Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T12:25:19.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of maize silage to grass silage ratio and feed particle size on ruminal fermentation in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2010

B. Hildebrand ,
J. Boguhn  and
M. Rodehutscord
B. Hildebrand
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
J. Boguhn
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Rodehutscord*
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The effect of the forage source on ruminal fermentation in vitro was investigated for fine (F) and coarse (C) milled diets, using a modified Hohenheim gas production test and a semi-continuous rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). It was hypothesised that the replacement of maize silage by grass silage might lead to associative effects and that interactions related to particle size variation could occur. Five diets with a maize silage to grass silage ratio of 100 : 0, 79 : 21, 52 : 48, 24 : 76 and 0 : 100 differed in their content of CP and carbohydrate fractions, as well as digestible crude nutrients, derived from a digestibility trial with wether sheep. For in vitro investigations, the diets were ground to pass a sieve of either 1 mm (F) or 4 mm (C) perforation. Cumulative gas production was recorded during 93 h of incubation and its capacity decreased with increasing proportion of grass silage in the diet. Across all diets, gas production was delayed in C treatments compared with F treatments. Degradation of crude nutrients and detergent fibre fractions was determined in a Rusitec system. Daily amounts of NH3-N and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) were measured in the effluent. Degradation of organic matter (OM) and fibre fractions, as well as amounts of NH3-N, increased with stepwise replacement of maize silage by grass silage. Degradability of CP was unaffected by diet composition, as well as total SCFA production. In contrast to the results of the gas production test, degradation of OM and CP was higher in C than in F treatments, accompanied by higher amounts of NH3-N and SCFA. Interactions of silage ratio and particle size were rare. It was concluded that the stepwise replacement of maize silage by grass silage might lead to a linear response of most fermentation characteristics in vitro. This linear effect was also supported by total tract digestibility data. However, further investigations with silages of variable quality seem to be necessary.

Keywords

silageparticle sizeassociative effectsruminal fermentationin vitro
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 23 February 2011 , pp. 528 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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, DE 1993. Perspectives of cell wall biodegradation. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. HG Jung, DR Buxton, RD Hatfield and J Ralph), pp. 73–82. American Society of Agronomy Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, WI, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Beuvink, JMW, Kogut, J 1993. Modeling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered ruminal fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1041–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boguhn, J, Kluth, H, Rodehutscord, M 2006. Effect of total mixed ration composition on fermentation and efficiency of ruminal microbial crude protein synthesis in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1580–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boguhn, J, Kluth, H, Steinhöfel, O, Peterhänsel, M, Rodehutscord, M 2003. Nutrient digestibility and prediction of metabolizable energy in total mixed rations for ruminants. Archives of Animal Nutrition 57, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bossen, D, Mertens, DR, Weisbjerg, MR 2008. Influence of fermentation methods on neutral detergent fiber degradation parameters. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1464–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowman, JGP, Firkins, JL 1993. Effects of forage species and particle size on bacterial cellulolytic activity and colonization in situ. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1623–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, EM, Juniper, DT, Bryant, MJ, Beever, DE 2005. Apparent digestibility and nitrogen utilisation of diets based on maize and grass silage fed to beef steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 119, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carro, MD, Miller, EL 2002. Comparison of microbial markers (15N and purine bases) and bacterial isolates for the estimation of rumen microbial protein synthesis. Animal Science 75, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, JW, Breckenridge, G 1977. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García-Rodriguez, A, Mandaluniz, N, Flores, G, Oregui, LM 2005. A gas production technique as a tool to predict organic matter digestibility of grass and maize silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geissler, C, Hoffmann, M, Hickel, B 1976. Ein Beitrag zur gaschromatographischen Bestimmung flüchtiger Fettsäuren. Archiv für Tierernährung 26, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie 1991. Leitlinien für die Bestimmung der Verdaulichkeit von Rohnährstoffen an Wiederkäuern. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie 2001. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Givens, DI, Rulquin, H 2004. Utilisation by ruminants of nitrogen compounds in silage-based diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, RJ, Mertens, DR 1992. Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiber digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2762–2768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griswold, KE, Apgar, GA, Bouton, J, Firkins, JL 2003. Effects of urea infusion and ruminal degradable protein concentration on microbial growth, digestibility, and fermentation in continuous culture. Journal of Animal Science 81, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, WH, Stokes, SR 1991. Balancing carbohydrates and proteins for optimum rumen microbial yield. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3630–3644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Ahvenjärvi, S, Weisbjerg, MR, Nørgaard, P 2006. Digestion and passage of fibre in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology – digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp. 87–135. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juniper, DT, Browne, EM, Bryant, MJ, Beever, DE 2008. Digestion, rumen fermentation and circulating concentrations of insulin, growth hormone and IGF-1 in steers fed diets based on different proportions of maize silage and grass silage. Animal 2, 849–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, PM, Doyle, PT 1993. Particle-size reduction by ruminants – effects of cell wall composition and structure. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility (ed. HG Jung, DR Buxton, RD Hatfield and J Ralph), pp. 499–534. American Society of Agronomy Inc., Crop Science Society of America Inc., Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDougall, EI 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menke, KH, Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Menke, KH, Raab, L, Salewski, A, Steingass, H, Fritz, D, Schneider, W 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR, Loften, JR 1980. The effect of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalet-Doreau, B, Cerneau, P 1991. Influence of foodstuff particle size on in situ degradation of nitrogen in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niderkorn, V, Baumont, R 2009. Associative effects between forages on feed intake and digestion in ruminants. Animal 3, 951–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, PH, Getachew, G, Cone, JW 2009. Evaluation of the extent of associative effects of two groups of four feeds using an in vitro gas production procedure. Animal Feed Science and Technology 150, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, AY, Belyea, RL, Martz, FA, Weiss, MF 1980. Effect of particle size upon digestible cell wall and rate of in vitro digestion of alfalfa and orchardgrass forages. Journal of Animal Science 51, 783–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Prado, M, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A 2004. Effects of fiber content and particle size of forage on the flow of microbial amino acids from continuous culture fermenters. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1413–1424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, MD, Bach, A, Calsamiglia, S 1997. Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2256–2276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 2006. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA-Methodenbuch), Bd. III Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Vranić, M, Knežević, M, Bošnjak, K, Leto, J, Perčulija, G, Matić, I 2008. Effects of replacing grass silage harvested at two maturity stages with maize silage in the ration upon the intake, digestibility and N retention in wether sheep. Livestock Science 114, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, RJ, Wallace, SJ, McKain, N, Nsereko, VL, Hartnell, GF 2001. Influence of supplementary fibrolytic enzymes on the fermentation of corn and grass silages by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1905–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, T, Agnew, RE 2004. Prediction of nutritive values in grass silages: I. Nutrient digestibility and energy concentrations using nutrient compositions and fermentation characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1367–1379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y, Gao, W, Meng, Q 2007. Fermentation of plant cell walls by ruminal bacteria, protozoa and fungi and their interaction with fibre particle size. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed