www.elsevier.com / locate / livprodsci
Protein and protein-free dry matter rumen degradability in
buffalo, cattle and sheep fed diets with different forage to
concentrate ratios
1
*
S. Terramoccia , S. Bartocci, A. Amici , F. Martillotti
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, Via Salaria 31, 00016 Monterotondo Sc., Rome, Italy
Received 28 July 1998; received in revised form 29 June 1999; accepted 27 September 1999
Abstract
The in sacco protein and protein-free dry matter rumen degradability of three feeds, concentrate, alfalfa hay and maize silage, was determined simultaneously in three animal species: four Mediterranean buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) bulls, four Friesian bulls and four Delle Langhe rams, which received four diets differing in forage:concentrate ratio (1587.5:12.5;
0.75
2575.0:25.0; 3562.5:37.5; 4550.0:50.0) at the level of 50 g DM / kg per day. The three feeds, which composed the four diets, were incubated in the rumen for 0, 2, 4, 8, 24, 48 and 72 (120 only for hay) hours. The solids passage rate values
21
k , utilized to compute the effective degradability of the three feeds, were: 2.80, 2.42, 2.39 and 2.24 g / 100 g h1 for buffalo;
21 21
3.57, 2.82, 2.86 and 2.67 g / 100 g h for cattle; 3.07, 2.88, 2.84 and 2.57 g / 100 g h for sheep, obtained with the four diets. Significant differences were found among the three species with regard to crude protein and protein-free dry matter rumen degradability for the three feeds, with the exception of alfalfa hay for the last parameter. The lowest values were recorded in cattle and sheep compared to buffalo (crude protein rumen degradability: 58.8 and 62.8 vs. 64.8 g / 100 g concentrate, 57.0 and 56.4 vs. 62.7 g / 100 g hay, 58.7 and 60.7 vs. 68.6 g / 100 g maize silage; protein-free dry matter rumen degradability: 64.1 and 69.0 vs. 70.0 g / 100 g concentrate, 48.2 and 48.5 vs. 49.2 g / 100 g hay; 56.0 and 58.6 vs. 64.8 g / 100 g maize silage). The effective rumen degradability has also been calculated utilizing the theoretical passage rate constants
21 21
(k153 g / 100 g h for forages and k156 g / 100 g h for concentrate); the estimation of differences among species was not affected by the use of experimental or theoretical k for both effective crude protein rumen degradability of utilized1 forages and effective protein-free dry matter rumen degradability of maize silage. Two correlations were considered: between degradation rate constant ‘‘c’’ and passage rate constant ‘‘k ’’ of solid or fluid values as well as between the1 degradable fraction degraded per unit of time ‘‘(b / 100)*c’’ and passage rate constant ‘‘k ’’ of solid and fluid values. The1
largest number of significant values for crude protein was recorded in sheep and buffalo while largest numbers were recorded in cattle for protein-free dry matter. 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Buffalo; Cattle; Sheep; Rumen degradability
*Corresponding author. Tel.:139-6-900-901; fax:139-6-9061-541.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Terramoccia)
1
`
Present address: Istituto di Zootecnia, Universita della Tuscia, Via de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy.
1. Introduction compare the protein and protein-free dry matter degradability of three feeds in rumen of cattle, The protein rumen degradability, representing one buffalo and sheep and the relationship between the of the most important features in animal feeding, has rumen degradation rate and the passage rate of solids been studied for many years (Chalupa, 1975; Smith, and fluids.
1975; Ørskov and McDonald, 1979; Tamminga, 1979; Verite et al., 1987) and continues to be studied
up to the present. In order to measure the amount of 2. Materials and methods
undegraded protein, especially for proteinous feeds,
the rumen degradability of protein has become one The experiment was carried out on four Mediterra-of the most significant parameters in the new feed nean buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) bulls (417.1614.2 evaluation systems: AFRC (1992), NRC (1985) and kg), four Friesian bulls (509.2633.7 kg) and four INRA (1988). With regard to rumen degradation, Delle Langhe rams (70.664.4 kg), fitted with soft only cattle and sheep are more frequently studied silicone ruminal cannulas (10 cm internal diameter while experimental data regarding buffalo species is for buffalo and cattle, 4 cm internal diameter for very limited; a few trials on buffalo protein rumen rams; Bar Diamond, Parma, ID, USA) and fed four degradability have been carried out in Asia (Kumar diets with different forage:concentrate ratios (15
and Walli, 1988; Chaubility et al., 1991) and in 87.5:12.5; 2575.0:25.0; 3562.5:37.5; 45
0.75
Europe (Infascelli et al., 1995). Moreover, regarding 50.0:50.0). The animals received 50 g DM / kg carbohydrate rumen degradability, less data is avail- per day (adaptation period: 15 days) and the diets able for all ruminants. had the same crude protein content (140 g / kg DM). According to Bartocci et al. (1997) buffalo retains The feeds utilized in the diets were alfalfa hay and ingesta in the rumen–reticulum longer than cattle, maize silage (always given in the same ratio, 65:35 although the retention time in the whole digestive on the DM basis), and pelletted concentrate. The tract was less, due to the shorter residence time in chemical composition of feeds and diets were de-the gut. In addition, de-the different rumen microflora in termined according to Martillotti et al. (1987). the two species (Puppo and Grandoni, 1994; Puppo The same feeds (concentrate and alfalfa hay, et al., 1999) and different ruminal contractions, milled on screen [ 2.5 mm, and chopped maize which are more intense in buffalo than cattle (Ken- silage, frozen and ground for 20 s on screen [ 5 nedy et al., 1992), could have an influence on protein mm), used in the formulation of the four diets, were and carbohydrate rumen degradation. incubated separately in the rumen, using the nylon These above mentioned characteristics have de- bag technique (3 g DM of duplicated samples for termined the opportunity to verify the differences each incubation time; bag pore size 41mm, bag total
2
among animal species regarding the rumen degra- surface area 320 cm , width:length ratio 1:1.6, round
dation of nutrients. base).
