Download - Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
-
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
1/15
-
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
2/15
ABSTRACT: Eleven 1-pool, seven 2-pool, and three
3-pool models were compared in fitting gas production
data and predicting in vivo NDF digestibility and effec-
tive first-order digestion rate of potentially digestible
NDF (pdNDF). Isolated NDF from 15 grass silages har-
vested at different stages of maturity was incubated in
triplicate in rumen fluid-buffer solution for 72 h to es-
timate the digestion kinetics from cumulative gas pro-
duction profiles. In vivo digestibility was estimated by
the total fecal collection method in sheep fed at a main-
tenance level of feeding. The concentration of pdNDF
was estimated by a 12-d in situ incubation. The param-
eter values from gas production profiles and pdNDF
were used in a 2-compartment rumen model to predict
pdNDF digestibility using 50 h of rumen residence
time distributed in a ratio of 0.4:0.6 between the non-
escapable and escapable pools. The effective first-order
digestion rate was computed both from observed in
vivo and model-predicted pdNDF digestibility assum-
ing the passage kinetic model described above. There
were marked differences between the models in fitting
the gas production data. The fit improved with increas-
ing number of pools, suggesting that silage pdNDF is
not a homogenous substrate. Generally, the models
predicted in vivo NDF digestibility and digestion rate
accurately. However, a good fit of gas production data
was not necessarily translated into improved predic-
tions of the in vivo data. The models overestimating
the asymptotic gas volumes tended to underestimate
the in vivo digestibility. Investigating the time-related
residuals during the later phases of fermentation is im-
portant when the data are used to estimate the first-or-
der digestion rate of pdNDF. Relatively simple models
such as the France model or even a single exponential
model with discrete lag period satisfied the minimum
criteria for a good model. Further, the comparison of
feedstuffs on the basis of parameter values is more un-
equivocal than in the case of multiple-pool models.
Key words: effective digestion rate, fiber, gas production, mathematical model, rumen digestion
2008 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2008. 86:26572669
doi:10.2527/jas.2008-0894
INTRODUCTION
The in vitro gas production technique has widely
been used during the last decade among ruminant
nutritionists to study feed degradation. Mathematical
description of the data has been accomplished by fit-
ting a variety of nonlinear models (France et al., 1993,
2000; Schofield et al., 1994; Cone et al., 1996). Most
of the new models are non-first-order models [i.e., the
digestion rate (kd) is variable during fermentation]. Alimitation of the non-first-order kinetic parameters is
that they cannot be used in steady-state rumen mod-
els. To overcome these problems, Pitt et al. (1999) de-
rived equations to estimate the effective first-order kd
from non-first-order models assuming that rumen is a
1-compartment system with random passage of feed
particles.
However, the feed particles are retained selectively
in the rumen (Allen and Mertens, 1988), and without
the mechanisms of selective retention, it is impossible
to attain observed in vivo digestibility of potentially di-
gestible NDF (pdNDF) with realistic passage kinetic
parameter values (Ellis et al., 1994; Huhtanen et al.,2006). Huhtanen et al. (2008) demonstrated that using
digestion kinetic parameters derived from gas produc-
tion data fitted with a 2-pool Gompertz model and indi-
gestible NDF (iNDF) concentration estimated by 12-d
in situ incubation in a 2-compartment rumen model
predicted the in vivo NDF digestibility of grass silages
accurately and precisely. Furthermore, they proposed a
method for estimating the effective first-order kd from
Prediction of in vivo neutral detergent fiber digestibility and digestion
rate of potentially digestible neutral detergent fiber:
Comparison of models
P. Huhtanen,*1 A. Seppl, S. Ahvenjrvi, and M. Rinne
*Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; and MTT Agrifood Research Finland,
Animal Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
1Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received January 22, 2008.
Accepted May 30, 2008.
2657
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
3/15
the model-predicted pdNDF digestibility. The model
predicted the in vivo digestion rate accurately and pre-
cisely. The problem of the 2-compartment Gompertz
model and other non-first-order models is that although
they fit the data better than simpler models such as
the first-order exponential model, the parameter val-
ues of these models do not always permit unequivocal
comparison of feedstuffs.
