3.9 Article

In vitro ruminal degradation of carbohydrate fractions in tropical grasses fertilized with nitrogen

期刊

REVISTA MEXICANA DE CIENCIAS PECUARIAS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 266-282

出版社

INIFAP-CENID PARASITOLOGIA VETERINARIA
DOI: 10.22319/rmcp.v11i1.4829

关键词

C-4 grasses; Carbohydrate fractions; Digestion rates; Gas production; CNCPS model

资金

  1. Cornell University Animal Science Department, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal was to determine the digestion rates of carbohydrate fractions A (sugars, oligosaccharides and organic acids), B-1 (starch and soluble fiber), NSC (non-structural carbohydrates) and B-2 ( available NDF) in four tropical grasses using the gas production technique. Samples of whole forage (WF), residue insoluble in 90% ethanol (EIR) and isolated NDF (iNDF) were fermented in vitro and gas production measured. Gas volumes were determined from the following fractions, A = WF minus EIR; B-1 = EIR - ND; NSC = WF - iNDF; and B2 = iNDF. Grasses were Andropogon gayanus, Urochloa brizantha, Cynodon plectostachyus, and Megathyrsus maximus each grown in Veracruz, Mexico on four plots (5x5 m), fertilized (relationship equivalent to 0 and 100 kg N/ha) and clipped 35 d after the N fertilization. A complete randomized block design with factorial arrangement 4x2 and two replicates per treatment was used. Factors were grass species and N fertilization. Data were fit using a single-pool exponential model with lag. The volume (mL gas/100 mg OM), rate (%/h) and lag (h) were: WF (22.8; 5.3; 2.1); A (3.2; 15.7; 0.5); B1 (1.5; 15.7; 0.2); and B-2 (18.3; 6.6; 5.2). Andropogon and Urochloa had higher NSC content compared to Megathyrsus and Cynodon but lower gas yield per unit of NSC. Rates of digestion for the B-2 fraction ranged from 4 to 8 %/h; and NSC digestion rate averaged 15.7 %/h. Nitrogen fertilization reduced carbohydrate pool sizes but did not affect rates of digestion. It is concluded that the rates of digestion of the carbohydrate fractions differs by grass specie.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据