Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T16:59:07.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec) to provide micro-organisms for in vitro digestibility assays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. Owen ,
M. C. N. Jayasuriya ,
R. Hamilton  and
M. Lalenta
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
R. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
M. Lalenta
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, PO Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four experiments involving the two-stage in vitro digestibility technique of Tilley & Terry (1963) were undertaken to investigate whether cow rumen liquor could be replaced with effluent or extract from feed residue containing micro-organisms derived from the long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec) of Czerkawski & Breckenridge (1977).

In Expts 1 and 2, the dry matter digestibility (DMD) of hay was determined using either cow rumen liquor or Rusitec liquid effluent or extract from feed after 48 h of digestion in a Rusitec apparatus using various volumes of liquor and artificial saliva. Digestibilities determined with rumen liquor were c. 70% (c.v. 1·2%) while those determined with Rusitec effluent or extract were c. 62% (c.v. 1·8%). In treatments common to Expts 1 and 2, Rusitec effluent digestibilities were more repeatable than extract or rumen liquor digestibilities.

In Expts 3 and 4, Rusitec effluent was compared with cow rumen liquor for determining DMD of seven forages with DMD ranging from 33 to 70%. For a given feed there was good agreement between experiments in DMD values determined with Rusitec effluent, and for ten paired values there was a high correlation (r2 = 0·976) between DMD determined by the two methods. DMD determined using rumen liquor (y) was accurately predicted by Rusitec liquid effluent digestibility (x) from the equation y = 2·663 + 1·06477.x; R.S.D. 2·433.

The results show that Rusitec liquid effluent can be used instead of rumen liquor as a source of micro-organisms for the two-stage in vitro digestibility method. Routine use of Rusitec would obviate the need for using fistulated animals.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 297 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aufrere, J. & Michalet-Doreau, B. (1988). Comparison of methods for predicting digestibility of feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 20, 203–218.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. (1937). Some examples of statistical methods of research in agriculture and applied biology. Journalofthe Royal Statistical Society 4 (Suppl.), 137–183.Google Scholar
Clarke, T., Flinn, P. C. & McGowan, A. A. (1982). Lowcost pepsin-cellulase assays for prediction of digestibility of herbage. Grass and Forage Science 37, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1977). Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czerkawski, J. W. & Breckenridge, G. (1979). Experiments with the long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec); use of soluble food and an inert solid matrix. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boever, J. L., Cottyn, B. G., Andries, J. I., Buysse, F. X. & Vanacker, J. M. (1988). The use of a cellulase technique to predict digestibility, metabolizable and net energy of forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 19, 247–260.Google Scholar
Dowman, M. G. & Collins, F. C. (1982). The use of enzymes to predict digestibility of animal feeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, M., Dumay, C., Beaumatin, P. & Morel, M. T.(1988). (RUSITEC) to compare microbial digestion of various by products. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, M., Hannequart, G., Beaumatin, P. & Dumay, C. (1986). Use of the rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC) to study the effect of type of feedstuff's and mineral supply on microbial protein synthesis. Archives of Animal Nutrition 36, 325.Google Scholar
El Shaer, H. M., Omed, H. M., Chamberlain, A. G. & Axford, R. F. E. (1987). Use of faecal organisms from sheep for the in vitro determination of digestibility. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 257–259.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I., Everington, J. M. & Baker, C. K. (1989). A comparison of near infra-red reflectance spectroscopy with three in vitro digestibility methods to predict digestibility in vivo in cereal straws. Animal Production 48, 631 (abstract).Google Scholar
Goldman, A., Genizi, A., Yulzari, A. & Seligman, N. G. (1987). Improving the reliability of the two-stage in vilro assay for ruminant feed digestibility by calibration against in vivo data from a wide range of sources. Animal Feed Science and Technology 18, 233–245.Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, M. C. N. & Hamilton, R. (1986). Activities of the FAO/IAEA Animal Production Unit of the IAEA Seibersdorf Laboratory. Part 2. Characterization of fibrous agricultural residues using an artificial rumen. In Nuclear and Related Techniques in Animal Production and Health. Pp. 659–666. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Jones, D. I. H. & Hayward, M. V. (1975). The effect of pepsin pretreatment of herbage on the prediction of dry matter digestibility from solubility in fungal cellulase solutions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26, 711–718.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemistry Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeod, M. N. & Minson, D. J. (1978) The accuracy of the pepsin-cellulase technique for estimating the dry matter digestibility in vivo of grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 3, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & McLeod, M. N. (1972). Thec in vitro technique: its modification for estimating digestibility of large numbers of tropical pasture samples. Technical Paper, Division of Tropical Pastures, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia. No. 8.Google Scholar
Narasimhalu, P. (1985). A comparison of laboratory methods involving single or two-stage cellulase and twostage rumen inoculum-pepsin treatment for predicting digestibility and intake of hays in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 12, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdes, E. V. & Jones, G. E. (1987). A comparison of in vitro and in vivo dry matter digestibility techniques for the evaluation of forage quality. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 573–576Google Scholar