농업과학연구 (Korean Journal of Agricultural Science)

  • 제48권4호
  • /
  • Pages.831-842
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2466-2402(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2466-2410(eISSN)
충남대학교 농업과학연구소 (Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis of the energy values of oat hay, tall fescue, annual ryegrass, and barnyard millet using in vivo digestibility results and predicted values

  • Seul, Lee (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Seoyoung, Jeon (Division of Animal & Dairy Sciences, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Seongwon, Seo (Division of Animal & Dairy Sciences, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Jungeun, Kim (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Pilnam, Seong (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Youl Chang, Baek (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.28
  • 심사 : 2021.11.01
  • 발행 : 2021.12.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Accurate measurements of feed energy values have a positive effect on the control of feed intake for animals, the formation of prices, and on economic profits. However, few studies have attempted to measure the energy values of domestic roughages and to validate an energy value prediction model. The purpose of this study is to build a database through measurements of the nutrient digestibility and digestible energy results of roughages used in Korea and to evaluate the domestic applicability of the National Research Council (NRC) estimation model. Oat hay, annual ryegrass, tall fescue, barnyard millet, and concentrates for beef cattle were used in the test. As a result of an in vivo digestibility trial, the total digestible nutrients (TDN) of oat hay, annual ryegrass, tall fescue, and barnyard millet were found to be 68.73, 55.02, 55.71, and 52.89%, respectively. As a result of comparing the estimated values using the NRC equation with the in vivo results, there was a difference of 3.55 to 6.84%P in the TDN. Inferred from this result, it is considered that TDN calculations using the NRC equation can be reasonable for the test feeds used in this study. These results can be utilized when revising the Korean Standard Tables of Feed Composition, which provides a comprehensive overview of Korean feed.

키워드

과제정보

본 성과물은(논문) 농촌진흥청 연구사업(PJ014220012021)의 지원에 의해 수행되었습니다.

참고문헌

  1. Abrams S. 1988. Sources of error in predicting digestible dry matter from the acid-detergent fiber content of forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21:205-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(88)90102-2
  2. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2000. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  3. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2005. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  4. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2006. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  5. Baek YC. 2013. Estimation of the total digestible nutrients of spent mushroom substrate in Hanwoo feed. M.S. dissertation, Chungnam Univ., Daejeon, Korea. [in Korean]
  6. Besle JM, Cornu A, Jouany JP. 1994. Roles of structural phenylpropanoids in forage cell wall digestion. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 64:171-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740640206
  7. Chandler JA. 1980. Predicting methane fermentation biodegradability. M.S. dissertation, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, USA.
  8. Choi B, Jang Y, Lee SH, Chung NJ, Cho JW. 2019. Comparison of forage yield and growth characteristic of two forage rice cultivars (cv. Mogyang and cv. Mogwoo) in a reclaimed rice field. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 46:791-798. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/KJOAS.20190061
  9. Church DC. 1988. The ruminant animal: Digestive physiology and nutrition. pp. 202-448. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
  10. Conrad HR, Weiss WP, Odwongo WO, Shockey WL. 1984. Estimating net energy lactation from components of cell solubles and cell walls. Journal of Dairy Science 67:427-436. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(84)81320-x
  11. Ferraretto LF, Crump PM, Shaver RD. 2013. Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 96:533-550. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5932
  12. Heuze V, Tran G, Boudon A, Lebas F. 2016. Oat forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. Accessed in https://www.feedipedia.org/node/500 Last updated on 13 April 2016.
  13. Heuze V, Tran G, Noziere P. 2015. Rye forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. Accessed in https://www.feedipedia.org/node/385 Last updated on 5 October 2015.
  14. Ki KS, Park SB, Lim DH, Seo S. 2017. Evaluation of the nutritional value of locally produced forage in Korea using chemical analysis and in vitro ruminal fermentation. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 30:355-362. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0626
  15. Lee BH, Kim JH, Oh M, Lee KW, Choi KC, Cheon DW, Park HS. 2020. A study on the distribution of feed value and quality grade of imported hay. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland Science 40:1-6. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2020.40.1.1
  16. Lee HS, Lee ID. 2000. A comparative study in nutritive value of imported roughages. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland Science 20:303-308. [in Korean]
  17. Mertens DR. 1973. Application of theoretical mathematical models to cell wall digestion and forage intake in ruminants. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, USA.
  18. NASEM (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 8th Rev. ed. The National Academies, Washington, D.C., USA.
  19. National Forage Testing Association. 2002. Forage analysis test procedures. Accessed in http://www.foragetesting.org/ lab_procedures/sectionB/2.2/part2.2.2.5.htm on 10 September 2021.
  20. NIAS (National Institute of Animal Science), RDA. 2012. Standard tables of feed composition in Korea. NIAS, Wanju, Korea. [in Korean]
  21. NIAS (National Institute of Animal Science), RDA. 2017a. Korean feeding standard for Hanwoo. NIAS, Wanju, Korea. [in Korean]
  22. NIAS (National Institute of Animal Science), RDA. 2017b. Standard tables of feed composition in Korea. NIAS, Wanju, Korea. [in Korean]
  23. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th Rev. ed. The National Academies, Washington, D.C., USA.
  24. Ryu CH, Lee S, Kim B, Ji SY, Jung H, Lee HJ, Song JY, Baek YC. 2021. Comparison between predicted total digestible nutrients and actual total digestible nutrients using nutrient digestibility of rice straw and timothy in ruminants. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 48:333-342. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/KJOAS.20210025
  25. SAS Institute. 2014. SAS user's guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
  26. Seo S, Jeon SY, Ha JK. 2018. Guidelines for experimental design and statistical analyses in animal studies submitted for publication in the Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31:1381-1386. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0468
  27. Seo S, Lee SC, Lee S, Seo J, Ha JK. 2009. Degradation kinetics of carbohydrate fractions of ruminant feeds using automated gas production technique. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 22:356-364. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2009.80613
  28. Tedeschi LO, Fox DG, Pell AN, Lanna DPD, Boin C. 2002. Development and evaluation of a tropical feed library for the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System Model. Scientia Agricola 59:1-18.
  29. Van Soest PJ. 1970. The chemical basis for the nutritive evaluation of forages. The National Conference on Forage Quality Evaluation, and Utilization, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.
  30. Van Soest PJ. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. p. 374. 0 & B Books, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
  31. Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant (2nd Ed.). Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.
  32. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2
  33. Weiss WP. 1993. Predicting energy values of feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 76:1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(93)77512-8
  34. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, St. Pierre NR. 1992. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 39:95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90034-4
  35. Weiss WP, Tebbe AW. 2019. Estimating digestible energy values of feeds and diets and integrating those values into net energy systems. Translational Animal Science 3:953-961. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy119
  36. Zebeli Q, Aschenbach JR, Tafaj M, Boguhn J, Ametaj BN, Drochner W. 2012. Invited review: Role of physically effective fiber and estimation of dietary fiber adequacy in high-producing dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95:1041-1056. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4421