Rumen Degradability of Barley, Oats, Sorghum, Triticale, and Wheat In Situ and the Effect of Pelleting
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animal Management
2.2. Sample Preparation and Incubation
2.3. Chemical Analysis
2.4. Calculations
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The Degradability of Grain Samples
3.2. The Effect of Pelleting on Degradability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Harper, K.J.; Tait, L.A.; Li, X.; Sullivan, M.L.; Gaughan, J.B.; Poppi, D.P.; Bryden, W.L. Livestock industries in Australia: Production systems and management. In Livestock: Production, Management Strategies and Challenges; Squires, V.R., Bryden, W.L., Eds.; NOVA Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 79–136. [Google Scholar]
- Huntington, G.B. Starch utilization by ruminants: From basics to the bunk. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 852–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Owens, F.N.; Zinn, R.A.; Kim, Y.K. Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. J. Anim. Sci. 1986, 63, 1634–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- White, C.L.; Ashes, J.R. A review of methods for assessing the protein value of grain fed to ruminants. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1999, 50, 855–870. [Google Scholar]
- Hristov, A.N.; Bannink, A.; Crompton, L.A.; Huhtanen, P.; Kreuzer, M.; McGee, M.; Nozière, P.; Reynolds, C.K.; Bayat, A.R.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.R. Nitrogen in ruminant nutrition: A review of measurement techniques. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 5811–5852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Owens, F.N.; Secrist, D.S.; Hill, W.J.; Gill, D.R. Acidosis in cattle: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, H.F.; Faciola, A.P. Ruminal acidosis, bacterial changes, and lipopolysaccharides. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dryden, G.M.L. Animal Nutrition Science; CABI: Wallingford: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ørskov, E.R.; McDonald, I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, X.; Kellaway, R.C.; Ison, R.L.; Annison, G. Chemical composition and nutritive value of mature annual legumes for sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1992, 37, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AFIA. Laboratory Methods Manual: A Reference Manual of Standard Methods for the Analysis of Fodder, Version 7; AFIA: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Krieg, J.; Seifried, N.; Steingass, H.; Rodehutscord, M. In situ and in vitro ruminal starch degradation of grains from different rye, triticale and barley genotypes. Animal 2017, 11, 1745–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalet-Doreau, B.; Cerneau, P. Influence of foodstuff particle size on in situ degradation of nitrogen in the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1991, 35, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindberg, J.E.; Knutsson, P.G. Effect of bag pore size on the loss of particulate matter and on the degradation of cell wall fibre. Agric. Environ. 1981, 6, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayres, J.F. Sources of error with in vitro digestibility assay of pasture feeds. Grass Forage Sci. 1991, 46, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, W.P. Estimation of digestibility of forages by laboratory methods. In Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization; Fahey, G.C., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1994; pp. 644–681. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. Plant cell wall chemistry: Implications for ruminant utilisation. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2021, 9, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rooney, L.W.; Pflugfelder, R.L. Factors affecting starch digestibility with special emphasis on sorghum and corn. J. Anim. Sci. 1986, 63, 1607–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nikokyris, P.N.; Kandylis, K. Feed protein fractions in various solvents of ruminant feedstuffs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1997, 75, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrera-Saldana, R.E.; Huber, J.T.; Poore, M.H. Dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradability of five cereal grains. J. Dairy Sci. 1990, 73, 2386–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batajoo, K.K.; Shaver, R.D. In situ dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradabilities of selected grains and by-product feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1998, 71, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prestløkken, E. In situ ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of dry matter and protein in expanded feedstuffs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999, 77, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevnebø, A.; Seppälä, A.; Harstad, O.M.; Huhtanen, P. Ruminal starch digestion characteristics in vitro of barley cultivars with varying amylose content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 148, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerneau, P.; Michalet-Doreau, B. In situ starch degradation of different feeds in the rumen. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 1991, 31, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDonnell, R.P.; Douglas, M.L.; Auldist, M.J.; Jacobs, J.L.; Wales, W.J. Rumen degradability characteristics of five starch-based concentrate supplements used on Australian dairy farms. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 1512–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mäkelä, M.J.; Laakso, S. Studies on oat starch with a celloscope: Granule size and distribution. Starch Stärk 1984, 36, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, G.M.; Utley, P.R. Digestibility, protein metabolism and ruminal degradation of Beagle 82 triticale and Kline barley fed in corn-based cattle diets. J. Anim. Sci. 1989, 67, 1793–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, W.A.; Du Plessis, G.S.; Griessel, A. Replacing maize grain with triticale grain in lactation diets for dairy cattle and fattening diets for steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1994, 49, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogel, A.M.; Annison, E.F.; Bryden, W.L.; Balnave, D. The digestion of wheat starch in broiler chickens. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1987, 38, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Offner, A.; Bach, A.; Sauvant, D. Quantitative review of in situ starch degradation in the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2003, 106, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selle, P.H.; Cadogan, D.J.; Li, X.; Bryden, W.L. Implications of sorghum in broiler chicken nutrition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 156, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyachoti, C.M.; Atkinson, J.L.; Leeson, S. Sorghum tannins: A review. World's Poult. Sci. J. 1997, 53, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaghi, A.; Larsen, M.; Lund, P.; Weisbjerg, M.R. Effect of conventional and extrusion pelleting on in situ ruminal degradability of starch, protein, and fibre in cattle. Livest. Sci. 2016, 185, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theurer, C.B. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 1986, 63, 1649–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ørskov, E.R.; Fraser, C.; McHattie, I. Cereal processing and food utilization by sheep 2. A note on the effect of feeding unprocessed barley, maize, oats and wheat on food utilization by early-weaned lambs. Anim. Sci. 1974, 18, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grubješić, G.; Titze, N.; Krieg, J.; Rodehutscord, M. Determination of in situ ruminal crude protein and starch degradation values of compound feeds from single feeds. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 73, 414–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ingredients | DM | Starch | CP |
---|---|---|---|
Barley | |||
Ground | 910 | 520 | 121 |
Pelleted | 920 | 520 | 121 |
Oats | |||
Ground | 920 | 410 | 83 |
Sorghum | |||
Ground | 910 | 570 | 120 |
Pelleted | 910 | 540 | 116 |
Triticale | |||
Ground | 920 | 550 | 96 |
Wheat 1 | |||
Ground | 930 | 560 | 109 |
Pelleted | 920 | 540 | 121 |
Wheat 2 | |||
Ground | 920 | 530 | 128 |
Pelleted | 920 | 530 | 140 |
Dry Matter | |||||
Grains (fine) | a (%) | b (%) | Kd | ED (%) | R2 |
Barley | 39.6 d | 48.6 b | 0.39 a | 82.4 b | 0.97 ab |
Oats | 61.4 a | 25.7 f | 0.11 b | 78.1 c | 0.95 b |
Sorghum | 19.4 e | 80.5 a | 0.05 b | 54.6 e | 0.98 ab |
Triticale | 40.7 d | 34.9 e | 0.11 b | 63.1 d | 0.96 ab |
Wheat 1 | 53.7 b | 39.4 d | 0.32 a | 86.8 a | 0.99 a |
Wheat 2 | 49.5 c | 42.3 c | 0.39 a | 85.9 a | 0.98 ab |
SEM | 3.43 | 4.24 | 0.04 | 3.67 | 0.005 |
p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.05 |
Starch | |||||
Grains (fine) | a (%) | b (%) | Kd | ED (%) | R2 |
Barley | 43.3 e | 55.2 b | 0.64 a | 93.6 b | 0.99 |
Oats | 94.8 a | 4.5 f | 0.22 cd | 98.3 a | 0.97 |
Sorghum | 16.3 f | 88.4 a | 0.05 d | 57.3 d | 0.98 |
Triticale | 68.7 c | 33.0 d | 0.39 bc | 94.7 bc | 0.98 |
Wheat 1 | 65.5 d | 33.04 c | 0.54 ab | 95.2 bc | 0.99 |
Wheat 2 | 72.4 b | 27.3 e | 0.66 a | 97.2 ab | 0.99 |
SEM | 5.67 | 6.20 | 0.07 | 4.29 | 0.003 |
p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.062 |
Protein | |||||
Grains (fine) | a (%) | b (%) | c | ED (%) | R2 |
Barley | 30.9 b | 68.3 c | 0.19 bc | 82.3 b | 0.97 ab |
Oats | 77.2 a | 21.3 d | 0.19 bc | 93.7 a | 0.95 ab |
Sorghum | 18.0 cd | 100.5 a | 0.04 d | 54.8 b | 0.93 b |
Triticale | 21.5 c | 81.2 a | 0.12 c | 75.2 c | 0.94 ab |
Wheat 1 | 15.3 d | 83.0 b | 0.28 a | 83.3 b | 0.98 a |
Wheat 2 | 20.4 c | 78.6 b | 0.26 ab | 82.8 b | 0.96 ab |
SEM | 1.63 | 3.14 | 0.028 | 3.22 | 0.009 |
p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.05 |
DM | Starch | CP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grain | a% | ED% | a% | ED% | a% | ED% |
Barley | ||||||
Ground | 39.6 | 81.5 | 43.3 | 93.6 | 30.9 | 82.3 |
Pelleted | 37.8 | 82.4 | 42.8 | 93.8 | 23.8 | 79.2 |
SEM | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.16 | 0.38 | 1.54 | 1.27 |
p | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | <0.01 | >0.05 |
Sorghum | ||||||
Ground | 19.4 | 54.6 | 16.3 | 57.3 | 18.0 | 54.8 |
Pelleted | 32.6 | 60.1 | 26.8 | 61.5 | 12.6 | 51.9 |
SEM | 2.56 | 1.59 | 2.12 | 1.53 | 1.35 | 0.68 |
p | <0.01 | >0.05 | <0.01 | >0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Wheat 1 | ||||||
Ground | 53.7 | 86.8 | 65.5 | 95.2 | 15.3 | 83.3 |
Pelleted | 28.9 | 84.4 | 27.6 | 93.8 | 15.4 | 81.8 |
SEM | 4.69 | 0.51 | 7.16 | 0.33 | 1.04 | 0.69 |
p | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Wheat 2 | ||||||
Ground | 49.5 | 85.9 | 72.4 | 97.2 | 20.4 | 82.6 |
Pelleted | 41.1 | 83.7 | 43.5 | 95.6 | 25.7 | 78.1 |
SEM | 1.6 | 0.59 | 5.46 | 0.36 | 1.33 | 1.51 |
p | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pan, L.; Huang, K.H.; Middlebrook, T.; Zhang, D.; Bryden, W.L.; Li, X. Rumen Degradability of Barley, Oats, Sorghum, Triticale, and Wheat In Situ and the Effect of Pelleting. Agriculture 2021, 11, 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070647
Pan L, Huang KH, Middlebrook T, Zhang D, Bryden WL, Li X. Rumen Degradability of Barley, Oats, Sorghum, Triticale, and Wheat In Situ and the Effect of Pelleting. Agriculture. 2021; 11(7):647. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070647
Chicago/Turabian StylePan, Liyi, Kim H. Huang, Todd Middlebrook, Dagong Zhang, Wayne L. Bryden, and Xiuhua Li. 2021. "Rumen Degradability of Barley, Oats, Sorghum, Triticale, and Wheat In Situ and the Effect of Pelleting" Agriculture 11, no. 7: 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070647