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 Meyer, R. M. Articles by Fina, L. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Meyer, R. M. Articles by Fina, L. R.

Comparison of Four in vitro Methods for Predicting in vivo Digestibility of Forages^{1, 2, 3,}

Kansas State University, Manhattan 66502

Abstract

The in vivo artificial rumen (VIVAR) technique was compared with the Wisconsin artificial rumen, the Tilley and Terry two-stage and the Van Soest and Wine digested neutral detergent fiber (NDF) methods of estimating forage digestibility. Dry matter disappearance (DMD) was determined after in vitro fermentation with rumen fluid inoculum for the Wisconsin procedure, and after a subsequent pepsin or neutral detergent treatment in the Tilley and Terry, and Van Soest and Wine digested neutral detergent fiber methods, respectively. Forage DMD was determined by the VIVAR procedure using stainless steel containers with gas vents and small glass jars (without gas vents) placed in the rumen during the fermentation stage. The glass-jar VIVARS were exposed to a pepsin treatment after the rumen fermentation. Of the four methods, the two-stage techniques (Tilley and Terry and NDF) were superior, indicating that further digestion beyond a rumen microbial fermentation is necessary to estimate in vivo forage digestibility. Although the VIVAR technique was improved by including a pepsin digestion, its performance was still relatively poor, compared with the Tilley and Terry method.

¹ Contribution No. 770, Department of Dairy and Poultry Science and No. 1087, Division of Biology, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan 66502.

² Supported in part by funds from N.C. Regional Project NC-64, The Development and Application of Laboratory Methods for Determining Forage Quality.

³ The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. R. F. Barnes of Purdue University, Dr. J. W. Thomas of Michigan State University, Dr. W. F. Wedin of Iowa State University, and Drs. B. R. Baumgardt and J. M. Scholl of the University of Wisconsin for supplying forage samples.