Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T18:18:41.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of drying method and ageing on chemical and physical properties and in vitro degradation characteristics of grass and maize samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. W. Cone ,
A. H. Van Gelder  and
H. J. P. Marvin
J. W. Cone
Affiliation:
DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), Department of Ruminant Nutrition, PO Box 160, NL-8200 AD Leylstad, The Netherlands
A. H. Van Gelder
Affiliation:
DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), Department of Ruminant Nutrition, PO Box 160, NL-8200 AD Leylstad, The Netherlands
H. J. P. Marvin
Affiliation:
DLO Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research (CPRO-DLO), PO Box 16, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The influence of different drying conditions on the chemical composition, physical properties, in vitro organic matter degradability and fermentation kinetics of forages was investigated using young and old grass (Lolium perenne) samples (harvested on 15 June and 9 July 1992 at Lelystad, The Netherlands) and young and old maize (Zea mays cv. Scana) stem samples (harvested on 19 August and 30 September 1991 at Lelystad). The samples were either freeze-dried with a maximum sample temperature of 10 °C, dried in a vacuum at 20 °C or air-dried at 30, 50, 70 and 105 °C. The different drying methods had little effect on ash, acid detergent fibre (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), crude fibre and crude protein (CP) contents and in vitro degradation of the forage samples. However, some effects were found for sugars and phenolic acids. The neutral detergent fibre (NDF) content in protein-rich samples and the fermentation kinetics in rumen fluid differed significantly according to drying method. In samples dried other than by freeze-drying, proteins were bound to the NDF content and in some cases an effect on the amount of soluble sugars was also seen. Physical properties of the samples were determined by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and differences were found between freeze-dried materials and those dried at 70 °C. The influence of age on the maize samples was very pronounced, whereas it had little effect on the characteristics of the grass samples, with the exception of a decreased CP content and an increased sugar content after acid hydrolysis.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 126 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 7 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

Abdalla, H. O., Fox, D. G. & Van Soest, P. J. (1988). An evaluation of methods for preserving fresh forage samples before protein fraction determinations. Journal of Animal Science 66, 2646–2649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beuvink, J. M. W., Spoelstra, S. F. & Hogendorp, R. J. (1992). An automated method for measuring time-course of gas production of feedstuffs incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 40, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, J. W. & Engels, F. M. (1990). Influence of growth temperature on anatomy and in vitro digestibility of maize tissues. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, J. W. & Engels, F. M. (1993). The influence of ageing on cell wall composition and degradability of three maize genotypes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, J. W.Beuvink, J. M. W. & Rodrigues, M. (1994). Use and application of an automated time related gas production test for the in vitro study of fermentation kinetics in the rumen. Revista Portuguesa de Zootechnia 1, 25–37.Google Scholar
Deinum, B. & Maassen, A. (1994). Effects of drying temperature on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, F. M. & Brice, R. E. (1985). A barrier covering lignified cell walls of barley straw that restricts access by rumen microorganisms. Current Microbiology 12, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey-Wyssling, A. (1976). The plant cell wall. In Encyclopedia of Plant Anatomy. Vol. III, Part 4. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis, USD A Handbook No. 379. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Jung, H. G. (1989). Forage lignins and their effects on fiber digestibility. Agronomy Journal 81, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. B., Hatfield, R. D. & Ralph, J. (Eds) (1993). Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility. Based on the international symposium on forage cell wall structure and digestibility (7–1010 1991, Madison, Wisconsin, USA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liese, W. (1965). The warty layer. In Cellular Ultrastructure of Woody Plants (Ed. Côte, W. A.), pp. 251–269. Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Liese, W. & Ledbetter, M. C. (1963). Occurrence of a warty layer in vascular cells of plants. Nature 197, 201–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öste, R. E., Miller, R., Sjöstrŏm, H. & Norén, O. (1987). Effect of Maillard reaction products on protein digestion. Studies on pure compounds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 35, 938–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terashima, N., Fukushima, K.., He, L. F. & Takabe, K. (1993). Comprehensive model of the lignified plant cell wall. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility (Eds Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. B., Hatfield, R. D. & Ralph, J.), pp. 247–270. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Van Der Meer, J. M. (1988). Prediction or organic matter digestibility by the EC-cellulase method. In Forage Quality Analysis by N/RS. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Robertson, J. B. (1977). What is fibre and fibre in food? Nutrition Reviews 35 (3), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vuuren, A. M., Van Der Koelen, C. J., Valk, H. & De Visser, H. (1993). Effects of partial replacement of ryegrass by low protein feeds on rumen fermentation and nitrogen loss by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2982–2993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolters, M. G. E. & Cone, J. W. (1992). Prediction of degradability of starch by gelatinization enthalpy as measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Starch/Stärke 44, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar