Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative evaluation of nutritional values in different forage sources using in vitro and in vivo rumen fermentation in Hanwoo cattle

  • Lee, Hu Seong (Department of Animal Science, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Sung Dae (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Lee, Seul (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Sun, Sangsoo (Department of Animal Science, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Minseok (Department of Animal Science, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Choi, Hyuck (Department of Pet Science, Seojeong College) ;
  • Lee, Yookyung (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Baek, Youl-Chang (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science)
  • Received : 2020.09.12
  • Accepted : 2020.10.28
  • Published : 2020.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study evaluated the nutritional value of Italian ryegrass (IRG) as a forage source for Hanwoo. The nutritional value of IRG was assessed and compared to that of rice straw, oat hay, and timothy hay using two different methods: 1) in vitro ruminal fermentation 2) in vivo total tract digestibility. In vitro DM digestibility was lower in rice straw compared to the other three forage sources after both 24 and 48 h of incubation (p < 0.01). Among the four forage sources, IRG had a higher NH3-N concentration after both 24 and 48 h of incubation (p < 0.01). In the in vivo digestibility trials, four different substrates were used: 1) 80% concentrate with 20% rice straw, 2) 80% concentrate with 20% oat hay, 3) 80% concentrate with 20% IRG, and 4) 80% concentrate with 20% timothy hay. The dry matter, crude protein, non-fiber carbohydrate, and detergent fiber digestibility were the greatest in the C80-IRG20 among the four forage groups. In summary, IRG had a similar level of energy efficiency compared to oat hay and timothy hay. Furthermore, the result of the chemical composition analysis showing a higher ammonia concentration in the in vitro fermentation experiment and the high protein digestibility in the in vivo experiment indicate that IRG is a good source of protein compared to oat hay and timothy hay.

Keywords

References

  1. Burns GA, Kiely PO, Grogan D, Watson S, Gillil TJ. 2015. Comparison of herbage yield, nutritive value and ensilability traits of three ryegrass species evaluated for the Irish Recommended List. Irish Journal of Agriculture Food Research 254:31-40.
  2. Chaney AL, Marbach EP. 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical chemistry 8:130-132. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130
  3. Chaudhary S, Parvez S. 2012. An in vitro approach to assess the neurotoxicity of valproic acid-induced oxidative stress in cerebellum and cerebral cortex of young rats. Neuroscience 225:258-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.08.060
  4. Cho WM, Hong SK, Lee JM, Paek BH. 1997. Effects of grazing starting age at growing stage and roughages at finishing stage on growth performance and beef quality in Hanwoo steers. Korean Journal of Animal Science 37:375-382. [in Korean]
  5. Conrad HR. 1996. Symposium on factors influencing the voluntary intake of herbage by ruminants: Physiological and physical factors limiting feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 25:227-235. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1966.251227x
  6. Dijkstra J, Boer H, Van Bruchem J, Bruining M, Tamminga S. 1993. Absorption of volatile fatty acids from the rumen of lactating dairy cows as influenced by volatile fatty acid concentration, pH and rumen liquid volume. British Journal of Nutrition 69:385-396. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19930041
  7. Erwin E, Marco G, Emery E. 1961. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science 44:1768-1771. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(61)89956-6
  8. Horwitz W. 2000. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  9. Kim DA, Kim MC, Chun BU, Shin CN, Kwon CN, Kim JS, Lim SH. 1998. Evaluaton of the government recommended forage cultivars in Korea V. Forage performance and quality of Italian ryegrass cultivars. Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science 18 :11-18. [in Korean]
  10. Kim HJ, Ki KS, Jang SS, Yang SH, Lee EM, Kang DH, Park BH, Kwon EG, Chung KY. 2018. Effects of Italian ryegrass diet on the performance, carcass characteristics, and blood metabolites of Hanwoo steers. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 45:84-93. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/KJOAS.20170068
  11. Kim JG, Chung ES, Seo S, Kang WS, Ham JS, Kim DA. 2001. Effect of maturity at harvest on the changes in quality of round baled rye silage. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science 21:1-6. [in Korean]
  12. Lee HS, Lee ID. 2000. A comparative study of nutritive value of imported forage. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science 20:303-308. [in Korean]
  13. Licitra G, Hernandez T, Van Soest P. 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57:347-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
  14. Lima R, Lourenco M, Diaz RF, Castro A, Fievez E. 2010. Effect of combined ensiling of sorghum and soybean with or without molasses and lactobacilli on silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 155:122-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.10.008
  15. McDougall E. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099
  16. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  17. Raffrenato E, Fievisohn R, Cotanch KW, Grant RJ, Chase LE, Van Amburgh ME. 2017. Effect of lignin linkages with other plant cell wall components on in vitro and in vivo neutral detergent fiber digestibility and rate of digestion of grass forages. Journal of Dairy Science 100:8119-8131. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12364
  18. Russell JB, O'Connor JD, Fox DG, Van Soest PJ, Sniffen CJ. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: I. Ruminal fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 70:3551-3561. https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113551x
  19. Seo IJ, Kim MH, Kim SD, Lee SR, Maeng WJ. 2005. Effects of fiber sources on ruminal pH, buffering capacity and digestibility in sheep. Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science 25:177-184. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2005.25.3.177
  20. Stallings CL, Stephanou NC, Chu L, Hochschild A, Nickels BE, Glickman MS. 2009. CarD is an essential regulator of rRNA transcription required for Mycobacterium tuberculosis persistence. Cell 138:146-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.041
  21. Sung KI, Lim YC, Woo MS. 2010. Promotion of forage utilization. In Agricultural Outlook 2010 II edited by Oh SI. pp. 695-721. Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju, Korea. [in Korean]
  22. Tebbe AW, Faulkner MJ, Weiss WP. 2017. Effect of partitioning the nonfiber carbohydrate fraction and neutral detergent fiber method on digestibility of carbohydrates by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100:6218-6228. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12719
  23. Undersander D, Moore E. 2002. Relative feed quality (RFQ) indexing legumes and grasses for forage quality. Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
  24. Van Soest PV, Robertson J, Lewis B. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2
  25. Weimer PJ. 1996. Why don't ruminal bacteria digest cellulose faster? Journal of Dairy Science 79:1496-1502. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76509-8
  26. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, Pierre NS. 1992. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 39:95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90034-4