HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, R. R. Articles by Parsons, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, R. R. Articles by Parsons, J. L.

A Comparison of In Vitro Fermentation and Chemical Solubility Methods in Estimating Forage Nutritive Value^{1, 2,}

Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster

Abstract

The digestibility of cellulose in 12-hr. in vitro rumen fermentations (IVCD), solubility of cellulose in cupriethylenediamine (CED), and solubility of dry matter in 1.0 N H₂SO₄ (DMS) have been determined for 65 forages including 22 grasses, 17 alfalfa, and 26 mixed forage hays. The same forages were fed to sheep in digestion trials to determine apparent digestibilities of dry matter (DMD), cellulose (CD), energy (ED), and protein as well as relative intake (RI) and nutritive value index (NVI). Correlation and regression coefficients were determined for the relationships between the laboratory and in vivo measurements.

The correlation coefficients varied considerably, depending on which class of forages and which in vivo measurements were being considered. IVCD measurements were more highly correlated with in vivo measurements for grasses, while CED, DMS, or both were better for alfalfa or mixed forages. The best correlations were obtained when either IVCD or CED values were combined with the DMS data. Further addition of independent variables to the multiple regressions were of little value in increasing the size of the correlation coefficient. Considerably more between day (or run) variation occurred in the IVCD method, presumably due to inoculum variation.

¹ Approved for publication as Journal Article No. 113-64 by the Associate Director of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster.

² This work was supported in part by funds allocated by the North Central Technical Committee on The Development and Application of Laboratory Methods for Determining Forage Quality (NC-64).

³ Department of Animal Science.

⁴ Department of Agronomy.

⁵ The authors wish to acknowledge the technical assistance of Mrs. R. A. Maxwell and C. H. Cook. Acknowledgment is also due C. R. Weaver for the statistical analyses.