Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Silva, Lorrayny Galoro da
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Sampaio, Claudia Batista, Paula, Eduardo Marostegan de, Shenkoru, Teshome, Brandao, Virginia Lucia Neves, Dai, Xiaoxia, Perryman, Barry, Faciola, Antonio Pinheiro
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
Texto Completo: https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/96/2/705/4828072
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18930
Resumo: The objective was to evaluate the ruminal fermentation patterns of forage kochia (FK) compared with alfalfa hay (AH) and orchardgrass hay (OH) (Exp. 1), and ephedra (EPH) and immature cheatgrass (CG) compared with OH (Exp. 2), using a dual-flow continuous culture system. Two in vitro experiments were conducted, and in each experiment, treatments were randomly assigned to six dual-flow fermenters (1,223 ± 21 mL) in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with three consecutive periods of 10 d each, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Each fermenter was fed a total of 72 g/d (DM basis) and treatments were as follows: Exp. 1: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% AH, and 3) 100% dried FK. Exp. 2: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% dried CG, and 3) 100% dried EPH. On day 8, 9, and 10, samples of solid and liquid effluent from each fermenter were taken for digestibility anlysis, and subsamples were collected for NH 3 -N, VFA, and bacterial N determinations. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. In Exp. 1, treatments did not affect DM, OM, and NDF digestibilities, total VFA and molar proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, and branched-chain VFA. True CP digestibility, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and total N, NH 3 - N, NAN, and dietary N flows (g/d) were greater (P < 0.05) for FK compared with the other for- ages. However, treatments did not affect bacterial efficiency. In Exp. 2, DM, OM, and CP digestibilities were greater (P = 0.01) for EPH, and NDF digestibility was greater (P < 0.05) for EPH and CG compared with OH. Ephedra had the highest (P < 0.05) pH and acetate:propionate ratio and the lowest (P < 0.05) total VFA concentration. Total VFA, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and NH 3 -N flow (g/d) were highest (P < 0.05) for CG. Total N flow and bacterial efficiency were highest (P < 0.05) for OH and CG, while the flows (g/d) of NAN, bacterial N, and dietary N were greater (P < 0.05) for OH compared with the other for- ages. Results indicate that when compared with AH and OH (Exp. 1), FK has similar ruminal fer- mentation patterns and may be an adequate alternative for beef cattle producers. Furthermore, when compared with OH (Exp. 2), immature CG vmay also be an adequate forage alternative. This is especially important for areas in which conventional forages may not grow well such as the U.S. arid-land. However, EPH should not be used as the sole forage due to its poor ruminal fermentation as evidenced by the lowest total VFA concentration and propionate molar proportion.
id UFV_2c77c289c9776bf1fa2bad3d9a124f8d
oai_identifier_str oai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/18930
network_acronym_str UFV
network_name_str LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
repository_id_str 2145
spelling Silva, Lorrayny Galoro daSampaio, Claudia BatistaPaula, Eduardo Marostegan deShenkoru, TeshomeBrandao, Virginia Lucia NevesDai, XiaoxiaPerryman, BarryFaciola, Antonio Pinheiro2018-04-20T11:21:03Z2018-04-20T11:21:03Z2018-01-021525-3163https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/96/2/705/4828072http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18930The objective was to evaluate the ruminal fermentation patterns of forage kochia (FK) compared with alfalfa hay (AH) and orchardgrass hay (OH) (Exp. 1), and ephedra (EPH) and immature cheatgrass (CG) compared with OH (Exp. 2), using a dual-flow continuous culture system. Two in vitro experiments were conducted, and in each experiment, treatments were randomly assigned to six dual-flow fermenters (1,223 ± 21 mL) in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with three consecutive periods of 10 d each, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Each fermenter was fed a total of 72 g/d (DM basis) and treatments were as follows: Exp. 1: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% AH, and 3) 100% dried FK. Exp. 2: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% dried CG, and 3) 100% dried EPH. On day 8, 9, and 10, samples of solid and liquid effluent from each fermenter were taken for digestibility anlysis, and subsamples were collected for NH 3 -N, VFA, and bacterial N determinations. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. In Exp. 1, treatments did not affect DM, OM, and NDF digestibilities, total VFA and molar proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, and branched-chain VFA. True CP digestibility, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and total N, NH 3 - N, NAN, and dietary N flows (g/d) were greater (P < 0.05) for FK compared with the other for- ages. However, treatments did not affect bacterial efficiency. In Exp. 2, DM, OM, and CP digestibilities were greater (P = 0.01) for EPH, and NDF digestibility was greater (P < 0.05) for EPH and CG compared with OH. Ephedra had the highest (P < 0.05) pH and acetate:propionate ratio and the lowest (P < 0.05) total VFA concentration. Total VFA, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and NH 3 -N flow (g/d) were highest (P < 0.05) for CG. Total N flow and bacterial efficiency were highest (P < 0.05) for OH and CG, while the flows (g/d) of NAN, bacterial N, and dietary N were greater (P < 0.05) for OH compared with the other for- ages. Results indicate that when compared with AH and OH (Exp. 1), FK has similar ruminal fer- mentation patterns and may be an adequate alternative for beef cattle producers. Furthermore, when compared with OH (Exp. 2), immature CG vmay also be an adequate forage alternative. This is especially important for areas in which conventional forages may not grow well such as the U.S. arid-land. However, EPH should not be used as the sole forage due to its poor ruminal fermentation as evidenced by the lowest total VFA concentration and propionate molar proportion.engJournal of Animal Sciencev. 96, n. 2, p. 705–714, Março 2018Bromus tectorumDigestibilityEphedra nevadensisIn vitroKochia prostrata L.Volatile fatty acidNutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experimentsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFVinstname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)instacron:UFVORIGINALartigo.pdfartigo.pdfartigoapplication/pdf148827https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/1/artigo.pdf3519b9c2dd512b2122107a6aad49958aMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/2/license.txt8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD52THUMBNAILartigo.pdf.jpgartigo.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg4620https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/3/artigo.pdf.jpgd3f789b34b494ae8b27c8e818d298ed7MD53123456789/189302018-04-20 23:00:51.631oai:locus.ufv.br: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Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.locus.ufv.br/oai/requestfabiojreis@ufv.bropendoar:21452018-04-21T02:00:51LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)false
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
title Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
spellingShingle Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
Silva, Lorrayny Galoro da
Bromus tectorum
Digestibility
Ephedra nevadensis
In vitro
Kochia prostrata L.