The objective of the present study was to evaluatethe importance of choice of models in fitting gas pro-
duction data to estimate the in vivo NDF digestibility
and effective first-order digestion rate of grass silages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All sheep in the digestibility trials and ruminally
fistulated cattle as rumen fluid donors for the in situ
incubations were managed according to legislation doc-
umented in the Finnish Animal Welfare Act (247/96),
the order of using vertebrate animals for scientific pur-
poses (1076/85), and the European convention for the
protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental
and other scientific purposes, appendix A and B, imple-
mented under the auspices of the local animal use and
care committee.
Feeds
In vitro gas production was measured from isolated
neutral detergent residue of 15 primary growth timo-
thy (Phleum pratense)-meadow fescue (Festuca praten-
sis) silages harvested at different stages of maturity
over 3 yr. Details of silages, isolation of NDF, estima-
tion of iNDF concentration, and in vivo digestibility of
the silages are described in more detail by Huhtanen
et al. (2008) and chemical analyses by Nousiainen et
al. (2003a).
The concentration of pdNDF (g/kg of DM) was calcu-
lated as NDF (g/kg of DM) iNDF (g/kg of DM). BecauseiNDF by definition is indigestible, amount of iNDF in-
gested in feeds was also used for output. Thus, in vivo
digestibility of pdNDF was calculated as follows: [NDF
intake (g/d) NDF output (g/d)]/pdNDF intake (g/d).The concentration of digestible NDF (dNDF; g/kg of
DM) was calculated as follows: [NDF intake (g/d) fe-cal NDF (g/d)]/DMI (kg/d).
In Vitro Gas Production Measurements
In vitro gas production measurements were made by
an automated system described in detail by Huhtanen
et al. (2008). In brief, the system consists of 39 serum
bottles with a volume of 120 mL. The system is based
on pressure transducers (142PC05D, Honeywell Inc.,
Minneapolis, MN) and solenoid valves (11151-SV-
24Q70, Pneutronics, Hollis, NH). The contents of fer-
mentation bottles are stirred intermittently with 15 s
of stirring and 30-s pauses using a magnetic stirring
plate. Solenoid valves are adjusted to open when the
differential pressure in the bottle reaches 2.8 kPa to
release accumulated gas (approximately 1.1 mL). The
system allows using a relatively large sample size (500
mg), which will decrease the relative contribution of
gas from the inoculum and decrease the random errors
associated with a small sample size (e.g., those related
to attachment of feed particles on the walls of fermen-
tation bottles). Cumulative gas production was record-
ed every 15 min for the 72-h incubation periods, result-
ing in 288 recordings per sample. Gas production fromeach sample was determined in 3 replicated runs.
Models and Curve-Fitting
For each NDF residue, a mean gas curve was calcu-
lated from the 3 replicates. Eleven different 1-pool, 7
different 2-pool, and three 3-pool models were fitted to
the data by the NLIN procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary,
NC). The 1-pool models are presented in Table 1. The
models included 3 exponential equations EXP0, EX-
PDLag, and EXPLPool. Subscripts 0, DLag, and LPool de-
note absence of lag, discrete lag time, and lag pool. The
concepts of discrete lag and lag pool are explained indetail by Mertens (1993a). Groot et al. (1996) proposed
an empirical multiphase model, in which B (units, h)
describes the time at which 50% of the asymptotic value
of gas was produced and C is a dimensionless switching
parameter that together with B determines the shape
of the curve. The France et al. (1993) equation is a gen-
eralization of the Mitscherlich model, which allows ac-
commodating either a sigmoidal or nonsigmoidal shape.
The generalized Michaelis-Menten (Gen M-M) model
allows the rate of digestion to decrease continuously
or to increase first and then decrease and includes a
lag time. The logistic (LOG) model assumes that gas
production is proportional both to the microbial mass
and the digestible substrate (Schofield et al., 1994).
Gompertz (GOMP) and Richards (RICH) models are
extensively used to describe growth functions. Two dif-
ferent forms of the Gompertz equations as derived by
Schofield et al. (1994; GOMPS) and France et al. (2000;
GOMPF) were used. A probability function Weibull
(Ross, 1976;WEIB) was also included in the analysis.
The compartmental interpretation of most of the func-
tions is described in detail by France et al. (2000).
