IN SITU DEGRADABILITY OF HAND HARVESTED OR EXTRUSA SAMPLES OF. TANZANIA GRASS (PANICUM MAXIMUM, Jacq.) Kronka 2. Abstract

Similar documents
ID # EFFECTT OF SUPPLEMENTS ON FORAGE DEGRADABILITY OF Brachiaria. brizantha cv. Marandu GRAZED BY STEERS *

The Effect of Heat Treatment of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration

The Effect of Maturity and Frost Killing of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration

Understanding Dairy Nutrition Terminology

Why is forage digestibility important?

Supplementation of High Corn Silage Diets for Dairy Cows. R. D. Shaver Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist

Effective Practices In Sheep Production Series

Protein and Carbohydrate Utilization by Lactating Dairy Cows 1

Making Forage Analysis Work for You in Balancing Livestock Rations and Marketing Hay

SUPPLEMENTAL DEGRADABLE PROTEIN REQUIREMENT FOR CATTLE FED STOCKPILED BERMUDAGRASS FORAGE. Authors:

ABSTRACT FORAGE SAMPLING AND TESTING ACCURACY CHOOSING A FORAGE TESTING LAB

Established Facts. Impact of Post Harvest Forage on the Rumen Function. Known Facts. Known Facts

Abstract. Keywords: Tropical grasses, Degradability, Nutrient, Rumen fermentation. Introduction. Chaowarit Mapato a* and Metha Wanapat a

PREDICTION OF CORRECTED IN SITU FORAGE PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY BY THE CORNELL METHOD

Ruminal degradability of neutral detergent insoluble protein of selected protein sources

EFFECT OF A REVALOR-G IMPLANT AND SOURCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PROTEIN ON WEIGHT GAIN OF STEERS WINTERED ON DORMANT TALLGRASS PRAIRIE OR OLD WORLD BLUESTEM

Applied Beef Nutrition Ration Formulation Short Course. Beef Ration and Nutrition Decision Software

Heidi Rossow, PhD UC Davis School Of Veterinary Medicine, VMTRC Tulare, CA. Interpreting Forage Quality from the Cows Perspective

Fibre is complicated! NDFD, undfom in forage analysis reports NDF. Review. NDF is meant to measure Hemicellulose Celluose Lignin

FEEDING DAIRY COWS 3. FORAGE PARTICLE SIZE AND EFFECTIVE FIBRE

INTERPRETING FORAGE QUALITY TEST REPORTS

MICROBIAL INOCULANT EFFECTS ON IN SITU RUMINAL DRY MATTER AND NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBER DISAPPEARANCE OF CORN SILAGE

NUTRITIVE VALUE OF DIETS CONTAINING ALFALFA HAY AND WHOLE CORN PLANT TO GROWING RABBITS , Jaboticabal/SP. Brazil.

RFV VS. RFQ WHICH IS BETTER

1. Soil and climatic factors 2. Stage of growth: 3. Genotype: 4. Sampling and processing: 5. Toxic substances: Some forages that rated high in their

Measuring DM and NDF Digestibility and Defining Their Importance

MOLASSES AND COTTONSEED MEAL SUPPLEMENTATION OF AMMONIATED HAY FOR YEARLING CATTLE

Reference methods for assessing rumen degradation characteristics of nutreints

Reducing the reliance on purchased protein. Improving the value of home grown proteins

THE EFFECTS OF CELLULASE ON CELL WALL STRUCTURE AND THE RUMEN DIGESTION OF ALFALFA SILAGE

ALMLM HAY QUALITY: TERMS AND DEFIN"IONS

IN SITU RUMEN DEGRADATION KINETICS OF FOUR SORGHUM VARIETIES IN NILI RAVI BUFFALOES ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL ZINC AND MANGANESE ON IN VITRO UREA DEGRADATION AND PRAIRIE HAY DISAPPEARANCE

INTAKE AND QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF GUINEA GRASS GRAZED BY SHEEP OVER THREE DIFFERENT SEASONS. W.A. van Niekerk. Africa