As the relationship between the rumen degradation To establish the differences between the species, rate and the rumen passage rate constant of solids the degradation value at zero time was obtained by was verified only in cattle and sheep (Martz and inserting the bags into the rumen for 3 min; the other Belyea, 1986; Shaver et al., 1988; Susmel et al., incubation times were 2, 4, 8, 24, 48 and 72 (120 1990b), the comparison of both these parameters was only for hay) h. The zero time bags were washed by taken into account in the case of buffalo. Regarding hand with cold water and all the other bags in the the relation between the rumen degradation rate and washing machine with cold water for 15 min and the rumen passage rate constant of fluids, no refer- subjected to centrifugation; then they were dried ence was found for ruminants. overnight at 658C in a forced-air oven, according to
also calculated to determine the rumen degradability cattle received 300 g alfalfa hay mordanted with ´
at different incubation times. Na Cr O2 2 7 according to Uden et al. (1980) pro-Rumen degradability of crude protein was ob- cedure, and 50 g of Co-EDTA dissolved in 300 ml tained by (CP12CP ) / CP2 13100, whereas the distilled water while rams received 75 g mordanted protein-free dry matter degradability at different alfalfa hay and 20 g Co-EDTA dissolved in 100 ml incubation times was calculated by the following distilled water. Grab samples of faeces were
col-equation: lected at 0, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26,
28, 34, 40, 44, 48, 54, 60, 68, 80, 92, 104, 116, 128, (DM 2CP )2(DM 2CP ) /(DM 2CP )3
f 1 1 2 2 g 1 1 140 and 152 h post dosing. Faeces were dried and
100 after mineralization at 4508C, were solubilized and
analyzed for Cr and Co by atomic absorption accord-where DM , CP are DM and CP (g) of feed before1 1 ing to the Williams et al. (1962) method. The k
1
incubation and DM , CP are DM and CP (g) after2 2 values for solid particles were obtained with the
incubation, respectively.
multicompartmental model (Dhanoa et al., 1985) The amount of degraded carbohydrates (structural
while the k1 for fluids were obtained by the G4 and unstructural) can be obtained by multiplying
model (Pond et al., 1988) as reported by Amici et al. PFDMD (as calculated below) with the sum of crude
(1997). fiber and nitrogen free extracts; this parameter thus
Statistical differences among the species or the obtained is necessary, together with that of degraded
diets were found by analysis of variance using a crude protein, for the purpose of estimating the
monofactorial model by SAS / GLM procedure; fur-amount of digestible protein in the gut of microbial
thermore a bifactorial model (factor species: buffalo, origin (ASPA Feeding Commission, 1994).
cattle, sheep; factor passage rate constant: ex-Each set of data were fitted using the following
perimental k , theoretical k ) has also been utilized1 1
exponential model (Ørskov and McDonald, 1979):
to estimate the effect of both considered factors on effective degradability.
dg(t)5a1b* 1f 2exp (2c*t)g
Since the values regarding the passage rate con-where ‘‘dg(t)’’ is the rumen degradability at time stant k for fluids were obtained in tandem with k
1 1
‘‘t’’, ‘‘a’’ is the rapidly soluble fraction at zero time, values for solids, correlations between ‘‘c’’ and ‘‘(b / corresponding to the first value of the asymptotic 100)*c’’ (as amount of the degradable fraction curve on the ordinate axis, ‘‘b’’ was the potentially degraded per unit of time) vs. ‘‘k ’’ either for solids
1
degradable fraction, ‘‘c’’ was the degradation rate or for fluids were executed using the SAS / CORR constant of fraction ‘‘b’’ and ‘‘t’’ was the incubation procedure.
time; the procedure used was SAS / NLIN, Marquardt algorithm (SAS, 1993).