The models EXPDLag (EXPDLag2), Groot (Groot2), lo-
gistic (LOG2), Gompertz (GOMP2S and GOMP2F), Rich-
ards (RICH2), and Weibull (WEIB2) were also extendedto accommodate 2 cell wall pools with fast and slow
degradation rates. The goodness of fit was markedly
improved for the other 2-pool models except for the
EXPDLag2 model. The improvement in goodness of fit
was marginal for this model, and in many cases, the
rates were similar for both pools. For the Gen M-M, the
fit was not markedly improved by including the second
pool or the model did not converge, lacked robustness,
or resulted in local optima or biologically meaning-
less parameter values. Three-pool models were used
for Gompertz (GOMP3S), Groot (Groot3), and logistic
(LOG3) models.
Huhtanen et al.2658
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
4/15
Rumen Digestion Models
Digestion kinetic parameters derived from the gas
production data were used in a dynamic mechanisticmodel described by Huhtanen et al. (2008) to predict
ruminal pdNDF digestibility for a single batch of feed.
The amount of pdNDF digested in the rumen was esti-
mated using a model incorporating the selective reten-
tion of feed particles in the rumen (Allen and Mertens,
1988). Large forage particles entering the rumen need
to be comminuted below a threshold size before they
can escape from the rumen. Specific gravity has also
been shown to influence the probability of particles to
escape from the rumen. Marker kinetic studies (e.g.,
Pond et al., 1988; Lund et al., 2006) have demonstrated
that the release of feed particles from the nonescapable
pool to the escapable pool is a time-dependent process;therefore, a gamma time-related function (G2G1) was
used to describe this process. The rate constant (kr)
was calculated as: kr = (t 2)/[1 + (t )], where =
the rate constant (= 2/residence time in the compart-
ment) and t = time. The passage rate from the escap-
able pool was assumed to be a first-order process. The
mean residence time in the rumen was assumed to be
50 h. Distribution of 0.4:0.6 of rumen residence time
between the nonescapable and escapable pools was as-
sumed (Huhtanen et al., 2006; Lund et al., 2006).
Model-predicted pdNDF digestibility was used to
calculate the effective first-order digestion rate (ef-
fective kd) using the equation described by Huhtanen
et al. (2006): effective kd = {[kp + kr] + [(kp + kr)2 +
4 pdNDF digestibility krkp/(1 pdNDF digestibil-ity)]0.5}/2. Values of 0.05 and 0.0333 were used for kp
and kr, respectively. Pitt et al. (1999) demonstrated
that the function derived to estimate effective kd is in-
dependent of intake, which allows using this param-
eter in continuous rumen models.
Digestibility of cell wall carbohydrates in the rumen
is competition between the rates of digestion and pas-
sage. The total mass disappearing by digestion is the
integral over time from t > lag to , and total extent
of digestion is defined as the total amount degraded
divided by the total amount entering the system. For
the simple exponential model, the digestibility (D) with
a kd and 1-compartment rumen model with first-orderpassage (kp) can be evaluated by a simple algebraic
equation [D = kd/(kd + kp)], but for most models, the
integrals are nonanalytical (France et al., 2000) and
must be evaluated numerically.
Except for the EXP0, EXPDLag, and EXPLPool models,
kd is or can be time-dependent. The kd at each time
point can be estimated as the mass digested as a pro-
portion of the mass in the rumen. If the function of cu-
mulative gas production is described as F(t) and the de-
rivative of the function F(t) = dF/dt describes the mass
disappearing at time = t, the kd at each time point (t)
can be described as follows: kd = F(t)/F(t). Estimated
gas production parameters from different models wereused to compute the value of F at different time points.
With the models including discrete lag time, the diges-
tion began at t = lag time, but the release from the non-
escapable to the escapable pool commenced at time t =
0. In the model ExpDLag, the retention in the lag pool
was included in the rumen nonescapable pool.
The amount of dNDF predicted by the model was
calculated as pdNDF (g/kg of DM) model-predicted
pdNDF digestibility. Total NDF digestibility was calcu-
lated as model-predicted dNDF/NDF. Single effective
first-order digestion rate was calculated from in vivo
pdNDF digestibility similarly as from model-predictedpdNDF digestibility described earlier.
The rumen models were constructed using Powersim
software (Bergen, Norway). Simulations were run for
120 h with a 0.0625-h integration step and using the
Euler integration method.
Statistical Analysis
To evaluate the performance of the models, the good-
ness of fit was compared using the proportion of vari-
ance accounted for (R2) and residual mean squares
(RMS) and ranking the models according to RMS.
Table 1. Mathematical models to describe the cumulative gas production from in vitro
fermentation
Model1 Equation2 Domain
EXP0 Vt = V [1 e(kt)] t 0
EXPDLag Vt = V {1 e[k (t L)]} t L
EXPLPool Vt = V {1 1/[kd kL] [kd
e(kLt) kLe(kdt)]} t 0
Groot Vt = V/[1 + (BC/tC)] t 0
France Vt = V (1 e {k[t L] [c ( t L)]}) t L
Gen M-M Vt = V (t T)c
/[(t L)c
+ Kc
] t LLOG Vt = V/[1 + e[2 4k (t L)]] t 0
GOMP Vt = V1 exp {exp[1 k1 (t L1)]} t 0GOMPFR Vt = V(1 exp{b[e
c(t L) 1]/c}) t L, c > 0WEIB Vt = V
{1 e[k(t L)]}n t LRICH Vt = V
{1 e [k(t L)]}1/n t 0
1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH= Richards.
2Vt = volume of gas at time t; V = asymptotic gas volume; k and kd = rate parameters; L = lag parameter;kL = rate parameter from lag pool; B, b, C, c, r, and n = adjustable parameters.
Gas production models 2659
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
5/15
These evaluations were made separately for the 11
one-pool models, the 6 two-pool models, and the 3
three-pool models.
Root mean squared errors (RMSE) between the ob-
served in vivo and model-predicted dNDF and NDF
digestibility values and in vivo derived and model-
predicted effective kd values were calculated as follows:
RMSE = (observed predicted)2/n. Mean squareprediction error (MSPE) was divided to components re-
sulting from mean bias, slope bias, and random varia-
tion around the regression line (Bibby and Toutenburg,
1977). The significance of the deviation of the intercept
from 0 and the slope from 1 was analyzed by t-test.
RESULTS
Feeds
The chemical and morphological composition and
in vivo digestibility of the silages are shown in Table
2. Due to differences in maturity, the silages showed
a large variation in all parameters. The silages were
well-preserved as indicated by low pH (4.10) and low
concentrations of VFA (22 g/kg of DM) and ammonia N
(47 g/kg of total N).
Fitting of the Gas Production Profiles
The proportion of variance explained by the models
was in general very high, as for all 15 gas production
curves, it was greater than 0.997 (Table 3). The RMSE
were 1.1 to 4.3% of the final gas volume. The Gen M-M
and Groot models showed the greatest average R2values,
whereas LOG was the worst according to this criterion.
The differences between the models were much greater
when evaluated on the basis of RMS. The average RMS
across the 15 curves was smallest with the Gen M-M
model followed by the Groot model. Models LOG and
EXP0 clearly had the greatest RMS. The GOMPS modelhad a smaller RMS than LOG and EXP0, but it was
always greater than for the other models. Although the
mean RMS was greater for the Groot model compared
with Gen M-M, the smallest RMS was observed more
often with the Groot model (8/15) than with Gen M-M
(4/15). Only the fit to models LOG (11/15) and EXP0
(4/15) resulted in the largest RMS.
Table 2. Composition and digestibility of the silages
Item Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Composition, g/kg of DM
OM 927 8.6 909 940
CP 161 38.3 112 239
NDF 586 82 402 669
iNDF1 81 47.6 17 158
Lignin 36 10.3 20 55
Morphological composition, g/kg of DM
Leaves 346 137 192 625
Stems 596 93 375 714
Heads 57 50 0 129
Digestibility
OM 0.725 0.073 0.613 0.840
NDF 0.737 0.085 0.597 0.869
pdNDF2
0.844 0.035 0.791 0.907
1Indigestible NDF.2Potentially digestible NDF.
Table 3. Goodness of fit of the 1-pool models
Model1
R2
Residual mean squares
Mean Median Minimum Maximum
EXP0 0.99771 23.8 19.6 6.94 57.2
EXPDLag 0.99966 3.46 2.98 1.30 7.83
EXPLPool 0.99960 4.24 3.34 0.83 11.5
France 0.99969 3.20 2.43 1.12 7.53
Gen M-M 0.99982 1.83 1.47 0.84 3.35
GOMPS 0.99893 10.3 9.52 6.15 15.6
GOMPF 0.99966 3.46 2.99 1.28 7.83
Groot 0.99979 2.13 1.66 0.85 4.11
LOG 0.99730 25.8 25.8 17.0 34.4
RICH 0.99968 3.26 2.41 1.13 6.76
WEIB 0.99967 3.34 2.75 1.21 7.72
1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH
= Richards.
Huhtanen et al.2660
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
6/15
Extending the models for a second pool assuming
that the 2 pools describe the gas produced from rapidly
and slowly digestible NDF decreased RMS markedly
except for EXPDLag (Table 4). In many cases, fitting the
gas production profiles to the 2-pool EXPDLag model re-
sulted in similar rates for the both pools. The R2 values
were above 0.9999 with all other 2-pool models, and
RMS was below 1.00 in all cases. For the best mod-
els, the RMSE was only 0.32 to 0.70% of the final gasvolume. Including a third pool into the Groot, GOMPS,
and LOG further decreased RMS.
Asymptotic Gas Volume
Model-predicted asymptotic gas volumes together
with observed endpoints are shown in Figure 1. The
variation between the models in predicted gas volume
was relatively large, ranging from 116.2 mL (LOG)
to 130.1 mL (Gen M-M). The differences between the
models were highly significant (P< 0.001). Asymptotic
extent of gas production was closely associated with po-
tential NDF digestibility (pdNDF/NDF), with R2
valuesranging from 0.757 to 0.940 (Table 5). One- and 2-pool
Groot and Gen M-M models had the lowest R2 values
between potential NDF digestibility and asymptotic
gas volume. Including the third pool in the Groot mod-
el clearly improved the relationship between potential
NDF digestibility and asymptotic gas volume.
Some examples of time-related residuals are shown
in Figure 2. The residuals were usually greatest during
the first 20 h of incubation, but there were differences
also during the later phases of incubation.
Prediction of NDF Digestibility
The relationships between the predicted and ob-
served NDF digestibility are shown in Table 6. The R2
values were greater than 0.96 for all other models ex-
cept for the WEIB model, indicating that the precision
of this model was less than that of the other models.
The models EXP0, Gen M-M, Groot, and Groot2 under-
predicted in vivo NDF digestibility, whereas the LOG
model slightly overpredicted it. In most cases, the vari-
ation resulting from mean bias or random variation
across the regression line had the greatest contribution
to the total MSPE.
The relationship between the effective kd calculated
from model-predicted and in vivo-determined pdNDF
digestibility is shown in Table 7. Most models predict-ed the in vivo-derived effective kd accurately (bias from
0.005 to 0.005) and precisely R2 > 0.80. None of themodels was the best according to all criteria (small bias,
slope close to 1, intercept close to 0, and high R 2), but
the models France, RICH, LOG2, GOMP2S, GOMP2F,
and WEIB2 performed well according to these criteria.
DISCUSSION
The main objective of the present study was to in-
vestigate the importance of curve-fitting to the gas pro-
duction data. The parameter values of gas production
kinetics were used in a mechanistic rumen model toestimate in vivo NDF digestibility and effective first-
order digestion rate of pdNDF. Our previous study
(Huhtanen et al., 2008) demonstrated that in vivo NDF
digestibility could be predicted accurately and precise-
ly by a model in which digestion kinetic parameters
were estimated from gas production profiles by the
2-pool Gompertz equation and iNDF concentration by
a 12-d in situ incubation. The model described the cu-
mulative gas production profiles very well as indicated
by small mean square errors and confidence intervals
of the parameter values. However, a disadvantage of
this and other models with a time-dependent fraction-
al digestion rate, especially with multiple pool models,is that parameter values are strongly correlated and
do not permit unequivocal comparison of feedstuffs.
