Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T23:56:27.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison between in vitro digestibility, in situ degradability and a gas production technique for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole crop wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

A T Adesogan ,
D I Giverts  and
E Owen
A T Adesogan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, Berks RG6 2 AT Feed Evaluation Unit, ADAS Dairy Research Centre, Drayton, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwicks CV37 9RQ
D I Giverts
Affiliation:
Feed Evaluation Unit, ADAS Dairy Research Centre, Drayton, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwicks CV37 9RQ
E Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, Berks RG6 2 AT
Get access

Extract

Public aversion to animal experimentation demands the replacement of typically expensive, laborious and lengthy in vivo forage evaluation techniques with non-invasive, laboratory-based techniques. This study aimed to assess the suitability of three less animal-dependent techniques (in vitro digestibility (Tilley and Terry, 1963), in situ degradability (Ørskov and McDonald, 1979) and gas production (Theodorou et al., 1994)) for predicting the in vivo digestibility of whole crop wheat (WCW). The study forms part of an on-going MAFF LINK project that aims to develop equations for the laboratory-based prediction of the nutritive value of WCW.

Type
Techniques and Methods
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1995 , March 1995 , pp. 118
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Beauvink, J.M.W. and Kogut, J. 1993. Modelling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Journal of Animal Science. 71: 1041–1046.10.2527/1993.7141041xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J., Dhanoa, M.S., Theodorou, M.K., Lister, S.J., Davies, D.R. and Isac, D. 1993. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 163:99–111.10.1006/jtbi.1993.1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E.R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science. 92: 499–503.10.1017/S0021859600063048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 48: 185–197.10.1016/0377-8401(94)90171-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J.M.A. and Terry, R.A. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society. 18: 104–111.10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, J.C., Cheng, T.T. and Konzak, C.F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421.10.1111/j.1365-3180.1974.tb01084.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar