Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:46:43.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models based on variable fractional digestion rates to describe ruminal in situ digestion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Jaap Van Milgen  and
René Baumont
Jaap Van Milgen
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherche sur la Nutrition des Herbivores, Centre de Clermont-Ferrand Theix, 63122, Saint Genès-Champanelle, France
René Baumont
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherche sur la Nutrition des Herbivores, Centre de Clermont-Ferrand Theix, 63122, Saint Genès-Champanelle, France
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Using a first-order model to describe ruminal in situ digestion implies that the rate of digestion is affected only by the quantity of potentially digestible substrate remaining. Other factors, like the microbial efficacy for digesting substrate, are assumed to be constant. However, microbes are not only the cause but also the result of digestion, being one of the digestion end-products. Two sigmoidal models (a logistic and a Gompertz-like model) were derived from a general digestion function in which the rate of digestion equals the product of the quantity of potentially digestible substrate remaining and a non-constant fractional rate of digestion (microbial efficacy function). The models were compared with a first-order model with a discrete lag time. The logistic model specifically accounted for the conversion of substrate mass to microbial mass, but did not describe microbial migration between the substrate and the ruminal fluid. In contrast, the Gompertz-like model assumed that the change in microbial efficacy was only time-dependent. There was little difference between models in estimates of scale parameters, but the asymptotic microbial efficacy was consistently higher for the logistic model than for the other models. Estimates of discrete lag time in the first-order model were biased towards obtaining values identical to the independent variable. Scale estimators appeared to be more robust than kinetic estimators. Lack-of-fit was present for most model-data set combinations. The similar patterns of residuals between models suggested that a four-parameter model may be insufficient to describe the data. It was concluded that if a four-parameter model is to be used, the model with a discrete lag time would be the least biologically appropriate.

Keywords

ModelsRumen digestionMicrobial activity

Information

Type
Models for ruminal digestion
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 73 , Issue 6 , June 1995 , pp. 793 - 807
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1995

References

Bates, D. M. & Watts, D. G. (1988). Nonlinear Regression Analysis and its Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P. & Lucas, H. L. (1959). Design of experiments in non-linear situations. Biormetrika 46, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, K.-J., Fay, J. P., Howarth, R. E. & Costerton, J. W. (1980). Sequence of events in the digestion of fresh legume leaves by rumen bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 40, 613–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesson, A. (1993). Mechanistic models of forage cell wall degradation. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility, pp. 347–376 [Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. and Ralph, J., editors]. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Chesson, A. & Forsberg, C. W. (1988). Polysaccharide degradation by rumen microorganisms. In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem, pp. 251–284 [Hobson, P. N. editor]. London: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Fadel, J. G. (1992 a). Application of theoretically optimal sampling schedule designs for fiber digestion estimation in sacco. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2184–2189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fadel, J. G. (1992 b). Simulation of traditional and optimal sampling schedule designs for digestion and passage model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 157, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J., Thornley, J. H. M., Lopez, S., Siddons, R. C., Dhanoa, M. S., Van Soest, P. J. & Gill, M. (1990). On the two-compartment model for estimating the rate and extent of feed degradation in the rumen. Journal of Theoretical Biology 146, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, I. (1981). A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. (1973). Application of theoretical mathematical models to cell wall digestion and forage intake in ruminant. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. & Loften, J. R. (1980). The effect of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passag. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Fadel, J. G. & Tamminga, S. (1986). Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Volume 2, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Sauvant, D., Bertrand, D. & Giger, S. (1985). Variations and prevision of the in sacco dry matter digestion of concentrates and by-products. Animal Feed Science and Technology 13, 7–23.Google Scholar
van Milgen, J. (1994). Autocatalytic models describing ruminal in situ digestion. Annales de Zootechnie 43, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Milgen, J., Berger, L. L. & Murphy, M. R. (1993). An integrated, dynamic model of feed hydration and digestion, and subsequent bacterial mass accumulation in the rume. British Journal of Nutrition 70, 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Milgen, J., Murphy, M. R. & Berger, L. L. (1991). A compartmental model to analyse ruminal digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2515–2529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wadsworth, J. C., Sriskandarajah, N. & Kellaway, R. C. (1983). Mathematical description of delays in onset of ruminal fibre digestion. In Fibre in Human and Animal Nutrition. Proceedings of Dietary Fibre in Human and Animal Nutrition Symposium, p. 112 [Wallace, G. and Bell, L., editors]. Wellington, New Zealand: The Royal Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar