Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T13:52:42.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of in vivo organic matter digestibility of beef cattle diets from degradation parameters estimated from in situ and in vitro incubations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2020

Pedro Del Bianco Benedeti Open the ORCID record for Pedro Del Bianco Benedeti [Opens in a new window] ,
Sebastião de Campos Valadares Filho ,
Diego Zanetti ,
Fabyano Fonseca e Silva ,
Breno de Castro Silva Open the ORCID record for Breno de Castro Silva [Opens in a new window] ,
Herlon Meneguelli Alhadas Open the ORCID record for Herlon Meneguelli Alhadas [Opens in a new window] ,
Jéssica Marcela Vieira Pereira ,
Marcos Vinicios Carneiro Pacheco ,
Pauliane Pucetti  and
Ana Clara Baião Menezes
...Show all authors
Pedro Del Bianco Benedeti*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Chapecó, Santa Catarina 89815-630, Brazil
Sebastião de Campos Valadares Filho
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Diego Zanetti
Affiliation:
Instituto Federal do Sul de Minas Gerais – Campus Machado, Machado, Minas Gerais 37750-000, Brazil
Fabyano Fonseca e Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Breno de Castro Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Herlon Meneguelli Alhadas
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Jéssica Marcela Vieira Pereira
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Marcos Vinicios Carneiro Pacheco
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Pauliane Pucetti
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Ana Clara Baião Menezes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Flavia Adriane de Sales Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Letícia Artuzo Godoi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
Stefanie Alvarenga Santos
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia 40110-909, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Pedro Del Bianco Benedeti, E-mail: pedro.benedeti@udesc.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this meta-analysis study was to develop and validate equations estimated from in situ and in vitro methods to predict in vivo ruminal digestibility of organic matter (OM) of beef cattle diets. The database was composed of individual data of 23 diets from six experiments. Information collected from these studies was: in vivo digestibility and degradation parameters of OM calculated from in situ and in vitro incubations. The values of estimated times for the in situ and in vitro incubations to access in vivo digestibility of OM, and differences between degradation at 24, 48 and 72 h (in situ and in vitro) and in vivo digestibility were analysed in a model that included the fixed effects of forage neutral detergent fibre level. Thereafter, a multiple stepwise regression was carried out using OM digestibility as a dependent variable and degradation parameters (A = water-soluble fraction; B = potentially degradable water-insoluble fraction; and kd = degradation rate of fraction B) as independent variables. Equation validation was performed using data from a seventh experiment that have the same methods than previous studies. Stepwise regression results showed that the kd contributed significantly in most of the algorithms derived to predict in vivo digestibility. Validation analysis showed that equations developed from both in vitro and in situ incubations accurately estimated the in vivo digestibility of OM (P > 0.05). Our results suggest that equations developed to estimate OM digestibility showed both precision and accuracy; however, in situ method presented better results than in vitro.

