4.7 Article

Whole linted cottonseed as a forage substitute: Fiber effectiveness and digestion kinetics

Journal

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
Volume 85, Issue 8, Pages 1988-1999

Publisher

AMER DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74275-6

Keywords

effective fiber; passage rate; rumen; whole cottonseed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Six ruminally and duodenally cannulated Holstein cows were used in a 6 x 6 Latin square design to 1) evaluate the potential interaction in effectiveness of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) from whole cottonseed (WCS) when it was substituted for forage NDF (FNDF) and fed with ground (G) or steam-flaked (SF) corn and 2) to determine whether the kinetic properties of NDF digestion further clarify the effectiveness of WCS. The six dietary treatments were: forage control with G corn (21% FNDF), 5% WCS with G or SF corn (18% FNDF), 10% WCS with G or SF corn (15% FNDF), and 15% WCS with G corn (12% FNDF). Based on chewing activity, the NDF from WCS was estimated to be 84% (SE = 36%) as effective as alfalfa silage NDF. Decreasing passage and digestion rates of potentially digestible NDF with increasing WCS increased the evacuated pool size of ruminal DM, apparently explaining the similar ruminal mat consistency among treatments. Measures of effectiveness of WCS treatments did not interact with corn source. Fluid dilution rate was estimated based on a two-compartment model describing Co dilution, but no treatment differences were detected. There was a strong linear bias for estimates of ruminal NDF digestibility based on a single compartment model using the digestion rate of potentially digestible NDF and the passage rate of either indigestible NDF or digestible NDF when compared with NDF digestibility calculated using duodenal flows. Although further verification is needed, these digestion and passage kinetics help explain why WCS are effective at stimulating chewing during eating and rumination.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available