The effective rumen degradability of crude protein 3. Results and discussion (CPD) and protein-free dry matter (PFDMD) was
obtained by following equation: 3.1. Chemical composition of diets and passage rate constants of solid particles and fluids a1fb*c /(c1k )1 g
Table 1
a
Dry matter (g / kg as fed) and chemical composition (g / kg DM) of incubated feeds utilized in experimental diets
DM CP CF EE NSC Ash NDF ADF ADL
Feeds
Concentrate 902.0 144.2 80.2 24.0 491.5 87.0 253.3 108.7 31.4
Alfalfa hay 873.4 162.5 344.1 12.0 195.5 89.8 540.2 409.2 99.4
Maize silage 336.7 90.3 224.5 27.1 324.3 51.3 507.0 285.2 41.5
Diets( forage:conc.)
(1) (87.5: 12.5) 710.0 138.1 273.8 18.1 268.8 77.7 497.3 333.7 73.2
(2) (75.0: 25.0) 739.4 138.9 246.7 18.9 304.2 79.0 459.0 301.5 67.1
(3) (62.5: 37.5) 762.0 139.8 218.9 19.6 335.7 79.8 425.1 268.7 61.1
(4) (50.0: 50.0) 793.7 140.7 189.2 20.6 367.0 81.7 390.0 237.3 55.3
a
DM5Dry matter; CP5crude protein; CF5crude fiber; EE5ether extract; NSC5non-structural carbohydrates; NDF5neutral detergent fiber; ADF5acid detergent fiber; ADL5acid detergent lignin.
Table 2 shows the solid marker (Cr) and fluid considering the passage rate of fluids, the buffalo had 21
marker (Co) passage rate constant k of the four diets1 a wider variation (from 7.95 to 6.12 g / 100 g h for 21
in the rumen–reticulum of the three species. buffalo, from 7.52 to 6.01 g / 100 g h for cattle and 21
Considering the solid particles, cattle showed a from 7.48 to 6.41 g / 100 g h for sheep). wider variation of k than the other two species from1
21
diet 1 to diet 4 (from 3.57 to 2.67 g / 100 g h for 3.2. Protein rumen degradation 21
cattle, from 2.80 to 2.24 g / 100 g h for buffalo and 21
from 3.07 to 2.57 g / 100 g h for sheep) while, Table 3 shows values of the ‘‘a’’, ‘‘b’’ and ‘‘c’’ parameters of the Ørskov and McDonald (1979) model, defining the kinetics of the crude protein Table 2
degradation curves for each feed examined in the Solid marker (Cr) and fluid marker (Co) passage rate constant k1
21 three animal species for all four diets.
(g / 100 g h ) of the four diets in the rumen–reticulum of the
1 Considering the rapidly soluble fraction ‘‘a’’, the
three species
maize silage had a higher overall mean value than Diets n Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E.
the other two feeds (47.8 vs. 24.4 and 27.4 g / 100 g Marker Cr
for concentrate and alfalfa hay). Regarding animal 2
1 4 2.80 3.57 3.07 3.15 a
species, the ‘‘a’’ value of buffalo is almost always
2 4 2.42 2.82 2.88 2.71 ab
higher than that of cattle and sheep; no statistical
3 4 2.39 2.86 2.84 2.70 ab
4 4 2.24 2.67 2.57 2.49 b difference has been recorded for concentrate or 0.17 alfalfa hay, while there was a statistical difference
Mean 2.46 b 2.98 a 2.84 ab 0.15 (P,0.05) in chopped maize silage between buffalo and cattle (52.8 vs. 42.8 g / 100 g). Values obtained in
Marker Co cattle, fed a diet having the same composition of diet
1 4 7.95 7.52 7.48 7.65 a
4 (Susmel et al., 1990a) were quite close to our
2 4 7.44 6.37 7.05 6.95 b
values with respect to alfalfa hay (37.1 vs. 36.9
3 4 6.43 6.40 6.76 6.53 bc
4 4 6.12 6.01 6.41 6.18 c g / 100 g) and maize silage (56.4 vs. 51.3 g / 100 g). 0.19 Infascelli et al. (1995) found higher ‘‘a’’ values in
buffalo than sheep and the differences between the
Mean 6.98 6.58 6.92 0.34
1 two species were always statistically significant.
The mean values of this data were reported by Bartocci et al.
These results could indicate a better efficiency of (1997).
2
Table 3
Parameters of kinetics according to the Ørskov and McDonald model for the crude protein rumen degradation
21
Diet ‘‘a’’ (g / 100 g) ‘‘b’’ (g / 100 g) ‘‘c’’ (h )
Buffalo Cattle Sheep Buffalo Cattle Sheep Buffalo Cattle Sheep
Concentrate
1 20.1 19.6 18.4 73.5 71.1 68.7 0.040 0.030 0.052
2 22.0 19.8 19.9 71.8 71.0 68.4 0.036 0.029 0.049
3 25.3 28.1 24.5 68.7 66.7 64.3 0.033 0.029 0.042
4 32.0 32.5 30.0 62.9 65.0 61.3 0.026 0.028 0.031
1
Mean 24.9 25.0 23.2 69.2 68.4 65.7 0.034 ab 0.029 b 0.044 a
S.E. 2.8 1.9 0.003
Overall mean 24.4 67.8 0.035
Alfalfa hay
1 17.2 19.0 17.6 59.9 57.3 55.6 0.079 0.058 0.070
2 24.8 24.8 25.1 52.3 47.2 48.2 0.066 0.052 0.053
3 34.0 27.8 26.4 43.4 48.0 46.6 0.049 0.050 0.052
4 36.9 36.9 37.7 43.1 41.0 36.3 0.035 0.034 0.028
Mean 28.2 27.1 26.7 49.7 48.4 46.7 0.057 0.048 0.051
S.E. 4.1 3.8 0.008
Overall mean 27.4 48.2 0.052
Maize silage
1 47.0 36.6 38.5 29.1 30.8 30.4 0.070 0.063 0.065
2 53.7 37.9 48.8 22.6 29.7 20.2 0.045 0.051 0.033
3 54.5 45.3 50.8 22.6 22.9 22.3 0.039 0.048 0.025
4 56.1 51.3 52.9 22.5 18.6 20.4 0.035 0.035 0.023
Mean 52.8 a 42.8 b 47.8 ab 24.2 25.5 23.4 0.047 0.049 0.036
S.E. 2.9 2.4 0.008
Overall mean 47.8 24.4 0.044
1
a, b: P,0.05.
The values of potentially degradable fraction ‘‘b’’ reflect the real passage rate of feeds. The effective were: 67.8 g / 100 g for concentrate, 48.2 g / 100 g for crude protein rumen degradability of the utilized alfalfa hay and 24.4 g / 100 g for maize silage feeds is reported in Table 4. Significant differences (overall mean); and no statistical differences, among (P,0.05) were observed between buffalo and cattle the species, were recorded. for concentrate (64.8 vs. 58.8 g / 100 g, respectively) Examining the degradation rate constant ‘‘c’’, the and an intermediate value (62.8 g / 100 g) was
21
overall mean values were 0.035, 0.052 and 0.044 h obtained for sheep. Murphy and Kennelly (1987), in for concentrate, hay and maize silage, respectively; a study on the rumen degradation in cattle, found an statistical differences (P,0.05) were obtained only average protein rumen degradability differing from
21
for concentrate: the sheep gave a value of 0.044 h our data by about only one percentage point (60.1 vs. 21
significantly different from cattle (0.029 h ) while 58.8 g / 100 g).
an intermediate value was recorded in buffalo (0.034 The values of crude protein rumen degradability of 21
h ). concentrate in cattle, compared to that of buffalo and
Table 4
Effective crude protein rumen degradability of the three feeds
Diet Concentrate Alfalfa hay Maize silage
Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E. Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E. Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E.
1 63.3 51.8 61.7 59.0 61.5 54.5 56.2 57.4 67.8 56.3 59.1 61.1
2 64.8 56.0 62.9 61.2 63.0 55.4 56.4 58.3 68.4 57.1 59.6 61.7
3 64.9 61.7 63.0 63.2 63.1 58.3 56.4 59.3 68.5 59.7 61.3 63.2
4 66.0 65.8 63.6 65.1 2.3 63.1 59.9 56.8 60.0 2.1 69.8 61.9 62.6 64.8 3.0
1
Mean 64.8 a 58.8 b 62.8 ab 62.7 A 57.0 B 56.4 B 68.6 A 58.7 B 60.7 B
S.E. 1.8 0.8 0.9
1
A, B: P,0.01; a, b: P,0.05.
dietary changes than the other species when the activity of buffalo with respect to the other two concentrate content in the diet was increased. species and that the total amount of amino acids The crude protein degradability of hay was sig- absorbed in the gut deriving from undegraded feed nificantly different (P,0.01) between the buffalo protein is unquestionably higher in cattle and also and the other two species, cattle and sheep (62.7 vs. that in buffalo rumen more ammonia nitrogen is 57.0 and 56.4 g / 100 g); considering the cattle, a available.
21
similar protein rumen degradability value of alfalfa If the theoretical k (0.03 h1 for forage and 0.06 21
hay (60.8 g / 100 g) was obtained by Erdman et al. h for concentrate) is used instead of experimental
(1987). k1, similar degradability values and the same
signifi-A
The crude protein rumen degradation of hay in the cant differences for alfalfa hay (60.6 for buffalo;
B B
four diets demonstrated the same trend as concen- 57.0 for cattle; 55.9 for sheep, P,0.01) and for
A B
trate, but had a lower variability for the three maize silage (67.5 for buffalo; 58.7 for cattle;
B
species: 62.5 for cattle, 60.8 for buffalo and 60.2 60.3 for sheep, P,0.01) would be obtained; on the
for sheep. contrary, for concentrate, the degradability values are
A highly significant difference (P,0.01), relative lower without any statistical difference among them to the crude protein degradability of maize silage (50.6 for buffalo; 47.3 for cattle; 50.7 for sheep). was observed between buffalo compared to cattle Consequently the effect of the change from k ,1
and sheep (68.6 vs. 58.7 and 60.7 g / 100 g, respec- experimentally estimated, to theoretical k is noticed1
tively). Miller (1981) and Susmel et al. (1989,1990a) only for concentrate, regarding both numeric values obtained values comparable to the above reported and statistical differences.
results. The lowest value was recorded in cattle (58.7 Furthermore, dividing the effect of factor species g / 100 g) and its standard deviation (62.5) was the from the effect of passage rate constant k1 (ex-highest, as observed in the other two feeds incubated perimental or theoretical) on effective crude protein in the same species. rumen degradability, the effect of factor species was It is important to emphasise that the highest rumen significant (P,0.05 for concentrate and P,0.01 for protein degradation was always obtained in buffalo, the two forages). The effect of factor k1 was not as Infascelli et al. (1995) had also found in a significant for alfalfa hay or maize silage but was comparative study between buffalo and sheep. It is significant for concentrate only (P,0.01). Conse-likely that the k value for the buffaloes, which was1 quently, the utilization of experimental or theoretical lower than in the other two species (2.46 vs. 2.98 k1 caused no variation on the estimation of
de-21
and 2.84 g / 100 g h , see Table 2), due to a longer gradability differences for forages only.
numeri-cal increase in the crude protein degradability, were higher than in buffalo and sheep, although although these differences were never significant. significant differences between species (P,0.05) were recorded only for hay (23.8 vs. 22.7 and 19.8 3.3. Protein-free dry matter (PFDM) rumen g / 100 g); on the contrary, the maize silage showed a degradation different trend without any significant difference.
The results of overall mean of the potentially The values of parameters ‘‘a’’, ‘‘b’’ and ‘‘c’’, degradable fraction ‘‘b’’ were the following: 56.0, obtained with the Ørskov and McDonald (1979) 36.9 and 39.4 g / 100 g for concentrate, alfalfa hay model, defining the kinetics of the protein-free dry and maize silage, respectively and a significant matter degradation curves for each feed examined in difference (P,0.05) between the species was re-all three animal species are shown in Table 5. corded only for maize silage (42.9 for buffalo vs.
Considering the three feeds, alfalfa hay showed 38.2 for cattle and 37.2 g / 100 g for sheep). the lowest values of rapidly soluble fraction, ‘‘a’’5 Furthermore, considering the overall mean values 22.1 (overall mean) vs. 25.4 and 36.5 g / 100 g, of the degradation rate constant ‘‘c’’, the values of respectively for concentrate and maize silage. concentrate, hay and maize silage were 0.083, 0.072
21
Comparing the species, the rapidly soluble fraction and 0.040 h , respectively and highly significant ‘‘a’’ values of concentrate and alfalfa hay in cattle differences (P,0.01) were recorded for all feeds.
Table 5
Parameters of kinetics according to the Ørskov and McDonald model for protein free dry matter rumen degradation
21
Diet ‘‘a’’ (g / 100 g) ‘‘b’’ (g / 100 g) ‘‘c’’ (h )
Buffalo Cattle Sheep Buffalo Cattle Sheep Buffalo Cattle Sheep
Concentrate
1 22.7 23.4 19.3 60.0 58.0 60.0 0.095 0.069 0.120
2 23.8 27.6 20.8 59.6 54.6 60.1 0.084 0.057 0.117
3 25.1 30.0 23.4 58.9 52.8 57.7 0.079 0.056 0.108
4 33.1 33.2 32.6 51.6 49.8 48.7 0.059 0.054 0.092
1
Mean 26.2 28.6 24.0 57.5 53.8 56.6 0.079 B 0.059 B 0.109 A
S.E. 2.5 2.2 0.006
Overall mean 25.4 56.0 0.083
Alfalfa hay
1 20.4 23.2 18.2 38.6 36.1 38.3 0.070 0.069 0.101
2 23.0 23.8 18.6 36.3 35.8 38.2 0.058 0.062 0.101
3 23.3 24.0 20.7 36.6 36.1 36.7 0.056 0.062 0.095
4 24.2 24.3 21.5 38.0 36.0 36.1 0.055 0.056 0.084
Mean 22.7 a 23.8 a 19.8 b 37.4 36.0 37.3 0.060 B 0.062 B 0.095 A
S.E. 0.7 0.5 0.003
Overall mean 22.1 36.9 0.072
Maize silage
1 32.9 32.9 34.7 45.5 39.3 39.6 0.052 0.038 0.037
2 35.0 34.1 35.9 43.6 39.6 38.6 0.050 0.038 0.036
3 36.9 36.2 37.0 42.3 38.0 39.5 0.049 0.034 0.035
4 40.1 38.4 44.0 40.3 36.1 31.1 0.046 0.028 0.035
Mean 36.2 35.4 37.9 42.9 a 38.2 b 37.2 b 0.049 A 0.035 B 0.036 B
S.E. 1.6 1.4 0.002
Overall mean 36.5 39.4 0.040
1
21
Comparing the species, the highest values of ‘‘c’’ If the theoretical k is used (0.03 h1 for forage 21
were obtained in sheep for the concentrate and hay, and 0.06 h for concentrate) instead of experimental and resulted statistically different (P,0.01) from k , it would have similar but no statistically different1
buffalo and cattle (0.109, 0.095 vs. 0.079, 0.060 and values of degradability for alfalfa hay (47.6 for 21
0.059, 0.062 h ). For maize silage, the highest buffalo; 48.1 for cattle; 48.1 for sheep); similar and value was obtained with buffalo, statistically differ- statistically different values of degradability for
A C
ent (P,0.01) from cattle and sheep (0.049 vs. 0.035 maize silage (62.9 for buffalo; 55.8 for cattle;
21 B
and 0.036 h ). 58.2 for sheep, P,0.01), while, for concentrate, the
Table 6 reports the PFDM effective rumen de- degradability values would be lower with significant
B C A
gradability values of the three considered feeds for differences (58.8 for buffalo; 55.2 for cattle; 60.6 the three species obtained using the same k values.1 for sheep, P,0.01). Likewise in this case, the effect
When the three species were statistically analyzed, of the k1 change is observed only for concentrate, PFDM rumen degradation of concentrate showed regarding both numeric values and statistical differ-significant difference (P,0.01) between buffalo and ences.
sheep vs. cattle (70.0, 69.0 vs. 64.1 g / 100 g). The Dividing the effect of the two factors (species and highest increase of degradability of concentrate, from experimental or theoretical k ) on effective protein-1
diet 1 to diet 4, was recorded in cattle (from 61.5 to free dry matter rumen degradability, the effect of 66.6 g / 100 g); thus reporting a wider standard species was significant for both concentrate and deviation (62.6) as also observed for protein de- maize silage (P,0.01) but not for alfalfa hay. The
gradability. effect of factor k1 was not significant for maize
Comparing the PFDM rumen degradability of hay, silage but was significant for concentrate (P,0.01) no significant difference was recorded among the and for alfalfa hay (P50.046). Consequently the use three species; also in this case, the highest value was of experimental or theoretical k did not affect the1
recorded in buffalo compared to cattle and sheep estimation of degradability differences for maize (49.2 vs. 48.2 and 48.5 g / 100 g); while the PFDM silage only.
rumen degradability values of maize silage in the The cattle degrade protein-free dry matter in lesser buffalo was significantly higher (P,0.01) than in quantity than buffalo, therefore the latter has a high cattle and sheep: 64.8 vs. 56.0 and 58.6 g / 100 g, amount of rapidly fermentescible carbohydrates
respectively. which together with a greater amount of ammonia
The ASPA Feeding Commission (1994), utilizing nitrogen, derived from the degradability of feed a diet with a composition similar to diet 2 used in protein, should increase the ruminal fermentation as this experiment, obtained, for PFDM degradability of also determined by Puppo et al. (1999).
cattle, a value of 48.1 g / 100 g for alfalfa hay and a Comparing the diets, the increase of concentrate in value of 56.4 g / 100 g for maize silage, similar to our the diet did not determine any significant difference
data. for degradability of concentrate and maize silage,
Table 6
Effective protein-free dry matter rumen degradability of the three feeds
Diet Concentrate Alfalfa hay Maize silage
Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E. Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E. Buffalo Cattle Sheep Mean S.E.
1 69.1 61.5 67.0 65.9 48.0 47.1 47.6 47.6 b 62.4 53.2 56.3 57.3
2 70.1 62.2 69.0 67.1 48.7 48.4 48.4 48.5 ab 64.4 56.8 57.2 59.5
3 70.3 66.0 69.1 68.5 49.0 48.6 48.9 48.8 ab 65.3 57.0 58.8 60.3
4 70.4 66.6 70.7 69.2 1.9 51.2 48.8 49.2 49.7 a 0.4 67.1 57.0 61.9 62.0 2.7
1
Mean 70.0 A 64.1 B 69.0 A 49.2 48.2 48.5 64.8 A 56.0 B 58.6 B
S.E. 0.9 0.5 1.1
1
Table 7 while a significant difference (P,0.05) was obtained
Correlation coefficients between degradation rate constant ‘‘c’’ for alfalfa hay.
