Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:06:12.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Application of the Gompertz model to describe the fermentation characteristics of chemical components in forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Lavrenčič
Affiliation:
Zootechnical Department, University of Ljubljana, Groblje 3, SLO-1230 Domžale, Slovenia
C. R. Mills
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production Science, University of Udine, Via S. Mauro 2,1·33010 Pagnacco (UD), Italy
B. Stefanon
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production Science, University of Udine, Via S. Mauro 2,1·33010 Pagnacco (UD), Italy
Get access

Abstract

In the experiment, four grass (tall fescue hay and Italian rye grass hay, harvested in March and May) and four legume (lucerne hay, harvested in March and May; and red clover hay, harvested in March and April) forages were used. Duplicate samples were incubated in sacco in the rumens of three fistulated mature cows for 2, 4, 8,16, 2i, 48 and 72 h and the degradabilities of dry matter (DM), nitrogen, neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), cellulose and hemicellulose were measured. The maximum degradation rate (MDR) and time of maximum degradation rate (TMDR) were calculated from the first and second derivatives of a Gompertz equation.

The MDR differed between chemical components and was generally higher for cellulose (from 2·31 to 6·95% per h) and nitrogen (from 2·06 to 6·75% per h) in all forages studied. Lignin content of forages was found to be well correlated with the MDR of the fibre components (r = -0·74 for NDF, -0·72 for cellulose and -0·84 for hemicellulose).

The TMDR values were much shorter for DM and nitrogen (< 4·2 h) than for the fibre fractions (from 6·8 to 14·0 h). Furthermore, in grasses, hemicellulose TMDR occurred before those of cellulose, while in legumes the order of TMDR was less clear. Elevated positive correlation coefficients between the fibre components and their TMDR possibly indicate that the structural arrangement and types of linkages within and between these components regulate their fermentation process.

The possibility of using the Gompertz first and second derivatives to study the synchrony of the release of nitrogen and organic matter into the rumen was examined.

Type
Research Article
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

Akin, D. E. and Chesson, A. 1989. Lignification as the major factor affecting digestibility of forages. XVI international grassland congress, Nice, France, pp. 17531760.Google Scholar
Beuvink, J. M. W. and Kogut, K. 1993. Modelling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered ruminal fluid Journal ofAnimal Science 71: 10411046.Google ScholarPubMed
Bidlack, J. E. and Buxton, D. R. 1992. Content and deposition rates of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin during regrowth of forage grasses and legumes Canadian Journal ofPlant Science 72: 809818.Google Scholar
Carpita, N. C. and Gibeaut, D. M. 1993. Structural models of primary cell walls in flowering plants: consistency of molecular structure with the physical properties of the walls during growth Plant Journal 3: 130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesson, A. 1993. Mechanistic model of forage cell wall degradation. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. and Ralph, J.), pp. 347356. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
Chesson, A. and Forsberg, C. W. 1988. Polysaccharide degradation by rumen micro-organisms. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. Hobson, P. N.), pp. 251284. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
France, J. and Thornley, J. H. M. 1984. Mathematical models in agriculture. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Harris, P. J. 1990. Plant cell wall structure and development. In Microbial and plant opportunities to lignocellulose utilization by ruminants (ed. Akin, D. E., Ljungdahl, L., Wilson, J. R. and Harris, P. J.), pp. 7190. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Hatfield, R. D. 1989. Structural polysaccharides in forages and their degradability Agronomy Journal 81: 3946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, R. D. 1990. Physiological changes and metabolic events that reduce lignocellulose utilization. In Microbial and plant opportunities to improve lignocellulose utilization ruminants (ed. Akin, D. E., Ljungdahl, L. G., Wilson, J. R. and Harris, P. J.), pp. 9198. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Hayashi, T. 1989. Xyloglucans in the primary cell wall. Annual review of plant physiology and Plant Molecular 40: 139168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, T., Takeda, T., Ogawa, K. and Mitsuishi, Y. 1994. Effects of the degree of polymerization on the binding of xyloglucans to cellulose Plant Cell Physiology 35: 893899.Google ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, P. C., Sievert, S. J., Shaver, R. D., Welch, D. A. and Combs, D. K. 1993. In situ dry matter, protein and fiber degradation of perennial forages. Journal of Dairy Science 26322643.Google Scholar
Iiyama, K., Lam, T. B. T. and Stone, B. A. 1994. Covalent cross-links in the cell wall Plant Physiology 104: 315320.Google Scholar
Jung, H. G. and Deetz, D. A. 1993. Cell wall lignification and degradability. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. and Ralph, J.), pp. 357376. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
Kerley, M. S., Fahey, G. C., Gould, J. M. and Iannotti, E. L. 1988. Effects of lignification, cellulose crystallinity and enzyme accessible space on the digestibility of plant cell wall carbohydrates by the ruminant Food Microstructure 7: 5965.Google Scholar
Lavrencic, A., Stefanon, B. and Susmel, P. 1997. An evaluation of the Gompertz model in degradability studies. of forage chemical components. Animal Science 64: 423431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251252.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feed in the rumen Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 645650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to the rate of passage. Journal ofAgricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Fadel, J. G. and Tamminga, S. 1986. Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15: 249271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D., Bertrand, D. and Giger, S. 1985. Variations and prevision of the in sacco dry matter digestion of concentrates and by-products Animal Feed Science and Technology 13: 723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, L. A., Garnsworthy, P. C., Newbold, J. R. and Buttery, P. J. 1993. Effect of synchronizing the rate of dietary energy and nitrogen release on rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 120: 251263.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1988. SAS user's guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Spanghero, M. 1990. Rumen degradability of organic matter, nitrogen and fibre fractions in forages Animal Production 51: 515526.Google Scholar
Van Milgen, J. and Baumont, R. 1995. Models based on by variable fractional digestion rates to describe ruminal in situ degradation British Journal ofNutrition 73: 793807.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1983. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books Inc., Corvallis, USA.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. 1993. Organisation of forage plant tissues. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. and Ralph, J.), pp. 132. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA.Google Scholar