J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2009. 87:622-631. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1142
© 2009 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2008-1142v1
87/2/622    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G.
Right arrow Articles by Molina-Alcaide, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G.
Right arrow Articles by Molina-Alcaide, E.

ANIMAL NUTRITION

Effects of forage:concentrate ratio and forage type on apparent digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and microbial growth in goats1

G. Cantalapiedra-Hijar, D. R. Yáñez-Ruiz, A. I. Martín-García and E. Molina-Alcaide2

Estación Experimental del Zaidín (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Profesor Albareda, 1. 18008 Granada, Spain

2 Corresponding author: molina{at}eez.csic.es

The effects of forage type and forage:concentrate ratio (F:C) on apparent nutrient digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and microbial growth were investigated in goats. A comparison between liquid (LAB) and solid (SAB)-associated bacteria to estimate microbial N flow (MNF) from urinary purine derivative excretion was also examined. Treatments were a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of forage type (grass hay vs. alfalfa hay) and high vs. low F:C (70:30 and 30:70, respectively). Four ruminally cannulated goats were fed, at maintenance intake, 4 experimental diets according to a 4 x 4 Latin square design. High-concentrate diets resulted in greater (P < 0.001) nutrient digestibility except for ADF. However, CP digestibility increased (P < 0.001) only for the high-concentrate diets including grass hay. Likewise, N retention, ruminal NH3-N concentration, and urinary excretion of purine derivatives increased (P < 0.05) with increasing concentrate in animals fed diets based on grass hay (0.23 vs. 0.13 g of retained N/g of digested N, 30.1 vs. 12.9 mg of NH3-N/100 mL, and 11.5 vs. 8.40 mmol/d, respectively), but not (P > 0.05) when diets included alfalfa hay. Total protozoa numbers and holotricha proportion were greater and less (P < 0.001), respectively, in high- than in low-concentrate diets. The F:C affected (P < 0.001) ruminal pH but not total VFA concentration (P = 0.12). Ammonia-N concentration was similar (P = 0.13) over time, whereas pH, VFA concentration, and protozoa numbers differed (P < 0.001) among diets. Estimated MNF was strongly influenced by using either the purine bases:N ratio obtained in our experimental conditions or values reported in the literature for small ruminants. There was a F:C effect (P = 0.006) on MNF estimated from LAB but not from SAB. The effect of F:C shifting from 70:30 to 30:70 in goat diets depends on the type of forage used. The MNF measured in goats fed different diets was influenced by the bacterial pellet (LAB or SAB). In addition, the purine bases:N ratio values found were different from those reported in the literature, which underlines the need for these variables to be analyzed directly in pellets isolated from specific animals and experimental conditions.

Key Words: bacterial pellet • goat • microbial growth • purine derivative • rumen fermentation






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Animal Science.