Dr. Dan Undersander Professor of Agronomy University of Wisconsin

HarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing

Measuring detergent fibre and insoluble protein in corn silage using crucibles or filter bags

Defining Forage Quality 1

Cool-Season Forage Hays: Nutritive Value and Quality

INTAKE ESTIMATION OF RAMS UNDER GRAZING CONDITION IN A DEFERRED PASTURES OF PANICUM COLORATUM BY TWO TECHNIQUES

DAIRY FOCUS AT ILLINOIS NEWSLETTER. Focus on Forages Volume 2, Number 1

SCREENING FRESH FORAGES FOR PROTEIN DEGRADATION AND NUTRITIVE VALUE. G.C. Waghorn 1 and J.L. Burke 2. Abstract

T.N. Bodine, H.T. Purvis II and D.A. Cox. Pages Animal Science Research Report

Nonstructural and Structural Carbohydrates in Dairy Cattle Rations 1

Nutritional evaluation of Erianthus spp., Saccharum spontaneum, and Saccharum spp. hybrids as feed

FACTORS AFFECTING MANURE EXCRETION BY DAIRY COWS 1

IN SACCO DEGRADABILITY OF WHEAT STRAW TREATED WITH UREA AND FIBROLYTIC ENZYMES

In-Vitro Starch and NDF Digestibility Using Rumen Fluid from Control and Bovamine Supplemented Cows

Miguel S. Castillo Juan J. Romero Yuchen Zhao Youngho Joo Jinwoo Park

FffiER REQUIREMENTS FOR DAIRY CATTLE: HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

CHAMPION TOC INDEX. Protein Requirements of Feedlot Cattle. E. K. Okine, G. W. Mathison and R. R. Corbett. Take Home Message

HAY QUALITY EVALUATION

Composition and Nutritive Value of Corn Fractions and Ethanol Co-products Resulting from a New Dry-milling Process 1

C hewing and ruminating with

ESTIMATING THE ENERGY VALUE OF CORN SILAGE AND OTHER FORAGES. P.H. Robinson 1 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

COW SUPPLEMENTATION: GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. Low Quality Forage. Ruminant Digestive Anatomy. How do we get the best bang for the buck?

COMPARATIVE FEED VALUE OF WHOLE PLANT CORN PRE AND POST GRAZING. October 17, 2012

Predicting Degradation Characteristics from Chemical Composition and Soluble Fraction of Poor Quality Roughage Diets

NEW/EMERGING MEASUREMENTS FOR FORAGE QUALITY. Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT

Fiber. Total Digestible Fiber. Carbohydrate Fractions of Forages Fiber Fractions. 4/18/2014. Week 3 Lecture 9. Clair Thunes, PhD

EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENT SOURCE ON INTAKE, DIGESTION AND RUMINAL KINETICS OF STEERS FED PRAIRIE HAY. Authors:

P. Namanee, S. Kuprasert and W. Ngampongsai. Abstract

SUPPLEMENTAL PROTEIN REQUIREMENT FOR BEEF COWS GRAZING STOCKPILED BERMUDAGRASS. Authors:

Supplement Types - Energy. ME Fixed? What is Metabolisable Energy? Feeding Supplements & Practical Ration Balancing. Dr Julian Waters 3/1/16

(Equation 1) (Equation 2) (Equation 3)

Effects of Increased Inclusion of Algae Meal on Lamb Total Tract Digestibility

Optimizing Starch Concentrations in Dairy Rations

Prediction of the energy and protein value of DDGS for cattle

FEEDING DAIRY COWS: 1.FIBRE IMPORTANCE ON ANIMAL WELFARE, MILK PRODUCTION AND COMPOSITION

Fiber Analysis and 6.5 Biology

THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE.

