Oyinkansola OLUBUNMİ OLOWU, Sema YAMAN

4418

Feed Evaluation Methods: Performance, Economy and Environment

Feed Evaluation Methods: Performance, Economy and Environment

Feed evaluation methods aim to give information on the feeds to meet the nutritional needs of the animal. Therefore feed evaluation is needed to assess the nutritional value between feeds. The methods to express the feed value incline to measure mainly digestibility of the feedstuff. Many feed evaluation methods have been developed and modified over the years to predict the nutritional component of the feed. The nutritive value of ruminant feeds is assessed by the chemical composition, concentration and rate and extent of digestion of feed in the rumen. Chemical, digestibility and enzymatic methods are the main methods that have been used for feed evaluation.  The Weende and detergent analysis systems are the commonly used chemical methods of feed evaluation. For many years, feed digestibility has been measured by in-vivo, in situ and in-vitro digestibility techniques. This paper aims to review the feed evaluation methods of chemical, digestibility and enzymatic with emphasis on performance/outcomes, economic consideration and environmental effects/ footprints. 
Keywords:

Feed evaluation methods in-vitro, in-situ,

PDF

___

  • Aufrere J. & Cartailler D. 1988. Mise au point d’une méthode de laboratoire de prevision de la dégradabilité des protéines alimentaires des aliments concentree dans le rumen. Ann. Zootech., 37, 255-270.
  • Aufrere J. & Michalet-Doreau B. 1988. Comparison of methods for predicting digestibility of feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 20, 203-218.
  • Beever D.E. & Mould F.L. 2000. Forage evaluation for efficient ruminant livestock production. In: D.I. Givens, E. Owen, R.F.E. Axford and H.M. Omed (Editors), Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 15-42.
  • Broderick G.A., Wallace R.J., Orskov E.R. & Hansen L. 1988. Comparison of estimates of ruminal protein degradation by in-vitro and insitu methods. J. Anim. Sci., 66, 1739-1745.
  • Chumpawadee S., Chantiratikul A. & Chantiratikul P. 2007. Chemical composition and Nutritional evaluation of energy feeds for ruminant using in-vitro gas production technique. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 6(6), 607-612.
  • Church D.C. 1993. Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Oregon State University Press. Cooke B.C. 1988. Evaluations of feed for Ration Formulation. Proc. Nutr. Soc., 47(2), 135-41.
  • Crawford R.J.Jr., Hoover W.H., Sniffen C.J. & Crooker B.A. 1978. Degradation of feedstuff nitrogenin the rumen versus nitrogen solubility in three solvents. J. Anim. Sci., 46, 1768-1775.
  • De Boever J.L., Cottyn B.G., Vanacker J.M. & Buysse F.X. 1984. Test of different enzymatic methods on compound feeds. CEC Workshop on Methodology of Feedingstuffs for Ruminants.
  • Dijkstra J., Kebreab E., Bannink A., France J. & Lopez S. 2005. Application of the gas production technique to feed evaluation systems for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.,, 123-124(1), 561-578.
  • Ellis W.C., Lascano C. Teeter R. & Owens F.N. 1982. Solute and particle flow markers. pp 37 in protein requirements for cattle. F.N. Owens, ed. Syrup. at Oklahoma State Univ.,S tillwater.
  • France J., Theodorou M.K., Lowman L.S. & Beever D.E. 2000. Feeding systems and feed evaluation models: Feed evaluation for animal Production. Wallingford, Oxon, UK ; New York : CABI Pub. pp:3 -11
  • Holden L. A. 1999. Comparison of methods of in-vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. J. Dairy Sci., 82, 1791-1794.
  • Johannes M., Lund P., Weisbjerg M.R., Hellwing A.L.F. & Hvelplund T. 2011. The effect of different physical forms of rapeseed as fat supplement on rumen NDF digestion and methane emission in dairy cows. Adv. Anim. Biosci., (2), 516.
  • Krishnamoorthy U., Sniffen C.J., Stern M.D. & Van Soest P.J. 1983. Evaluation of a mathematical model of rumen digestion and an in-vitro simulation of rumen proteolysis to estimate the rumen undegraded nitrogen content of feedstuffs. Br. J. Nutr., 50, 555-568.
  • Landa S., Glasser T. & Dvash L. 2006. Monitoring nutrition in small ruminants with the aid of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) technology: A review. Small Ruminant Research, 61, 1-11.
  • Lindberg J. E. 1981. The effect of basal diet on the mminal degradation of dry matter, nitrogenous compounds and cell walls in nylon bags. Swed. J. Agric. Res., 11, 159.
  • Lucas H. L. 1964. Stochastic elements in biological models; their sources and significances, in: Gurland, J. (Ed.), Stochastic models in medicine and biology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 355-383.
