Comparative evaluation of in vitro techniques for predicting metabolizable energy content of total mixed ration for Murrah buffaloes

NEETI LAKHANI; NITIN TYAGI

doi:10.56093/ijans.v91i3.114147

Authors

NEETI LAKHANI ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
NITIN TYAGI ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v91i3.114147

Keywords:

CNCPS, In vitro gas production, Metabolizable energy, Total mixed ration

Abstract

The present study was conducted to ascertain the sensitivity of in vitro techniques namely, in vitro gas production (IVGPT) and Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) fraction for predicting the metabolizable energy (ME) content of total mixed ration for Murrah buffaloes. The total mixed ration forming dietary treatment were TMR1, TMR2 and TMR3 having mixture of maize silage and concentrate in ratio of 30:70, 40:60 and 50:50, respectively. The diets formulated were isocaloric and isonitrogenous. The in vitro gas production was studied by incubation of diet with rumen liquor as inoculum to predict the metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeds. The CNCPS fraction analysing ME content of feed samples was carried out in laboratory. Lactating Murrah buffaloes (n = 18) having similar lactation yield (MY 9 kg±2.5) were allotted to three groups in a completely randomised design and fed TMR as per the dietary treatments. The feeding trial was carried out for 3 months and nutrient utilization was analysed. The efficiency of ME utilization in vivo were compared to in vitro gas production and CNCPS fraction. Correlation coefficient (r) between in vitro techniques and in vivo trial in evaluating ME content demonstrated a significantly (P<0.01) high correlation of 0.734 with IVGPT and 0.752 with CNCPS fraction indicating that both in vitro techniques were reliable in predicting metabolizable energy content of feedstuffs for ruminant feeding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis.13th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington, D.C.

Blummel M, Makkar H P S and Becker K. 1997a. In vitro gas production-a technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology Animal Nutrition 77: 24–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x

Dung D V, Shang W and Yao W. 2014. Effect of crude protein levels in concentrate and concentrate levels in diet on in vitro fermentation. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 27(6): 797–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13560

Fox D G, Tedeschi T P, Russell J B, VanAmburgh M E, Chase L E, Pell A N and Overton T R. 2004. The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System model for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112: 29–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.10.006

Geisert B G. 2007. 'Development of a set of forage standard to estimate in vivo digestibility of forages and prediction of forage quality of diets consumed by cattle grazing Nebraska sandhills range pastures.' Thesis and Dissertations in Animal Science. ICAR. 2013. Nutrient Requirements of Cattle and Buffalo. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.

Kumar S, Dagar S S, Sirohi S K and Upadhyay R C. 2013. Microbial profiles, in vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility based on various ratios of roughage to concentrate. Annals of Microbiology 63(2): 541–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-012-0501-0

Licitra G, Hernandez T M and Van Soest P J. 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57: 347–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3

Malisetty V, Reddy Y R, Nagalakshmi D, Mallam M, Cherala H K, Reddy R A and Manthani G P. 2013. Effect of feeding maize silage supplemented with concentrate and legume hay on growth in Nellore ram lambs. Veterinary World 6(4): 209–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/vetworld.2013.209-213

Menke K H and Steingass H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28: 7–55.

Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D and Schneider W. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agriculture Science (Cambridge) 93: 217–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305

Mertens D R. 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 1463–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76075-2

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 8th Rev. ed. Washington DC. The National Academies.

Norris K H. 1996. History of NIR. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 4(1): 31–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1255/jnirs.941

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Edition, National Academy Press, Washington DC.

NRC. 2001. National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Reddy R K P, Lakshmi S, Jakkula R and Kishore K R. 2017. Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) fractionations and in vitro nutrient digestibility of corn dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS) from various ethanol plants in Andhra Pradesh. 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170209071816

Russell J B, Sniffen C J, O’Connor J D, Van Soest P J and Fox D G. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70: 3562–77.

Sanh M V, Wiktorsson H and Ly L V. 2002. Effects of natural grass forage to concentrate ratios and feeding principles on milk production and performance of crossbred lactating cows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 15(20): 650– 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.650

Santra and Karim. 2009. Effect of dietary roughage and concentrate ratio on nutrient utilization and performance of ruminant animals. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 9(2): 113–35.

Sinha S K, Chaturvedi V B, Singh P, Chaudhary L C, Ghosh M and Shivani S. 2017. Effect of high and low roughage total mixed ration diets on rumen metabolites and enzymatic profiles in crossbred cattle and buffaloes. Veterinary World 10(6): 616– 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2017.616-622

Sniffen C J, O’Connor J D, Van Soest P J, Fox D G and Russell J B. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70: 3562–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113562x

SPSS. 2010. Statistical Packages for Social Sciences, Version 20, SPSS Inc., Illinois, USA.

Tariq H, Kundu S S, Singh S K, Sharma N, Sharma A and Singh M P. 2018. Metabolizable energy and protein evaluation of some common Indian feedstuffs used in ruminant ration. The Pharma Journal 7(7): 524–27.

Van Soest P J and Robertson J B. 1988. A Laboratory Manual for Animal Science. Cornell University, USA.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74(10): 3583–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

Weiss W P and Tebbe A W. 2019. Estimating digestible energy values of feeds and diets and integrating those values into net energy systems. Translational Animal Science 3: 953–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy119

Yu Y and Thomas J W. 1976. Estimation of the extent of heat damage in alfalfa haylage by laboratory measurement. Journal of Animal Science 42: 766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1976.423766x

Zhang J, Shi H, Wang Y, Li S, Cao Z, Ji S, He Y and Zhang H. 2017. Effect of dietary forage to concentrate ratios on dynamic profile changes and interactions of ruminal microbiota and metabolites in holstein heifers. Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 2206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02206

Zicarelli F, Serena C, Monica I C, Federico I. 2011. In vitro fermentation characteristics of diets with different forage/ concentrate ratios: Comparison of rumen and faecal inocula. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91(7): 1213– 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4302