and solid marker (Cr) and fluid marker (Co) passage rate ‘‘k ’’ and1
correlation coefficients between the amount of the degradable 3.4. Correlations between constant rate of fraction degraded per unit of time ‘‘(b / 100)*c’’ and solid marker degradation ‘‘c’’ with solids and fluids passage (Cr) and fluid marker (Co) passage rate ‘‘k ’’1
rate ‘‘k ’’1 Buffalo Cattle Sheep
Protein The mechanism of the passage rate from rumen–
Marker Cr
reticulum to the omaso of particles is still not 1
c vs. k1 Concentrate 0.91 0.68 0.97 * completely clear (Poncet, 1991). It could seem that
Hay 0.91 0.76 0.99 **
the transit of feeds (defined by ‘‘k ’’) depends on the1 Maize silage 0.98 * 0.89 0.84 critical value of the particle size (function also of b*c vs. k1 Concentrate 0.90 0.69 0.96 *
Hay 0.94 0.89 0.99 **
‘‘b’’ and ‘‘c’’), determining conditions under which
Maize silage 0.98 * 0.85 0.81 the passage of particles is possible (Kennedy and
Murphy, 1988), there is a probable difference among Marker Co
c vs. k Concentrate 0.94 0.74 0.96 *
species regarding the size of particles in the rumen; 1
Hay 0.99 * 0.80 0.96 *
in fact sheep have a slightly larger critical value than
Maize silage 0.90 0.92 0.91 cattle according to Martz and Belyea (1986); no b*c vs. k Concentrate 0.95 * 0.74 0.96 *
1
information exists for buffalo. Hay 0.99 ** 0.92 0.98 *
The correlations between ‘‘c’’ or ‘‘(b / 100)*c’’ Maize silage 0.85 0.89 0.88 (potential degradable fraction per unit of time) and
PFDM solids and fluids passage rate constant ‘‘k ’’ were1
Marker Cr calculated and the results are reported in Table 7.
c vs. k1 Concentrate 0.89 0.99 ** 0.96 * In general, the correlations between ‘‘c’’ and ‘‘k ’’1
Hay 0.98 * 0.96 * 0.93
were quite satisfactory, and sometimes significant for
Maize silage 0.91 0.65 0.88
both solids and fluids. b*c vs. k Concentrate 0.86 0.98 ** 0.94
1
Regarding the crude protein degradation, the re- Hay 0.94 0.96 * 0.92 Maize silage 0.93 0.63 0.95 * sults almost always showed significant correlation
coefficients ‘‘r’’ for sheep, less significant values for Marker Co
buffalo (with an overall mean of 0.94 for the two c vs. k1 Concentrate 0.90 0.99 ** 0.93
Hay 0.87 0.98 * 0.90
species) and no significance for cattle.
Maize silage 0.93 0.70 0.96 * On the contrary, regarding the PFDM degradation,
b*c vs. k1 Concentrate 0.88 0.99 ** 0.90 the best values of the correlation coefficient have Hay 0.79 0.98 * 0.92 been found in cattle for concentrate (0.99 for solids Maize silage 0.95 * 0.68 0.86 and fluids) and for hay (0.96 for solids and 0.98 for 1
** P,0.01; * P,0.05. fluids); in the other two species, the correlation
values were less satisfactory even if, in some cases,
significant. could have a ruminal behavior more similar to sheep
The correlations between ‘‘b / 100*c’’ vs. ‘‘k ’’1 than to cattle. parameters, sometimes improving the coefficient
‘‘r’’, confirmed the same trend.
From the results of Table 7, it is possible to 4. Conclusions
assume that the relation between the progressive
Kennedy, P.M., Murphy, M.R., 1988. The nutritional implications The experimental or theoretical passage rate
con-of differential passage con-of particles through the ruminant stant k1 can be used indifferently to estimate the alimentary tract. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1, 189–208.
effective crude protein rumen degradability of con- Kennedy, P.M., McSweeny, C.S., Ffoulkes, D., John, A., Schlink, sidered forages and the effective protein-free dry A.C., Le Feuvre, R.P., Kerr, J.D., 1992. Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle: 1. The digestion of rice straw matter rumen degradability of maize silage.
(Oryza sativa). J. Anim. Sci. Camb. 119, 227–242. The increment of concentrate in the diet always
Kumar, V., Walli, T.K., 1988. Rate and extent of dry matter shows an increase of rumen degradability, but with
disappearance and protein degradability of five cakes in buffalo significant difference only for PFDM degradation of rumen. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Buffalo Congress, pp.
alfalfa hay. 295–301.
Martillotti, F., Antongiovanni, M., Rizzi, L., Santi, E., Bittante, Regarding the correlations between the
degrada-G., 1987. Metodi di analisi per la valutazione degli alimenti tion rate of feeds and their passage rate, it could
d’impiego zootecnico. In: Quaderni Metodologici No. 8, CNR-appear that, in the transit of particles from rumen– IPRA, Rome.
reticulum to omaso, the buffalo is more similar to Martz, F.A., Belyea, R.L., 1986. Role of particle size and forage sheep than cattle. quality in digestion and passage by cattle and sheep. J. Dairy
Sci. 69, 1996–2008.
