Comparison of Two Methods of Ruminal Digestibility Determination (in situ and in vitro) of Pomegranate Seed Pulp

Document Type : Ruminant Nutrition

Authors

• Mohammad Hassan Fathi Nasri
• Fatemeh Khosravi

Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Birjand University, Birjand, Iran

10.22067/ijasr.v8i1.30597

Abstract

Introduction Using of agro-industrial by-products in diet of livestock not only reduces the production costs but also can dwindle the use of human foods in animal nutrition and competition between human and livestock. Thus, proper use of these by-products in animal nutrition and identification of new and low cost feed resources may be one of the priorities in livestock husbandry of our country. Pomegranate seed pulp (PSP) is a by-product of the industrial decoction of pomegranate. Iran with annually production of more than 900 tons of pomegranates is one of the most important regions of pomegranate cultivation and PSP produced from pomegranate processing factories may be extensively used in animal nutrition. Digestibility determination of feeds is one of the most effective ways to evaluate their nutritional value. In addition, there is a strong relationship between feeds digestibility and performance of animal. There are in vivo, in vitro and in situ methods to determine the digestibility of feeds. Although in vivo methods are reference for digestibility values of feeds and are of high precision but they are usually expensive and time consuming. In addition, these methods do not provide any information related to ruminal degradability kinetic of nutrients. The aim of this study was comparison of two methods of ruminal degradability determination methods namely, in situ (nylon bag) and in vitro (Daisy incubator), using dried and ensiled pomegranate seed pulp (PSP).
Materials and Methods The PSP used in this study was prepared from Anaryan Co. in Ferdows, Iran. Decocted pomegranate was a mixture of Yazd varieties which were harvested at early autumn of 1389. Two types of PSP as dried and ensiled were used to compare the methods of ruminal digestibility determination, pervasively. The PSP silage was prepared by ensiling of wet PSP (containing 475 g/kg DM) in 3 kg bins (4 replicates)and with density of 650 kg wet PSP per cubic meter for 60 days and dried PSP was prepared by drying of wet PSP in oven at 60ºC. The digestibility of each feed was determined by both in situ and in vitro methods using two Holstein fistulated heifers and Daisy incubator, respectively. Animals were fed a total mixed ration containing 1.8 kg/d of alfalfa hay, 1.8 kg/d of concentrate, 0.5 kg/d of corn silage and 1.8 kg/d of wheat straw (DM basis) at two meals. The ingredients of concentrate were barley grain (35%), corn grain (18%), soybean meal (10%), canola meal (15%), wheat bran (11.5%), molasses (7%), vitamin-mineral supplement (1%), oyster shell (2%) and salt (0.5%) (DM basis). Comparison between treatments for each of digestibility methods at 24 and 48 h of incubation was done separately based on completely randomized design using SAS software. Correlation between digestibility determination methods was estimated using Corr proc of SAS and regression coefficient and also regression equation of in situ digestibility method on in vitro digestibility method was determined using Reg proc of SAS.
Results and Discussion The results showed that DM digestibility of PSP (both ensiled and dried) was estimated higher when measured by in vitro than in situ method at both incubation times. The correlation between two methods of digestibility determination for dried and ensiled PSP after 24h incubation was 0.81 and 0.96, respectively and after 48h incubation was 0.99 and 0.75, respectively. The regression equations of DM in situ digestibility estimation from DM in vitro digestibility data were of high accuracy. Tagliapietra et al. (27) compared the in vitro and in situ DM digestibility of 11 different feeds and found a high correlation coefficient of 0.90 (P

Keywords

• Daisy Incubator
• digestibility
• In situ
• In vitro
• Pomegranate Seed Pulp

20.1001.1.20083106.1395.8.1.10.9

---

References

1- Agricultural and Food Research Council, AFRC. 1995. Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Wallingford: CAB International.

2- Ankom Technology Corporation, 1997. Operator’s manual: Ankom 200/220 fiber analyzer. Ankom Technol. Corp, Fairport, NY, USA.

3- Anonymous, 2011. Agricultural Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian).

4- Cattani, M. 2010. In situ and in vitro techniques for studying rumen fermentations: methodology and applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Padova, Italy.

5- Cattani, M., F. Tagliapietra., L. Bailoni., and S. Schiavon. 2009. In vitro rumen feed degradabilityassessed with DaisyII and batch culture: effect of sample size. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8: 169-171.

6- Damiran, D., T. DelCurto., D. W. Bohnert., and S. L. Findholt. 2008. Comparison of techniques and grinding size to estimate digestibility of forage based ruminant diets. Animal Feed Science And Technology, 141:15–35.

7- Dehghan, M., R. Tahmasbi., A. Dayani., and A. Khezri. 2011. Determination of physical, chemical and digestibility of some agricultural by-products. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 4: 412-421. (In Persian).

8- Goering, H.K., and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fibre analysis. USDA Agricultural Handbook No 379, (USDA: Washington, DC).

9- Guggolz, J., R. M. Saunders., G. O. Kohler., and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1971. Enzymatic evaluation of processes for improving agricultural wastes for ruminant feeds. Journal of Animal Science, 33:167.

10- Hersini, M., M. Boujarpour., M. Eslami., M. Chaji., and T. Mohammadabadi. 2013. Effect of Chestnut kernels on digestibility and ruminal degradability of Arabian sheep. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 2: 127-135. (In Persian).

11- Holden, L.A. 1999. Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science, 82:1791-1794.

12- Jones, D. I. H., and M. V. Hayward. 1973. A cellulose digestion technique for predicting the dry matter digestibility of grasses. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 24:1419.

13- Khosravi, F., and M. H. Fathi Nasri. 2012. Effect of pomegranate seed pulp conserving method on its chemical composition and ruminal degradability parameters. Journal of Animal Production, 2: 51-61. (In Persian).

14- Kitessa, S., P. C. Flinn., and G. G. Irish. 1999. Comparison of methods used to predict in vivo digestibility of feeds in ruminants. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 50: 825-841.

15- Lattimer J. M., S. R. Cooper., D. W. Freeman., and D. L. Lalman. 2007. Effect of yeast culture on in vitro fermentation of a high-concentrate or high-fiber diet using equine fecal inoculum in a DaisyII incubator. Journal of Animal Science, 85:2484-2491.

16- Mehrez, A. A., and E. R. Orskov. 1977. A study of theartificial bag technique for determining the digestibilityof feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, (Cambridge), 88:645.

17- Mirzaei-Aghsaghali, A., N. Maheri-Sis., H. Mansouri., M. Razeghi., A. Mirza-Aghazadeh., H. Cheraghi.,and A. Aghajanzadeh-Golshani. 2011. Evaluating potential nutritive value of pomegranate processing by-products for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science, 6:45-51.

18- Nocek, J. E. 1988. Insitu and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: A review. Journal of Dairy Science, 71:2051-2069.

19- Orskov, E. R., and I. McDonald. 1979. The estimate of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, (Cambridge), 92:499.

20- Ørskov, E. R., F. D. Deb Hovell., and F. L Mould. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for evaluation of feedstuff. Tropical Animal Production, 5:195-213.

21- Persia, M. E., C. M. Parsons., M. Schang., and L. Azcona. 2003. Nutritional evaluation of dried tomato seeds. Poultry Science, 82: 141-146.

22- Robinson, P. H., M. Campbell Mathews., and J. G. Fadel. 1999. Influence of storage time and temperature on in vitro digestion of neutral detergent fibre at 48 h, and comparison to 48 h in sacco neutral detergent fibre digestion. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 80:257-266.

23- Spanghero, M., S. Boccalon., L. Gracco., and L. Gruber. 2003. NDF degradability of hays measured in situ and in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 104:201-208.

24- Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (SAS). 2002. SAS version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

25- Stern, M. D., A. Bach., and S. Calsamiglia. 1997. Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 75: 2256-2276.

26- Tagliapietra, F., S. Schiavon, J. C. Hall, M. Dal Maso., M. Cattani., and L. Bailoni. 2008. Dry matterand NDF rumen degradability assessed by two in vitro techniques on seven feeds. Page 226 in 59th Annual Meeting of European Federation of Animal Science Book of Abstracts, Vilnius, Lithuania.

27- Tagliapietra, F., M. Cattani., I. K. Hindrichsen., H. Hansen., S. Colombini., L. Bailoni., and S. Schiavon. 2012. True dry matter digestibility of feeds evaluated in situ with different bags and in vitro using rumen fluid collected from intact donor cows. Animal Production Science, 52:338-346.

28- Taher-Maddah, M., N. Maheri-Sis., R. Salamatdoustnobar., A. Ahmadzadeh. 2012. Comparing nutritive value of ensiled and dried pomegranate peels for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. Annual Biological Research, 3:1942-1946.

29- Tilley, J. M. A., and R. A. Terry. 1963. A two stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18:104.

30- Varel, V. H., and K. K. Kreikemeier. 1995. Technical Note: comparison of in vitro and in situ digestibility methods. Journal of Animal Science, 73:578-582.

31- Wilman, D., and A. Adesogan.2000. A comparison of filter bag methods with conventional tube methods of determining the in vitro digestibility of forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 84:33–47.