Keywords

Concentrateforagemeta-analysisrumen incubationruminant
Type
Modelling Animal Systems Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 157 , Issue 9-10 , December 2019 , pp. 711 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Benedeti, PDB, Paulino, PVR, Marcondes, MI, Valadares Filho, SC, Martins, TS, Lisboa, EF, Silva, LHP, Teixeira, CRV and Duarte, MS (2014) Soybean meal replaced by slow release urea in finishing diets for beef cattle. Livestock Science 165, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedeti, PDB, Fonseca, MA, Shenkoru, T, Marcondes, MI, Paula, EM, Silva, LG and Faciola, AP (2018 a) Does partial replacement of corn with glycerin in beef cattle diets affect in vitro ruminal fermentation, gas production kinetic, and enteric greenhouse gas emissions? PLoS ONE 13, e0199577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benedeti, PDB, Silva, BC, Pacheco, MVC, Serão, NVL, Carvalho Filho, I, Lopes, MM, Marcondes, MI, Mantovani, HC, Valadares Filho, SC, Detmann, E and Duarte, MS (2018 b) Effects of grain processing methods on the expression of genes involved in volatile fatty acid transport and pH regulation, and keratinization in rumen epithelium of beef cattle. PLoS ONE 13, e0198963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibby, J and Toutenburg, H (1977) Prediction and Improved Estimation in Linear Models. Berlin, Germany: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Casella, G and Berger, RL (2002) Statistical inference, vol. 2. Belmont, CA: Duxbury, pp. 337–472.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, AS and Mohamed, RAI (2011) Using fistulated sheep to compare in sacco and in vitro rumen degradation of selected feeds. Animal Production Science 51, 1015–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detmann, E, Souza, MS, Valadares Filho, SC, Queiroz, A, Berchielli, T, Saliba, EO, Cabral, LS, Pina, DS, Ladeira, M and Azevedo, J (2012). Métodos Para Análise de Alimentos. Visconde do Rio Branco, MG: Suprema, p. 214.Google Scholar
Ferraretto, LF, Fredin, SM and Shaver, RD (2015) Influence of ensiling, exogenous protease addition, and bacterial inoculation on fermentation profile, nitrogen fractions, and ruminal in vitro starch digestibility in rehydrated and high-moisture corn. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 7318–7327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosselink, JMJ, Dulphy, JP, Poncet, C, Jailler, M, Tamminga, S and Cone, JW (2004) Prediction of forage digestibility in ruminants using in situ and in vitro techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, LA (1999) Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1791–1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, M, Yang, S, Creech, J, Eun, J and Young, A (2016) In situ ruminal degradation kinetics of corn silage hybrids harvested prior to or at maturity in dry and lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 26, 46–53.Google Scholar
Kenward, MG and Roger, JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobayashi, K and Salam, MU (2000) Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agronomy Journal 92, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krizsan, SJ, Nyholm, L, Nousiainen, J, Südekum, KH and Huhtanen, P (2012) Comparison of in vitro and in situ methods in evaluation of forage digestibility in ruminants1. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3162–3173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, F, Ruh, K and Combs, DK (2015) Validation of an approach to predict total-tract fiber digestibility using a standardized in vitro technique for different diets fed to high-producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 2596–2602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López, S (2005) In vitro and in situ techniques for estimating digestibility. In Dijkstra, J, Forbes, JM and France, J (eds.), Quantitative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism, 2nd Edn. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, DG, Stuart, MA and Swain, AJ (1994) Regression of real-world data on model output: an appropriate overall test of validity. Agricultural Systems 45, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D (2015) Underlying fiber concepts and definitions. Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, 125–136.Google Scholar
Mezzomo, R, Paulino, PVR, Detmann, E, Valadares Filho, SC, Paulino, MF, Monnerat, JPP, Duarte, MS, Silva, LHP and Moura, LS (2011) Influence of condensed tannin on intake, digestibility, and efficiency of protein utilization in beef steers fed high concentrate diet. Livestock Science 141, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocek, JE (1988) In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2051–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC (2001) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th Edn. Washington, DC, USA: Natl. Acad. Press.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I (1979) The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 449–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, HH, Adams, DC, Klopfenstein, TJ and Lardy, GP (2006) Application of the 1996 NRC to protein and energy nutrition of range cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 22, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rymer, C and Givens, DI (2002) Relationships between patterns of rumen fermentation measured in sheep and in situ degradability and the in vitro gas production profile of the diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology 101, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalker, LA, Lorenz, BG, Ahern, NA and Klopfenstein, TJ (2013) Inclusion of forage standards with known in vivo digestibility in in vitro procedures. Livestock Science 151, 198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, MD, Bach, A and Calsamiglia, S (1997) Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2256–2276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tedeschi, LO (2006) Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agricultural Systems 89, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, WP (1994) Estimation of digestibility of forages by laboratory methods. In: Fahey, G C Jr. (ed.), Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. Madison, WI: Am. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Am. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., pp. 644–681.Google Scholar