Steady-state rumen models (e.g., Danfr et al., 2006)
need first-order digestion rates, which preclude the use
of kinetic parameters estimated using models includ-
Table 4. Goodness of fit of the 2- and 3-pool models
Model1
R2
Residual mean squares
Average Median Minimum Maximum
Two-pool
ExpDLag2 0.99969 3.16 2.98 1.30 7.47
GOMP2S 0.99997 0.26 0.22 0.15 0.71
GOMP2F 0.99994 0.62 0.70 0.22 1.02
Groot2 0.99995 0.47 0.49 0.38 0.61
RICH2 0.99996 0.39 0.15 0.10 0.94
LOG2 0.99992 0.70 0.69 0.32 0.95
WEIB2 0.99999 0.15 0.17 0.04 0.24
Three-pool
GOMP3S 0.99999 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.20
Groot3 1.00000 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.12
LOG3 0.99999 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.14
1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH
= Richards.
Gas production models 2661
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
7/15
ing time-dependent digestion rates. Pitt et al. (1999)
proposed equations to estimate effective first-order
digestion rates for models including digestion lag and
time-dependent digestion rate for 1-compartment ru-
men models. This approach was extended by Huhtanen
et al. (2008) for 2-compartment rumen models. The ef-
fective first-order kd was computed from the model-predicted pdNDF digestibility by solving the equation
proposed by Allen and Mertens (1988).
Gas Production Models
Different versions of simple exponential equations
have been applied to gas production studies. Sometimes
a parameter describing a rapidly or immediately de-
gradable fraction has been included in models describ-
ing cumulative gas production, similarly as for the in
situ data (rskov and McDonald, 1979). As discussed
by France et al. (2000), this often results in negative
values at zero time. However, negative gas volumes
at zero time are biologically meaningless, and the use-
fulness of such parameter values in rumen models is
questionable.
Including a discrete lag time in the simple first-
order equation improved the fit of models markedly.The discrete lag time can be attributed to hydration,
removal of digestion inhibitors, or attachment of mi-
crobes with the substrate. This model assumes that
digestion begins instantaneously after the lag time.
Although the discrete lag time does not completely de-
scribe the lag phenomena, it provides a simple quan-
titative measure of lag effects (Mertens, 1993a). Allen
and Mertens (1988) proposed a model that describes di-
gestive processes by a 2-step mechanism: the first step
is a first-order process involving a change of substrate
from unavailable to available form (lag pool), and the
Figure 1. Model-predicted asymptotic gas volumes for 15 gas production curves (SE = 1.74 mL). Observed value
is the mean of the 5 data points during the last hour of incubation. Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten;
LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH = Richards.
Huhtanen et al.2662
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
8/15
second step represents the first-order digestion of the
substrate. Biologically, the first step can be interpreted
to be related to the same processes as the discrete lag.
Although the lag pool model is theoretically more cor-
rect than the discrete lag model, it did not fit the databetter than the discrete lag model. Mertens (1993a)
postulated that a discrete lag time was a necessary ad-
dition to the model to adequately describe the digestion
processes.
France et al. (1993) proposed a generalized Mitscher-
lich model, which can accommodate both sigmoid and
nonsigmoid shapes. Further, the fractional digestion
rate can increase or decrease. An increase in digestion
rate with time may reflect an increase in substrate
availability, microbial attachment, and increased mi-
crobial numbers. France et al. (2000) discussed sev-
eral factors (e.g., build-up of fermentation products,
decreased availability of growth factors) that could
result in a decreased fractional digestion rate as the
degradation proceeds. The France model fit the data
consistently better than the ExpDLag model, but the re-
ductions in RMS were rather small, suggesting that
the France model was not able to describe the digestion
kinetics of isolated NDF very accurately.
In the Gen M-M model, the kd increases first and de-
creases later during fermentation (c >1.0) or decreases
continuously (c 1.0). The average value for the c pa-rameter across the 15 gas production curves was 1.69
(range 1.46 to 2.30; i.e., in all cases, the kd increased
first and declined thereafter, probably reflecting in-
creased microbial number, substrate accessibility, and
microbial attachment at the beginning of incubation,
and exhaustion of the rapidly degradable substrate to-
ward the end of fermentation). Compared with othergas production models, the Gen M-M is more flexible
(France et al., 2000), and it decreased RMS compared
with the previous models. Groot et al. (1996) proposed
a modified Gen M-M equation without a discrete lag.
This equation has been extensively used by the Dutch
workers (Cone et al., 1996, 1997). Omitting the lag pa-
rameter from the model increased the RMS, but it was
still much smaller than the RMS of the other 1-pool
models.
In the RICH and WEIB models, the parameter n in-
fluences the pattern of changes in kd with time. When
the parameter value is 1.0 (RICH) or 1.0 (WEIB), thekd is constant (i.e., the model is exponential). In the
WEIB model, the kd either first increases rapidly and
thereafter slowly (n > 1.0) or first decreases rapidly
and thereafter slowly (n < 1.0). The effects of param-
eters n and c on the gas production curve in the WEIB
and France models are very similar, and consequent-
ly, the RMS values of the 15 gas curves were strongly
correlated (R2 = 0.995). In the RICH model, the kd ei-
ther increases (n > 1.0) or decreases (n < 1.0) withincreased digestion time; the changes are more rapid
at the early stages of incubation. The parameter n in-
creases the flexibility in curve-fitting with both WEIB
Figure 2. Time-related residuals after fitting of the 2-pool Gompertz (GOMP2S), logistic (LOG1), Michaelis-
Menten (Gen M-M), and France models to a single gas production curve. Residual mean squares for fitting the
gas production curves were 0.16, 23.79, 1.31, and 2.17 for the models GOMP 2S, LOG1, Gen M-M, and France. The
biases (observed predicted) of NDF digestibility predictions were 0.003, 0.023, 0.046, and 0.000 units, respec-tively.
Gas production models 2663
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
9/15
and RICH models improving the fit compared with the
EXPDLag model. The effects of the n parameter may be
attributed to the changes in hydration, microbial at-
tachment and microbial growth, or to chemical and
structural changes in cell walls with the advancing fer-
mentation time.
The 1-pool Gompertz model derived by France et al.
(2000) fit the data better than the model derived bySchofield et al. (1994). Gompertz and logistic equa-
tions as given by Schofield et al. (1994) have an inher-
ent error in that predicted gas volumes are positive at
time zero, which is not biologically possible, because
the initial gas volume should be zero. In the Gompertz
model derived by France et al. (2000), the fractional
digestion rate increases with time when the parameter
value of c >0, which was interpreted as increased mi-
crobial activity per unit of feed. However, in the pres-
ent study using isolated NDF, the value of parameter c
was only marginally different from zero, and the model
approached ExpDLag.The 2-pool models fit the data markedly better than
the corresponding 1-pool models except the ExpDLag
model, in agreement with the study of Schofield et al.
(1994). The RMS with 1-pool models was positively
(R2 = 0.65 to 0.85) correlated with the in vivo NDF di-
gestibility, suggesting that 1-pool models did not ad-
equately describe the NDF digestion kinetics of early
harvested silages. The 2-pool models assume that the
pdNDF is comprised of rapidly and slowly degradable
fractions as described by Schofield et al. (1994) and
Schofield and Pell (1995). The proportion of the rap-
idly degradable pool of the total gas produced increased
with improved in vivo NDF digestibility, but the pro-
portion of the rapidly degradable pool varied markedly
between the models (0.39 in GOMP2, 0.26 in GOMP2FR,
0.15 in Groot2, 0.55 in LOG2, 0.23 in RICH2, and 0.22
in WEIB2).
The Gompertz model derived by Schofield et al.
(1994) fit all 15 cumulative gas production profiles
better than the model derived by France et al. (2000)when 2-pool models were used despite the positive
intercept at time zero with the Schofield et al. (1994)
model. However, including the second pool markedly
decreased the positive intercept, and it took only 1.5 h
to reach zero residual. Including the second pool to the
Gompertz model derived by France et al. (2000) pre-
sented some biological problems despite the fact that
the fit was markedly improved. Predicted asymptotic
gas volume was smaller than observed gas volume at
70 to 72 h in many cases (9/15). This was probably due
to high values of the parameter c, especially for the
rapidly degradable pool but also for the slowly degrad-able pool. For example, the fractional digestion rates
of the slow pool increased up to 0.15 to 0.20 per hour
toward the end of fermentation period.