Why Graze? Supplementing Lactating Cows Requires Different Thinking. Grazing when grazing wasn t cool!! WHY? Good Pasture WVU Circular 379 Early 50s

Gut Fill Revisited. Lawrence R. Jones 1 and Joanne Siciliano-Jones 2 1. American Farm Products, Inc. 2. FARME Institute, Inc. Introduction.

Stretching Limited Hay Supplies: Wet Cows Fed Low Quality Hay Jason Banta, Extension Beef Cattle Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

Feeding Strategies When Alfalfa Supplies are Short

Forage Testing and Supplementation

Assessing Your J Grennan & Sons Silage Report.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and its Role in Alfalfa Analysis

2009 Forage Production and Quality Report for Pennsylvania

Comparison between in situ dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of tannin-containing leaves from four tree species

TRANSITION COW NUTRITION AND MANAGEMENT. J.E. Shirley

As Sampled Basis nutrient results for the sample in its natural state including the water. Also known as as fed or as received.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Rumen Escape Protein of some Dairy Feedstuffs

A comparison of lter bag methods with conventional tube methods of determining the in vitro digestibility of forages

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT ADDITIVES ON SILAGE QUALITY OF NAPIERGRASS. Y.K.Cheng, C.S. Chen and P.W. Peng

Grange Beef Research Centre

EFFECTS OF INCREASING LEVELS OF SOYBEAN MOLASSES AS REPLACEMENT OF GROUND CORN IN SUGARCANE BAGASSE-BASED DIETS ON IN VITRO GAS PRODUCTION

THE EFFECTS OF CORN MILLING CO-PRODUCTS ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE AND DIET DIGESTIBILITY BY BEEF CATTLE

Fiber Digestibility & Corn Silage Evaluation. Joe Lawrence Cornell University PRO-DAIRY

Normand St-Pierre The Ohio State University. Copyright 2011 Normand St-Pierre, The Ohio State University

Part 1. Forage Quality

Nutritive Value of Feeds

The Use of Apple Pomace in Rice Straw Based Diets of Korean Native Goats (Capra hircus)

Estimation of the Proportion of Feed Protein Digested in the Small Intestine of Cattle Consuming Wet Corn Gluten Feed

MANAGING THE DAIRY COW DURING THE DRY PERIOD

DIET DIGESTIBILITY AND RUMEN TRAITS IN RESPONSE TO FEEDING WET CORN GLUTEN FEED AND A PELLET CONSISTING OF RAW SOYBEAN HULLS AND CORN STEEP LIQUOR

Response of Ruminants to Protein Supplementation is Affected by Type of Low-quality Forage 1

BENCHMARKING FORAGE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY. R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., PAS

EFFECT OF LEVELS OF LUCERNE STRAW IN TOTAL MIXED RATION ON NUTRIENT INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY IN BULLOCKS

Dietary Protein. Dr. Mark McGuire Dr. Jullie Wittman AVS Department University of Idaho

Transcription:

ID # 09-43 IN SITU DEGRADABILITY OF HAND HARVESTED OR EXTRUSA SAMPLES OF TANZANIA GRASS (PANICUM MAXIMUM, Jacq.) T. T. Berchielli 2, A.K. D. Salman 1,3, R. N. Silveira 3, W. V. B. Soares 3, J. R. Nogueira 4, S. N. Kronka 2 1 Supported by FAPESP. 2 Professor of FCAV- UNESP - Jaboticabal. CNPq Researcher. ttberchi@fcav.unesp.br 3 Graduated student supported by CNPq. 4 Researcher of Instituto Zootecnia-EEZ-Ribeirão Preto. Abstract In order to compare the in situ degradability of tanzania grass samples obtained as by extrusa or hand plucked, three ruminal fistulated cows were used in a completely randomized block design with split-plot scheme. Five grams of extrusa or hand harvested grasses were placed in nylon bags rumen incubated during 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96 and 120 hours. The degradability of DM, CP, NDF and ADF were, in this sequence, 62.59, 80.88, 50.73 and 46.65%, for handharvested grass; and 79.53, 90.97, 71.21 and 65.68%, for extrusa. In situ degradability data of hand harvested samples were not reliable. Keywords: in vitro digestibility, ruminant, square method

Introduction In general, the degradability and degradation rate are estimated by in situ technique, which is related with some variation factors. Among these, the particle size of sample placed into nylon bags shows the more controverts results, especially when the digestion rates are considered (Nocek and Khon, 1988). Normally, large and gross particles are related with lower digestions rates and higher variations. In the other hand, smaller particles are subjected to greater mechanical losses throughout the nylon bags that could result unreal digestion rates but the variation is more controlled (Nocek, 1988). The ideal particle size for in situ trials thought to be those observed after mastication. However, there are few studies discussing about the utilization of esophageal extrusa samples during in situ trials. Beauchemin (1992) observed that extrusa samples of Lucerne (Leucaena leucoceohala) and Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) hays increased forage degradation by the increase of degradable potentially dry matter (DM) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) fractions and by the decrease of lag time but not by the changes of digestion rates. In Pinho (1997) study, the DM and NDF degradability of coast cross grass (Cynodon dactylon, (L.) Press.) hand harvested or by esophageal extrusa methods were evaluated and the degradable insoluble fractions and degradations rates for extrusa were higher than samples harvested by hand. The goal of this study was to evaluate the tanzania grass (Panicum maximum, Jacq.), degradability harvested during the rainy season using two sampling methods, by hand and extrusa. Material and Methods The tanzania grass pasture was grazed by two animals/ha in a rotational system with three of occupation, and 39 days resting periods. The annual fertilization was done with 150 kg of nitrogen/ha. The grass sampling was carried out by hand using the square methodology or extrusa

methods. For extrusa s harvesting were utilized four esophageal fistulated cows. For both sampling methods, the chemical composition, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and in situ degradability of samples were determined. For in situ trials were used three-crossbred dry cow rumen fistulated, which stayed, during whole experimental period, in tanzania grass pasture. Approximately five grams of by hand harvested forage (pieces ± 2 cm length) or extrusa dried samples were placed into nylon bags that were incubated into the rumen during 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96 and 120 hours. Before each incubation period, the nylon bags were immersed in 39 C buffer solution (McDougall, 1939) during one hour. This procedure was done for soluble fraction determination in zero time, than the bags were dried at 55 C in forced air oven. The incubation residues, extrusa and harvest by hand grass samples were evaluated for crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) according to Silva (1990). The potential degradability was calculated by Mehrez and rskov (1977) model. The randomized block design with split-plots and three time replications in a 2 x 7 scheme was used. The averages of residues percentage in different incubations times were compared by 5% Tuckey test. Results and Discussion The percentages of CP, NDF and ADF of grass samples hand harvested using square method were 7.6, 81.9 and 46.6, respectively; and for extrusa samples were 12.1, 78.8 and 42.6, respectively. The degradable soluble (a) and degradable potential insoluble (b fractions), potential degradability (PD) and degradation rate of b fraction (Kd) of hand harvested grass and extrusa dry matter (DM) is showed in Table 1. The a and b fractions of hand harvested were lower than those of extrusa grass samples. It agrees with Pinho (1997), although this author had found differences more marked: 9.86 x 16.18% and 51.21 x 74.36%, for a and b fractions of hand

