Comparação de métodos in vitro para a quantificação da digestibilidade da matéria seca e da fibra em detergente neutro de forragens e concentrados / Comparison of in vitro methods to quantify the dry matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility of forages and concentrates

Objetivou-se comparar a digestibilidade in vitro da matéria seca (DIVMS) e da fibra em detergente neutro (DIVFDN) de forragens e concentrados obtidos por intermédio das incubadoras DaisyII e TE-150, combinadas com filter bags tipo F57 (Ankon®) ou tecido não-tecido (TNT, 100g/m²), em relação aos valores obtidos utilizando-se o método de Tilley e Terry (1963). Foram utilizadas 25 amostras de alimentos concentrados e 25 de forragens. Não houve diferenças entre filter bags (P>0,39) para a DIVMS de forragens. Maiores valores de DIVMS (P<0,01) foram verificados para a incubadora TE-150 em relação à DaisyII. As estimativas de DIVMS obtidas com incubadoras e filter bags foram superiores (P<0,01) àquelas obtidas com o método Tilley e Terry (1963). Observaram-se maiores valores de DIVFDN de forragens (P<0,01) com filter bags F57 em relação ao TNT e com a incubadora TE-150 em relação à DaisyII. Todos os valores de DIVFDN obtidos com incubadoras e filter bags foram superiores (P<0,01) aos obtidos com o método Tilley e Terry (1963). Todos os métodos apresentaram-se positiva e fortemente correlacionados (P<0,01), tanto para DIVMS como para DIVFDN. As repetibilidades e variâncias entre amostras para DIVMS e DIVFDN foram similares entre os métodos. Portanto, conclui-se que, em se tratando de avaliações comparativas entre alimentos, todos os métodos avaliados possuem capacidade similar de discriminação.(AU)

The objective was to compare in vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDMD) and neutral detergent fiber (IVNDFD) of forages and concentrates obtained using the incubators DaisyII and TE-150, and filter bags F57 (Ankon®) or non-woven textile (NWT - 100g/m²) in comparison with the values obtained using the Tilley and Terry (1963) method. Twenty-five samples of concentrates and 25 samples of forages were used. There were no differences between filter bags (P>0.39) for IVDMD of forages. Higher IVDMD (P<0.01) were observed for TE-150 compared to DaisyII. Estimates of IVDMD obtained with incubators and filter bags were higher (P<0.01) than those obtained with the Tilley and Terry (1963) method. Higher IVNDFD (P<0.01) were obtained with filter bags F57 regarding to NWT and TE-150 when compared to DaisyII. All values of the IVNDFD obtained with incubators and filter bags were higher (P<0.01) than those obtained with the Tilley and Terry (1963) method. Both IVDMD and IVNDFD variables were greater using TE-150 incubator than using DaisyII (P<0.04). Estimates obtained using NWT filter bags were higher (P<0.01) than F57 filter bags. All methods were positively and strongly correlated (P<0.01) to each other for IVDMD and IVNDFD. The repeatability and variances among samples for IVDMD and IVNDFD were similar among methods. In conclusion, all methods were similarly able to discriminate samples.(AU)

Evaluation of methods for the quantification of ether extract contents in forage and cattle feces

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to compare the estimates of ether extract (EE) contents obtained by the Randall method and by the high-temperature method of the American Oil Chemist's Society (AOCS; Am 5-04) in forages (n = 20) and cattle feces (n = 15). The EE contents were quantified by using the Randall extraction or AOCS method and XT4 filter bags or cartridges made of qualitative filter paper (80 g/m²) as containers for the samples. It was also evaluated the loss of particles, and concentration of residual chlorophyll after extraction and the recovery of protein and minerals in the material subjected to extraction. Significant interaction was observed between extraction method and material for EE contents. The EE estimates using the AOCS method were higher, mainly in forages. No loss of particles was observed with different containers. The chlorophyll contents in the residues of cattle feces were not affected by the extraction method; however, residual chlorophyll was lower using the AOCS method in forages. There was complete recovery of the protein and ash after extraction. The results suggest that AOCS method produces higher estimates of EE contents in forages and cattle feces, possibly by providing greater extraction of non-fatty EE.