Miller, E.L., 1981. Methods of assessing protein for ruminants including laboratory methods. In: Miller, E.R., Pike, I.H., Van
References Es, A.J.K. (Eds.), Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs For
Ruminants, Butterworths, London.
AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, 1992. Murphy, J.J., Kennelly, J.J., 1987. Effect of protein concentration Report No. 9, Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals. and protein source on the degradability of dry matter and Protein. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 62, 787–835. protein in situ. J. Dairy Sci. 70, 1841–1849.
Amici, A., Bartocci, S., Terramoccia, S., Martillotti, F., 1997. NRC, 1985. Ruminant Nitrogen Usage, National Academy of Passage rate of solids and fluids in the digestive tract of Science, Washington, DC.
buffaloes, cattle and sheep: selection of non-linear model. Ørskov, E.R., McDonald, L., 1979. The estimation of protein Anim. Sci. 64, 63–69. degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements ASPA Feeding Commission ‘‘Proteine nella Nutrizione e nel- weighed according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 92,
l’’Alimentazione dei Poligastrici’’, 1994. Valutazione degli 499–503. `
alimenti di interesse zootecnico. 3. Degradabilita e valore Poncet, C., 1991. The outflow of particles from the reticulo– proteico degli alimenti per ruminanti. Zoot. Nutr. Anim. 20, rumen. In: Jouany, J.P. (Ed.), Rumen Microbial Metabolism
281–291. and Ruminant Digestion, INRA, Paris, pp. 297–322.
Bartocci, S., Amici, A., Verna, M., Terramoccia, S., Martillotti, F., Pond, K.R., Ellis, W.C., Matis, J.H., Ferreiro, H.M., Sutton, J.D., 1997. Solid and fluid of passage rate in buffalo, cattle and 1988. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta sheep fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. flow in cattle. Br. J. Nutr. 60, 571–595.
Livest. Prod. Sci. 52, 201–208. Puppo, S., Grandoni, F., 1994. Microflora ruminale in bufali Chalupa, W., 1975. Rumen by pass and protection of proteins and alimentati con diete fibrose. Agric. Ric 153, 123–126.
amino acids. J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1198–1218. Puppo, S., Amici, A., Grandoni, F., Bartocci, S., 1999. Rumen Chaubility, U.B., Gupta, R., Bird, S.H., Mudgal, V.D., 1991. In microbial counts and in vivo digestibility in buffaloes and
sacco dry matter disappearance of different protein cakes in the cattle fed different diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Techn. in press. rumen of male buffalo and their solubility in water. In: SAS, Statistical Analysis System Institute, 1993. SAS User’s Proceedings of the 3rd World Buffalo Congress, p. 165, Guide, Statistics, SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Abstract. Shaver, R.D., Satter, L.D., Jorgensen, N.A., 1988. Impact of Dhanoa, M.S., Siddons, R.C., France, J., Gale, D.L., 1985. A forage fiber content on digestion and digesta passage in
multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion pat- lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 71, 1556–1565.
terns in ruminant faeces. Br. J. Nutr. 53, 663–671. Smith, R.H., 1975. Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen and on the Erdman, R.A., Vandersall, J.H., Russek-Cohen, E., Switalski, G., composition and nutritive value of nitrogen compounds enter-1987. Simultaneous measures of rates of ruminal digestion and ing the duodenum. In: McDonald, I.W., Warner, A.C.I. (Eds.), passage of feeds for prediction of ruminal nitrogen and dry Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, The University of matter digestion in lactating dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 64, New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, pp. 399–416. 565–577. Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C.R., Colitti, M., 1989. The Infascelli, F., Di Lella, T., Piccolo, V., 1995. Dry matter, organic evaluation of PDI concentrations in some ruminal feeding-matter and crude protein degradability of high protein feeds in stuffs: a comparison of in situ and in vitro protein degradabili-buffaloes and sheep. Zoot. Nutr. Anim. 21 (Suppl.), 89–94. ty. Ann. Zootech. 38, 269–283.
INRA, 1988. Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins, INRA, Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C.R., Piasentier, E., 1990a.
`
macinazione e della setacciatura sulla degradabilitain situ della Verite, R., Michalet-Doreau, B., Chapoutot, P., Peyraud, J.L.,
´ ` ´
sostanza secca e dell’azoto. Zoot. Nutr. Anim. 16, 157–166. Poncet, C., 1987. Revision du systeme des proteines digestibles Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C.R., Spanghero, M., 1990b. dans l’intestin (PDI). Bull. Tech. CRZV, Theix, INRA 70,
Rumen degradability of organic matter, nitrogen and fiber 19–34.
fractions in forages. Anim. Prod. 51, 515–526. Williams, C.H., David, D.J., Ismaa, O., 1962. The determination Tamminga, S., 1979. Protein degradation in the forestomachs of of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption
ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 49, 1615–1630. spectrophotometry. J. Agric. Sci. 59, 381–385. ´
