Abstract Objectives were to compare in vitro and in situ disappearance of dry matter (DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and starch of traditional (unprocessed and rolled) and hulless (unprocessed) barley. Experiment 1: three barley sources were compared using in vitro techniques. The sources were: 1) traditional barley that was not processed, 2) traditional barley processed through a roller mill, and 3) hulless barley that was not processed. For in vitro incubation, each barley source was ground through a 1-mm screen. Ground barley sources were weighed into bags (25 micron porosity) and incubated in ruminal fluid from two steers fed 80% rolled corn for 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, or 72 h. Intact bags were assayed for NDF; remaining bags were opened and the residual was removed and analyzed to determine disappearance of DM and starch. Experiment 2: the barley sources used in Exp. 1 were compared using in situ techniques. For in situ analysis, each barley source was ground in a Wiley mill with no screen to mimic mastication. Artificially masticated samples were weighed into Dacron bags (50 ± 10 micron porosity) and incubated in eight ruminally fistulated steers (n = 8) for 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h. Residual contents were analyzed to determine in situ disappearance of DM, NDF, and starch. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedures of SAS (9.4 SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with repeated measures. DM disappearance was greatest (P < 0.05) for hulless barley in vitro and for rolled barley in situ, regardless of time postincubation. For both trials, NDF disappearance was greatest (P < 0.05) for hulless barley, regardless of time postincubation. Starch disappearance at all time points was greatest (P < 0.05) for rolled barley in situ. Starch disappearance was greater (P < 0.05) for hulless barley at 6 h of in vitro incubation compared to rolled and unprocessed barley, whereas starch disappearance in vitro was comparable (P = 0.60) between barley sources. When the grains were compared in vitro, minor differences were noted, presumably because barley sources were finely ground prior to incubation. Compared to in vitro estimates, in situ techniques had greater variation in ruminal degradation estimates. Differences observed between in situ and in vitro techniques are driven largely by differences between the procedures. Although laboratory methods are widely used to estimate ruminal degradation, these techniques did not provide comparable estimates of ruminal degradation of barley.
[1]
15. Function of the Ruminant Forestomach
,
2019,
Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant.
[2]
B. Corl,et al.
Effects of feeding hulled and hull-less barley with low- and high-forage diets on lactation performance, nutrient digestibility, and milk fatty acid composition of lactating dairy cows.
,
2018,
Journal of dairy science.
[3]
Jeong-Hoon Park,et al.
Effect of different salinity adaptation on the performance and microbial community in a sequencing batch reactor.
,
2016,
Bioresource technology.
[4]
J. Jane,et al.
Pysicochemical properties of Tibetan hull-less barley starch.
,
2016,
Carbohydrate polymers.
[5]
M. Galyean,et al.
Evaluation of in vitro models for predicting acidosis risk of barley grain in finishing beef cattle.
,
2015,
Journal of animal science.
[6]
U. Holopainen-Mantila.
Composition and structure of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) grain in relation to end uses
,
2015
.
[7]
V. Anderson,et al.
FEEDING BARLEY TO CATTLE
,
2015
.
[8]
M. Hall.
Determination of starch, including maltooligosaccharides, in animal feeds: comparison of methods and a method recommended for AOAC collaborative study.
,
2009,
Journal of AOAC International.
[9]
M. Oba,et al.
Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle
,
2007
.
[10]
Michael R. Langemeier,et al.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
,
2004
.
[11]
S. Baidoo,et al.
Effect of microbial enzyme supplementation on energy, amino acid digestibility and performance of pigs fed hulless barley based diets
,
1998
.
[12]
R. Zinn,et al.
Comparative feeding value of hulless vs covered barley for feedlot cattle.
,
1996,
Journal of animal science.
[13]
R. Tkachuk,et al.
Nutrient composition of the hull-less barley cultivar, condor†
,
1992
.
[14]
Kenneth Helrick,et al.
Official methods of analysis
,
1990
.
[15]
W. Horwitz.
Official Methods of Analysis
,
1980
.