Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:08:07.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship of cell wall content and cell wall degradation rates measured in situ to digestibility depression of forages given to wether sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

I. Várhegyi ,
J. Várhegyi  and
L. Rózsa
I. Várhegyi
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Breeding and Nutrition, 2053 Herceghalom, Hungary
J. Várhegyi
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Breeding and Nutrition, 2053 Herceghalom, Hungary
L. Rózsa
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Breeding and Nutrition, 2053 Herceghalom, Hungary
Get access

Extract

The fractional rate of digestion as compared with the rate of passage can determine the extent of digestion in the digestive tract and the amount of potentially digestible matter escaping digestion (Van Soest, 1982). The lower the rate of digestion or the higher the rate of passage, the more nutrients escape digestion. The effect of rate of passage is higher for food components with slow rates of digestion such as neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) (Mertens, 1985). Increasing feeding level is associated with higher rate of passage, lower residence time in the rumen and decreased digestibility of nutrients. Digestibility depression is considered in several energy evaluation systems (van Es et al., 1978; Moe, 1981; Agricultural and Food Research Council, 1993 etc.) although most of the systems use a standard percentage discounting energy value, regardless of foods or nutrient components. Studies (Tyrell and Moe, 1975) showed that digestibility depression is higher for cell wall than cell solubles, whilst El Khidir and Thomsen (1983) reported that digestibility depression of cell walls was responsible for proportionately 0-7 of the observed decrease in digestibility. Mertens (1985) reported that energy discount factors can be related to NDF content and total digestible nitrogen value of foods. Ørskov (1996) recommended prediction of food potential of both energy value and intake from degradation characteristics.

Type
Posters
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 22: In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants , 1998 , pp. 332 - 335
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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
El Khidir, O. A. and Thomsen, K. V. 1983. Effect of intake on digestibility of plant cell walls and cell contents of complete diets for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 9: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Es, A. J. H. van, Vermorel, M. and Bickel, H. 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants: new energy systems in the Netherlands, France and Switzerland. Livestock Production Science 5: 327–372.Google Scholar
Fadel, J. G. 1992. Application of theoretically optimal sampling schedule designs for fiber degradation. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2184–2189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1985. Recent concepts useful in optimizing nutrition of dairy cows. Proceedings of Minnesota nutrition conference, Bloomington, MN, pp.99–123.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Loften, J. R. 1980. The effect of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro . Journal of Dairy Science 63: 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moe, P. W. 1981. Energy metabolism of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 1120–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldham, J. D. 1987. Towards a European standard method for assessing protein degradability. Report of CEC-EAAP workshop, manuscript. Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1996. Searching for a method of expressing feed potential. Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Lillehammer, Norway. Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and Mehrez, A. Z. 1977. Estimation of extent of protein degradation from basal feeds in the rumen of sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 78A.Google ScholarPubMed
Sváb, J. 1981. [Statistical methods used in research.] Mezōgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
Tyrell, H. F. and Moe, P. W. 1975. Effect of intake on digestive efficiency. Journal ofDairy Science 58: 1151–1163.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O.B. Books Inc., Corvallis.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Robertson, J. B. 1985. Analysis of forages and fibrous foods. In A laboratory manual for animal science, p. 613. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R. and Jorgensen, N. A. 1981. Forages for high animal production: nutritional factors and effects of conservation. Journal ofDairy Science 64: 1207–1229.Google Scholar