The different between methods and determining of metabolisable energy levels with enzyme and gas technigues in concentrate feeds

Bu çalışma bazı konsantre yem örneklerinin metabolize olabilir enerji (ME) düzeylerini belirlemek, enzim ve gaz teknikleri arasındaki farkı araştırmak amacıyla yürütüldü.Araştırma; yulaf (5), arpa (5), mısır (5), buğday (5), soya fasulyesi küspesi (5), pamuk tohumu küspesi (5), ayçiçeği tohumu küspesi (5)'nden oluşan toplam 35 konsantre yem örneği ile yapıldı. 35 örneğin hepsi Türkiye'nin farklı bölgelerinden toplandı. Yemlerin ME düzeylerini belirlemek için enzim ve gaz teknikleri kullanıldı. Enzim tekniği ile yulaf, arpa, mısır, buğday, soya fasulyesi küspesi, pamuk tohumu küspesi ve ayçiçeği tohumu küspesinin ME düzeyleri sırasıyla 2083.10, 2394.68, 2399.00, 2391.68, 1882.37, 1748.50 ve 1847.24 kkal/ kg KM olarak belirlendi. Gaz tekniği ile yulaf, arpa, mısır, buğday, soya fasulyesi küspesi, pamuk tohumu küspesi ve ayçiçeği tohumu küspesinin 24 saatlik inkubasyonda ME düzeyleri sırasıyla 2880, 3060, 2940, 2450, 2250, 2090 ve 2130 kkal/kg KM olarak bulundu. Gaz tekniği ile yulaf, arpa, mısır, buğday, soya fasulyesi küspesi pamuk tohumu küspesi ve ayçiçeği tohumu küspesinin 48 saatlik inkubasyonda ME düzeyleri sırasıyla 3370, 3580, 3460, 3060, 2740, 2690 ve 2320 kkal/kg KM bulundu.Bu araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, ruminant yemlerinin ME düzeylerini belirlemede enzim tekniğine kıyasla gaz tekniği daha kullanılabilir bulundu.

Konsantre yemlerde enzim ve gaz teknikleri ile metabolize olablir enerji düzeylerinin belirlenmesi ve metodlar arasındaki fark

This study was conducted to determine the metaboljsable energy (ME) levels of some concentrates and to investigate the differences between enzyme and gas techniques.This investigation was carried out with totally 35 concentrate feed samples; oat (5), barley (5), com(5), wheat (5) soybean meal (5), cottonseed meal (5), sun flower meal (5). All the 35 samples were collected from different regions of Turkey. Enzyme and gas techniques were used to identify the levels of metabolisable energy (ME) of the feeds. ME levels of oat, barley, corn, wheat, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, sunflower meal with the enzyme technique were determined as 2083.10, 2394.68, 2399.00, 2391.68, 1882.37, 1748.50 and 1847.24 kcal/kg DM, respectively. ME levels of oat, barley, corn, wheat, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, sunflower meal with gas technique for 24 h incubations were found as 2880, 3060, 2940, 2450, 2250, 2090 and 2130 kcal/kg DM, respectively. The ME values of 48 h incubations of feedstuffs in gas techniques were found as 3370, 3580, 3460, 3.060, 2740, 2690, 2320 kcal/kg DM, respectively.According to the results of this study, gas technique was found more utilizable than enzyme technique to determine metabolizable energy levels of ruminant feeds.

___

  • 1. Tatli Seven P., Çerçi, IH. Relationships between nutrient composition and feed digestibility determined with enzyme and nylon bag (in situ) techniques in feed sources. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 2006;9:107-103.
  • 2. Yalçın S. Hayvan Besleme ve Beslenme Hastalıkları. İn: Ergün A, Tuncer ŞD (Editors). Yemlerin Sindirilme Derecelerinin Tespiti, Özkan Matbaacılık Ltd., Ankara: 2001: 97-106.
  • 3. Öğretmen, T., Kılıç A. Geviş getirenlerin beslenmesinde kullanılan önemli bazı yemlerin NEL içeriklerinin in vivo ve in vitro yöntemleri ile saptanması. Doktora Tezi, İzmir: E.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 1991.
  • 4. Minson DJ. Effect of chemical composition on feed digestibility and metabolizable energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 1982; 52:591~-615.
  • 5. Brown VE, Rymer C, Agnew RE, et al. Relationship between in vitro gas production profiles of forages and in vivo rumen fermentation patterns in beef steers fed those forages. Animal Feed Sci and Technol 2002;98:13-24.
  • 6. Tilley JMA, Terry RA. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. The Journal of British Grassland Society 1963;18:104-109.
  • 7. A.O.A.C. Official Methods of Analysis Association of Agricultural Acedehny Press. Ninth Revised Edition, Washington, DC, 1990.
  • 8. Crampton EW, Maynard L. The relation of cellulose and lignin content to nutritive value of animal feeds. J Nutr 1983;15:383-395.
  • 9. D'orleans M, Giger S, Sauvant D. Mise Au Point D'une Methode Enzymatique de Pre'vision de la Digestibilite de la Matiere Organique Des Aliments Concentres. , Institut National Agronomique.Paris Grignon, 1980.
  • 10. Aufrere J. Etude de prevision de la digestibilite des fourrages par une methode enzymatique. Ann Zootech 1982;31: 111-130.
  • 11. Sauvant D, Aufrere J, Michalet-Doreau B, et al. Nutritive des aliments concentres simples tables et prevision. Bull Tech CRZV Theix, I.N.R.A. 1987;70: 75-89.
  • 12. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Develop 1988; 28:7-55.
  • 13. SPSS for Windows, Relased 6.0 June 17, 1993 Copy Right (c. Spss inc. 1989-1993), 1993.
  • 14. National Research Council: Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. National Academy Press. Washington, DC, 1988.
  • 15. Stern MD, Bach A, Calsamiglia S. Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. J Anim Sci 1977;75: 2256-2276
  • 16. Çerçi İH, Tatli Seven, P, Azman M et al. Relationships between nutrient composition and metabolic energy determined with enzyme and gas technique in feed sources. Folia Veterinaria 2005;49:117-120.
  • 17. Sileshi Z, Owen E, Dhanoa MS, et al. Prediction of in situ rumen dry disappearance of Ethiopian forages from an in vitro gas production technique using a pressure transducer, chemical analyses on in vitro digestibility. Anim Feed Sci and Tech 1996; 61:73-87.
  • 18. Cone JW. Degradation of starch in feed concentrates by enzymes, rumen fluid and rumen enzymes. J Sci Food Agric 1991; 54: 23-34.
  • 19. Şeker E. Ruminant beslemede kullanılan bazı yemlerin enerji değerlerinin gaz-testi yöntemiyle belirlenmesi. I. Ulusal Hayvan Besleme Kongresi, Elazığ, 2001.