDF) data which are highly related to those obtainable with the reference in situ procedure. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available