Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T05:17:06.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models for interpreting in vitro gas production profiles from ruminant foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

J. France ,
S. Lopez ,
J. Dijkstra ,
R. Sanderson  and
M.S. Dhanoa
J. France
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB
S. Lopez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Leon, 24007 Leon, Spain
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences WIAS, Department of Animal Nutrition, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
R. Sanderson
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB
M.S. Dhanoa
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB
Get access

Extract

The automation of existing in vitro gas production methods (Beuvink et al., 1992) and the development of new ones (Theodorou et al., 1994) have created a need for suitable mathematical models to describe and interpret cumulative gas production profiles. Ideally a function is required which is capable of modelling a range of shapes with no inflexion point and also a range of sigmoidal shapes in which the inflexion point is variable. Several models have been proposed to describe gas production profiles (e.g. Blümmel and Ørskov, 1993; Beuvink and Kogut, 1993; Schofield et al ., 1994), sometimes blending empiricism with a more mechanistic view based on a compartmental scheme. The primary objectives of this paper are to present a unifying analysis of this area, pointing out compartmental interpretations of some of the candidate models and to link the gas production technique to animal performance by determining the extent of ruminal degradation for each model.

Type
In vitro techniques for measuring rumen microbial activity
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 22: In vitro techniques for measuring nutrient supply to ruminants , 1998 , pp. 79 - 80
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

Beuvink, J. M. W. and Kogut, J. 1993. Modeling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered ruminal fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1041–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beuvink, J. M. W., Spoelstra, S. F. and Hogendorp, R. J. 1992. An automated method for measuring time-course of gas production of feedstuffs with buffered rumen fluid. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 40: 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blümmel, M. and Ørskov, E. R. 1993. Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon-bag degradability of roughage in predicting feed intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
France, J., Dhanoa, M. S., Theodorou, M. K., Lister, S. J., Davies, D. R. and Isaac, D. 1993. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163: 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, M. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural handbook no. 379. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schofield, P., Pitt, R. E. and Pell, A. N. 1994. Kinetics of fiber digestion from in vitro gas production. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2980–2991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theodorou, M. K., Williams, B. A., Dhanoa, M. S., McAllan, A. B. and France, J. 1994. A simple gas production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar