Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 6 no. 6 (2025)

A Comparative Study on the In Vivo and In Situ Degradability of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Guinea (Megathyrsus maximus), and Paspalum (Paspalum conjugatum) as Forage Grasses

Mart John M. Goyo | Manuel Gacutan Jr. | Lorina A. Galvez | Warren D. Come

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study evaluated the in vivo and in situ degradability of 3 local for-age grasses: Napier sp., Guinea sp., and Paspalum sp. Three (3) rumen-cannulated cattle of similar age were used for the degradability as-sessments. The in vivo experiment followed a 3×3×3 Latin Square De-sign (LSD), while the in situ degradability study employed a 3×5 fac-torial in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Dietary treat-ments consisted of A–Napier sp., B – Guinea sp., and C – Paspalum sp. In the in vivo digestibility trial, no differences were observed except for GE and NDF digestibility. As for the test diets, in vivo digestibility was comparable using local forages in the feed and nutrient digesti-bility assays (p>0.05). In contrast, no significant interactions were ob-served in the in situ ruminal degradability in feed, DMD, CPD, NDFD, and ADFD (p>0.05). However, main effects for Forage (factor A) showed a significant effect for both DMD (p<0.0028) and NDFD (p<0.0385). In addition, feed degradability was significant (p<0.0189). For the incubation time (Factor B), feed disappearance, DMD, and ADFD showed strong quadratic effects (p<0.0018, p<0.0001, and p<0.0095, respectively), suggesting that the break-down process began rapidly but gradually slowed over time. In con-trast, CPD and NDFD displayed a linear increase (p<0.0001).



References:

  1. AOAC International 18TH ED. 2006. Official Methods of Analysis. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD.
  2. Bacorro, T., Cala, C., Abes, E., Victorio, E., As-tillero, A., & Avante, L. (2019). IN SITU DRY MATTER DEGRADABILITY AT 30- AND 45-DAY CUTTING INTERVALS OF FIVE Pennisetum SPECIES IN DAIRY CATTLE. Philippine Journal Of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 45(3), 187-190. Re-trieved from https://www.pjvas.org/index.php/pjvas/article/view/237
  3. Bestil, L., Atole, A.F. & Rama, J. (2014). Chemi-cal composition and in situ digestibility of common feed resources for ruminants in marginal uplands. Annals of Tropical Re-search/Annals of Tropical Research (Vi-sayas State University-Online), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.32945/atr36s12.2014
  4. Broderick, G.A., Wallace, R.J. & Ørskov, E.R. (1991). Control of rate and extent of pro-tein degradation. In: Elsevier eBooks. 541–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-702290-1.50030-8
  5. Buxton, D.R. & Redfearn, D.D. (1997). Plant limitations to fiber digestion and utiliza-tion. Journal of Nutrition, 127 (5), 814S-818S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/127.5.814s
  6. Giordano, A., Liu, Z., Panter, S.N., Dimech, A.M., Shang, Y., Wijesinghe, H., Fulgueras, K., Ran, Y., Mouradov, A., Rochfort, S., Pa-tron, N.J. & Spangenberg, G.C. (2014). Re-duced lignin content and altered lignin composition in the warm season forage grass Paspalum dilatatum by down-regulation of a Cinnamoyl CoA Reductase Gene. Transgenic Research, 23 (3), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-014-9784-1
  7. Islam, M.R., Garcia, S.C., Islam, Md.A., Bashar, Md.K., Roy, A., Roy, B.K., Sarker, N.R. & Clark, C.E.F. (2024). Ruminant Produc-tion from Napier Grass (Pennisetum pur-pureum Schum): A Review. Animals, 14 (3), 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14030467
  8. Jung, H.G. & Allen, M.S. (1995). Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and di-gestibility of forages by ruminants. Jour-nal of Animal Science, 73 (9), 2774. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x
  9. Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K. (1999). Plant toxins and detoxification methods to im-prove feed quality of tropical seeds. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sci-ences, 12(3), 467–480.
  10. McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Morgan, C. A., Sinclair, L. A., & Wil-kinson, R. G. (2011). Animal Nutrition (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  11. Mertens, D.R. (2013). Regulation of forage in-take. In: ASSA, CSSA and SSSA. 450–493. https://doi.org/10.2134/1994.foragequality.c11
  12. Minson, D.J. (1990) Forage in Ruminant Nutri-tion. Academic Press, San Diego, 483p. - References - Scientific Research Publish-ing (n.d.).
  13. Mould, F.L., Ørskov, E.R. & Mann, S.O. (1983). Associative effects of mixed feeds. I.
  14. effects of type and level of supplementa-tion and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 10 (1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(83)90003-2
  15. Ørskov, E.R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The esti-mation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 92 (2), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859600063048
  16. Osuji P.O., I.V. Nsahlai and H. Khalili. 1993.. ILCAFeed evaluationManual 5. Interna-tional Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.40pp.
  17. Rusdy M 2016: Elephant grass as forage for ruminant animals. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 28, Article #49. Retrieved May 17, 2025, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd28/4/rusd28049.html
  18. Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant (2nd ed.). Cornell Universi-ty Press.
  19. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. & Lewis, B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysac-charides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74 (10), 3583–3597.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic