A comparison of processed sorghum grain using different digestion techniques
| dc.contributor.author | González García, Ulises Alejandro | |
| dc.contributor.author | Corona, Luis | |
| dc.contributor.author | Castrejon Pineda, Francisco | |
| dc.contributor.author | Balcells Terés, Joaquim | |
| dc.contributor.author | Castelan Ortega, Octavio | |
| dc.contributor.author | González Ronquillo, Manuel | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-12-05T09:41:06Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-12-05T09:41:06Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study compares in situ, in vitro (DaisyII and gas production) and in vivo techniques to estimate the degradation of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), and N of sorghum grain. We used whole dried sorghum (WDS), dry cracked sorghum (DCS), the reconstituted whole sorghum silage (WSS) and reconstituted cracked sorghum silage (CSS). The residues obtained from the ruminal digestion in vitro (DaisyII) and in situ were analysed for their intestinal digestion (pepsin–pancreatin). OM was similar (981.32 ± 0.52) in all treatments, WSS showed the highest (P < .001) crude protein (CP) concentration compared with the other treatments, whereas CSS showed the highest amount of starch (P < .001) compared to other treatments. The apparent degraded substrate (ADS) was higher (P < .038) for whole sorghums, rumen degradable protein (RDP) was higher for WDS and WSS (P = .003), while protein digestible in the intestine (PDI) was higher for sorghums silage (P < .001) compared with dry sorghums. ADS was higher (P < .022) using the in sacco technique compared with the other methods, while for the RDP and PDI methods in sacco and in vitro (Daisy) showed the better degradation compared with in vivo. The reconstituted ensiling sorghum grains had a favourable response in the availability of nutrients, compared with dried sorghums. | ca_ES |
| dc.description.sponsorship | This work was supported by the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico under [grant number PAPIIT-DGAPA-UNAM IN206006]. | ca_ES |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1250642 | |
| dc.identifier.idgrec | 025094 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0971-2119 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/58770 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | ca_ES |
| dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis | ca_ES |
| dc.relation.isformatof | Reproducció del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1250642 | ca_ES |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Applied Animal Research, 2016, p. 1-9 | ca_ES |
| dc.rights | cc-by (c) González García, Ulises Alejandro. et al., 2016 | ca_ES |
| dc.rights.accessRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | ca_ES |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/ | * |
| dc.subject | Fattening | ca_ES |
| dc.subject | Methane | ca_ES |
| dc.subject | Sorghum | ca_ES |
| dc.subject | Digestibility | ca_ES |
| dc.title | A comparison of processed sorghum grain using different digestion techniques | ca_ES |
| dc.type | article | ca_ES |
| dc.type.version | publishedVersion | ca_ES |