Volatile fatty acid
title_short Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
title_full Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
title_fullStr Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
title_full_unstemmed Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
title_sort Nutritional evaluation and ruminal fermentation patterns of kochia compared with alfalfa and orchardgrass hays and ephedra and cheatgrass compared with orchardgrass hay as alternative arid-land forages for beef cattle in two dual-flow continuous culture system experiments
author Silva, Lorrayny Galoro da
author_facet Silva, Lorrayny Galoro da
Sampaio, Claudia Batista
Paula, Eduardo Marostegan de
Shenkoru, Teshome
Brandao, Virginia Lucia Neves
Dai, Xiaoxia
Perryman, Barry
Faciola, Antonio Pinheiro
author_role author
author2 Sampaio, Claudia Batista
Paula, Eduardo Marostegan de
Shenkoru, Teshome
Brandao, Virginia Lucia Neves
Dai, Xiaoxia
Perryman, Barry
Faciola, Antonio Pinheiro
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Silva, Lorrayny Galoro da
Sampaio, Claudia Batista
Paula, Eduardo Marostegan de
Shenkoru, Teshome
Brandao, Virginia Lucia Neves
Dai, Xiaoxia
Perryman, Barry
Faciola, Antonio Pinheiro
dc.subject.pt-BR.fl_str_mv Bromus tectorum
Digestibility
Ephedra nevadensis
In vitro
Kochia prostrata L.
Volatile fatty acid
topic Bromus tectorum
Digestibility
Ephedra nevadensis
In vitro
Kochia prostrata L.
Volatile fatty acid
description The objective was to evaluate the ruminal fermentation patterns of forage kochia (FK) compared with alfalfa hay (AH) and orchardgrass hay (OH) (Exp. 1), and ephedra (EPH) and immature cheatgrass (CG) compared with OH (Exp. 2), using a dual-flow continuous culture system. Two in vitro experiments were conducted, and in each experiment, treatments were randomly assigned to six dual-flow fermenters (1,223 ± 21 mL) in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design, with three consecutive periods of 10 d each, consisting of 7 d for diet adaptation and 3 d for sample collection. Each fermenter was fed a total of 72 g/d (DM basis) and treatments were as follows: Exp. 1: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% AH, and 3) 100% dried FK. Exp. 2: 1) 100% OH, 2) 100% dried CG, and 3) 100% dried EPH. On day 8, 9, and 10, samples of solid and liquid effluent from each fermenter were taken for digestibility anlysis, and subsamples were collected for NH 3 -N, VFA, and bacterial N determinations. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. In Exp. 1, treatments did not affect DM, OM, and NDF digestibilities, total VFA and molar proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, and branched-chain VFA. True CP digestibility, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and total N, NH 3 - N, NAN, and dietary N flows (g/d) were greater (P < 0.05) for FK compared with the other for- ages. However, treatments did not affect bacterial efficiency. In Exp. 2, DM, OM, and CP digestibilities were greater (P = 0.01) for EPH, and NDF digestibility was greater (P < 0.05) for EPH and CG compared with OH. Ephedra had the highest (P < 0.05) pH and acetate:propionate ratio and the lowest (P < 0.05) total VFA concentration. Total VFA, ruminal NH 3 -N concentration, and NH 3 -N flow (g/d) were highest (P < 0.05) for CG. Total N flow and bacterial efficiency were highest (P < 0.05) for OH and CG, while the flows (g/d) of NAN, bacterial N, and dietary N were greater (P < 0.05) for OH compared with the other for- ages. Results indicate that when compared with AH and OH (Exp. 1), FK has similar ruminal fer- mentation patterns and may be an adequate alternative for beef cattle producers. Furthermore, when compared with OH (Exp. 2), immature CG vmay also be an adequate forage alternative. This is especially important for areas in which conventional forages may not grow well such as the U.S. arid-land. However, EPH should not be used as the sole forage due to its poor ruminal fermentation as evidenced by the lowest total VFA concentration and propionate molar proportion.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2018-04-20T11:21:03Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2018-04-20T11:21:03Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2018-01-02
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/96/2/705/4828072
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18930
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 1525-3163
identifier_str_mv 1525-3163
url https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/96/2/705/4828072
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/18930
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartofseries.pt-BR.fl_str_mv v. 96, n. 2, p. 705–714, Março 2018
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Animal Science
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Animal Science
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
instname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
instacron:UFV
instname_str Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
instacron_str UFV
institution UFV
reponame_str LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
collection LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/1/artigo.pdf
https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/2/license.txt
https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/18930/3/artigo.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 3519b9c2dd512b2122107a6aad49958a
8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33
d3f789b34b494ae8b27c8e818d298ed7
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv fabiojreis@ufv.br
_version_ 1801212893933338624