Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:32:04.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of near infra-red reflectance spectroscopy with three in vitro digestibility methods to predict digestibility in vivo in cereal straws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

D I Givens ,
Jeannie M Everington  and
C K Baker
D I Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit Alcester Road, Stratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
Jeannie M Everington
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit Alcester Road, Stratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
C K Baker
Affiliation:
ADAS, Analytical Chemistry Department Staplake Mount, Starcross, Exeter EX6 8PE
Get access

Extract

There have been many attempts to use the measurement of cell wall fractions to predict the digestibility in vivo of untreated and alkali treated straws (see far example Sundstøl et al, 1978; Reid and Ørskov, 1987). All these attempts have shown this approach to have very low predictive ability for straws. Accordingly extensive use has been made of digestibility measurements in vitro using either rumen fluid (eg Sundstøl et al, 1978) or cellulase type enzymes (eg Jewell et al, 1986).

Whilst in vitro methods appear to be useful predictors of digestibility in straws, they are slow and relatively expensive. The work reported here has compared their predictive power with that of near infra-red reflectance spectroscopy (NIR).

A total of 123 cereal straws were used. These included 54 wheat, 43 barley and 4 oat straws all untreated and the 9 wheat, 9 barley and 4 oat straws oven-treated with ammonia previously described by Mason et al (1988).

Type
Ruminant Nutrition
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1989 , March 1989 , pp. 49
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1989

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

Dowman, M G and Collins, F C (1982) J.Sci.Fd.Agric. 33, 689–696.Google Scholar
Jewell, S N, Osbourne, E D and Campling, R C (1986) J.Nat.Inst.Agric.Bot 17, 199–208.Google Scholar
Jones, D I H and Hayward, M V (1975) J.Sci.Fd.Agric. 26, 711–718.Google Scholar
Mason, V C, Hartley, R D, Keene, A S and Cobby, J M (1988) Anim.Feed Sci.Technol 19, 159–172.Google Scholar
Reid, G W and Orskov, E R (1987) Anim.Prod 44, 480 (Abs).Google Scholar
Sundstol, F, Kossila, V, Theander, O and Vestergaard Thomsen, K (1978) Act.Agric.Scand 28, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J M A and Terry, R A (1963) J.Brit.Grass Soc. 18, 104–111.Google Scholar