  • Madsen J. & Hvelplund T. 1985. Protein degradation in rumen. A comparison between in vivo, nylon bag, in-vitro and buffer measurements. Acta Agric. Scand., 25 (suppl.), 103-124.
  • Madsen J. & Hvelplund T. 1994. Prediction of in situ protein degradability in the rumen. Results of a European ring test. Livestock Production Science, 39, 201-212.
  • Mabjeesh S. J., Cohen M. & Arieli A. 2000. Nutrition, feeding and calves (In-vitro methods of measuring the dry matter digestibility of ruminant feedstuffs: Comparison of methods and inoculum source. J. Dairy Sci., 83(10), 2289-2294.
  • Mathiesen H.P. & Moiler J. 1983. Enzymatisk in-vitro oploselighed. Beretning, 108: 1-17.
  • Nocek J. E. 1988. In Situ and Other Methods to Estimate Ruminal Protein and Energy Digestibility: A Review. J. Dairy Sci., 71, 2051-2069.
  • Osbourn D.F. & Terry R.A. 1977. In-vitro techniques for the evaluation of ruminant feeds: Proc. Nutr. Soc.36, 219. The Grassland Research Institute, Huleyj Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 $.R
  • Pellikaan W.F., Hendriks W.H., Uwimana G., Bongers L.J.G.M., Becker P.M. & Cone J.W. 2011. A novel method to determine simultaneously methane production during in-vitro gas production using fully automated equipment. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 168, 196-205.
  • Poos-Floyd M., Klopfenstein T. & Britton R.A. 1985. Evaluation of laboratory techniques for predicting ruminal protein degradation. J. Dairy Sci., 68, 829-839.
  • Rymer C., Huntington J.A., Williams B.A. & Givens D.I. 2005. In-vitro cumulative gas production techniques: History, methodological considerations and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 123-124, 9-30.
  • Sauvant P., Aufrere J., Michalet-Doreau B., Giger S. & Chapoutot P. 1987. Valeur nutritive des aliments concentres simple: tables et prevision. Bull. Tech. CRVZ Theix 70, 75
  • Solaiman S. G., Marty F. A. Belyea R. L. & Weiss M. F. 1982. Effect of diet composition and forage particle size on cell wall digestion rates of alfalfa and orchard grass in situ. J. Dairy Sci., 65(Suppl. 1), 144. (Abstr.)
  • Storm I. M., Hellwing A. L., Nielsen N. I. & Madsen J. 2012. Methods for Measuring and Estimating Methane Emission from Ruminants. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI, 2(2), 160-183.
  • Susmel P., Stefanon B., Mills C.R. & Colitti M. 1989. The evaluation of PDI concentrations in some ruminant feedstuffs: a comparison of in situ and in-vitro protein degradability. Ann. Zootech., 38, 269-283.
  • Van Soest P.J. & Marcus W.C. 1964. Method for the determination of cell-wall constituents in forage using detergent and the relationship between this fraction and voluntary intake and digestibility. Abstr. J. Dairy Sci., 17, 704.
  • Van Der Meer J.M. 1982. European "in-vitro" ring test. Manuel, CEC Workshop on Methodology of Feeding stuffs for Ruminants.
  • Van Der Meet J.M. 1983. European "in-vitro" ring test. Statistical report, CEC Workshop on Methodology of Feeding stuffs for Ruminants.
  • Volden H. 2011. NorFor - The Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP Publications No 130, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 180p.
  • Weakley D.C., Stern M.D. & Satter L.D. 1983. Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 56, 493-507.
  • Whitelaw F. G., Eadie J., Bruce L. A. & Sand W. J. 1984. Microbial protein synthesis in cattle given roughage concentrate and all concentrate diets: the use of 2, 6-diaminopimelic acid, 2-aminothylphosphonic acid and 3SS markers. Br. J. Nutr., 52, 249.
  • Wood C.D. & Badve V.C. 2001. Recent developments in laboratory methods for the assessment of ruminant feeds, science booklet. BAIF Development Research Foundation and Natural Resources Institute UK, Pune, India. 14pp.
  • Yu P., Egan A.R. & Leury B.J. 2000. Predicting in sacco rumen degradation kinetics of raw and dry roasted faba beans (Vicia faba) and Lupin seeds (Lupinus albus)by laboratory techniques. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci., 13(10), 1377-1387.
  • Zewdie A. K. 2019. The Different Methods of Measuring Feed Digestibility: A Review. E C Nutrition, 14 (1), 68-74.
Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Research-Cover
  • ISSN: 2636-8226
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2017
  • Yayıncı: Muhammed Cüneyt BAĞDATLI
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

The Use of Agricultural Crop Residues as Alternatives to Conventional Feedstuffs for Ruminants: A Review

Muhammad Zeeshan AKRAM, Sema YAMAN FIRINCIOĞLU

An Important Cycle in Hydrological Cycle: Rainwater Harvesting

Eda Nur ARIKAN

Use of Treatment Water for Irrigation

Esra CAN

Use of Herbal Food Additives in Fisheries

Mustafa ÖZ

Feed Evaluation Methods: Performance, Economy and Environment

Oyinkansola OLUBUNMİ OLOWU, Sema YAMAN