harvested grass and extrusa, respectively. It could be related with the fact that this author had used a different species of grass (Cynodon dactilon) with morphological characteristics, which was different from the specie utilized in this work. Another difference found between these two investigations is related with the way that the soluble fraction was determined. Pinho (1997) immersed zero time bags at room temperature water during one hour while in this study the bags were immersed in McDougall (1939) buffer at 39 C for one hour (Olubobokum et al., 1990). The PD and Kd of hand-harvested grass DM were lower compared with extrusa (62.59 x 79.53% and 2.81 x 3.82%, respectively). The Table 2 shows the values of degradable soluble (a) and degradable potential insoluble (b) fractions, potential degradability (PD) and degradation rate of b fraction (Kd) of hand harvested and extrusa crude protein (CP). Although the b fractions and degradation rates of CP had been similar, the smaller a value of hand-harvested grass compared to extrusa could be responsible for the lower potential degradability of CP in this kind of sample. The value observed by Pinto et al. (1998) for a fraction protein of tanzania grass samples ground at 5 mm was 13.35%, which was between the values found for hand harvested and extrusa in this work. The Table 3 shows the b fraction, PD, Kd and lag time (L) of fiber components. For all these components, were observed higher b and PD values in extrusa samples, and the lower difference between the two kinds of samples was observed for hemicellulose. The b fraction of NDF was similar to the ones observed by Pinho (1997) (54.13 and 76.45% for hand harvested and extrusa samples, respectively). But they were lower than those found by Pinto et al. (1998) (78.95%) for ground tanzania grass. The PD of NDF was similar to those observed by Pinho (1997) (54.86 and 70.75% for hand harvested and extrusa samples, respectively). The Kd of NDF, 2.78 and 3.73 %/h, were higher than those found by Pinho (1997), 1.82 and 2.71%/h, for hand harvested and extrusa samples, respectively.

The chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of the diet selected by animal (extrusa) are different from those hand harvested in a pasture. The selection and the mastication have significant effects on DM, CP and fiber degradation of tanzania grass. So in situ degradability trials carried out with grass samples not selected by animals and incubated chopped couldn t show reliable results. References Beauchemin, K.A. (1992). Effects of ingestive and ruminative mastication on digestion of forage by cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 40:41-56. Mc Dougall, E. I. (1939). Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Bioch. J., 43:99-109. Mehrez, A.Z., and rskov E.R. (1977). A study of the artificial fiber bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. J. Agric. Sci., 88:645-65. Nocek, J.E., and Kohn R.A. (1988). In situ particle size reduction of alfalfa and timothy hay as influence by form and particle size. J. Dairy Sci., 71:932-45. Nocek, J.E. (1988). In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: A review. J. Dairy Sci., 71:2051-69. Olubobokun, J.A., Craig W.M., and Pond K.R. (1990). Effects of mastication and microbial contamination on ruminal in situ forage disappearance. J. Anim. Sci., 68:3371-81. Pinho, M.N.G. (1997). Avaliação da degradabilidade ruminal in situ de capim coast cross (Cynodom dactylon (L.) Pers.) comparando-se dois métodos de colheita. Jaboticabal,

SP:FCAV. 40p. (Trabalho de graduação). - Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias/UNESP. Silva, D.J. (1990). Análise de alimentos (métodos químicos e biológicos). 2 ed. Viçosa:UFV, Imprensa Universitária, 165p.

TABLE 1 - Degradable soluble (a) and degradable potential insoluble (b) fractions, potential degradability (PD) and degradation rate of b fraction (Kd) of hand harvested and extrusa samples. Dry matter Samples a b PD K d % %/h hand harvested 5.28 61.44 62.59 2.81 Extrusa 6.40 75.05 79.53 3.82 Crude protein a b PD K d % %/h Hand harvested 5.59 76.84 80.88 4.06 Extrusa 16.28 76.04 90.97 4.20

TABLE 2 - Degradable potential insoluble (b) fraction, potential degradability (PD), degradation rate of b fraction (Kd) and lag time (L) of hand harvested (HH) and extrusa NDF, ADF, cellulose and hemicellulose. Parameters NDF ADF Cellulose Hemicellulose HH Extrusa HH Extrusa HH Extrusa HH Extrusa b (%) 54.50 73.26 51.11 67.72 46.04 66.26 42.24 64.98 PD (%) 50.73 71.21 46.65 65.68 42.52 64.65 36.47 55.19 K d (%/h) 2.78 3.73 2.54 3.65 2.68 3.88 4.15 3.94 L (h) 4.90 1.27 7.86 1.15 9.96 4.55 2.42 1.04