Large variation between the models in the propor-
tions of the rapidly and slowly degradable pools despite
very good fit to the data may indicate that there are not
2 easily distinguishable pdNDF pools described by the
cumulative gas production profiles but rather several
cell wall fractions differing in the rate of digestion. De-
pending on the model structure, the division between
the rapidly and slowly degradable pools can be rather
arbitrary. Differences in kd have been reported between
Table 5. Relationships between the potential NDF digestibility (pdNDF/NDF) and model-predicted asymptotic
gas production (mL)
Model1 Intercept SE P-value Slope SE RMSE2 R2
One-pool
EXP0 20 11.2 0.10 125 12.8 3.23 0.871
EXPDLag 14 10.3 0.21 125 11.8 2.96 0.890
EXPLPool 8 9.3 0.41 131 10.6 2.67 0.916
France 1 9.5 0.94 140 10.8 2.73 0.922
Gen M-M 42 12.1 0.004 101 13.9 3.49 0.789GOMPS 9 9.5 0.37 146 10.9 2.74 0.927GOMPF 9 10.5 0.38 130 12.0 3.02 0.892
Groot 47 12.2 0.002 94 14.0 3.53 0.757
LOG 14 9.3 0.16 150 10.7 2.69 0.933RICH 6 9.8 0.53 133 11.2 2.82 0.909
WEIB 5 10.0 0.66 135 11.4 2.88 0.909
Two-pool
GOMP2S 3 9.0 0.74 144 10.3 2.60 0.933GOMP2FR 11 9.1 0.25 151 10.4 2.62 0.937Groot2 6 15.6 0.73 154 17.9 4.50 0.840LOG2 14 9.1 0.16 154 10.4 2.62 0.940RICH2 8 9.5 0.39 150 10.9 2.74 0.936WEIB2 2 9.6 0.85 142 11.4 2.88 0.917
Three-pool
GOMP3 4 9.3 0.70 145 10.6 2.68 0.929Groot3 5 10.7 0.65 149 12.3 3.09 0.913LOG3 10 9.3 0.39 151 10.7 2.70 0.934
1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH = Richards.
2RMSE = root mean square error.
Huhtanen et al.2664
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
10/15
Table 6. Relationships between the predicted and observed in vivo NDF digestibility, root mean square error
(RMSE), mean bias (observed predicted), and distribution of the mean squared prediction error (MSPE)
Model1 Intercept Slope R2 RMSE Mean bias
Distribution of MSPE
Bias Slope Random
One-pool
EXP0 0.064a 0.966 0.985 0.042 0.040 0.930 0.005 0.065
EXPDLag 0.059a 0.928b 0.989 0.013 0.007 0.264 0.235 0.502
EXPLPool 0.065a
0.919b
0.990 0.013 0.006 0.212 0.302 0.486France 0.025 0.974 0.983 0.012 0.005 0.178 0.032 0.790
Gen M-M 0.143a 0.858b 0.985 0.048 0.044 0.854 0.083 0.063
GOMPS 0.017 0.962 0.989 0.015 0.011 0.561 0.048 0.391GOMPF 0.041
a 0.941 0.988 0.012 0.005 0.186 0.180 0.633
Groot 0.152a 0.834b 0.989 0.040 0.036 0.769 0.166 0.065
LOG 0.020 0.954 0.989 0.018 0.015 0.682 0.050 0.268RICH 0.038 0.953 0.988 0.010 0.003 0.095 0.147 0.758
WEIB 0.049 1.063 0.856 0.030 0.002 0.006 0.027 0.967Two-pool
GOMP2S 0.014 0.995 0.989 0.013 0.010 0.579 0.001 0.420
GOMP2F 0.022 1.025 0.986 0.010 0.003 0.107 0.039 0.854Groot2 0.033 1.008 0.961 0.042 0.039 0.850 0.000 0.150
LOG2 0.018 1.025 0.986 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.042 0.957RICH2 0.009 1.021 0.984 0.012 0.006 0.254 0.019 0.727WEIB2 0.013 0.989 0.984 0.011 0.004 0.146 0.007 0.847
Three-pool
GOMP3S 0.016 0.986 0.986 0.012 0.006 0.271 0.009 0.720
LOG3 0.015 1.023 0.986 0.010 0.002 0.036 0.036 0.928Groot3 0.033 0.975 0.984 0.018 0.014 0.630 0.015 0.356
aIntercept significantly (P< 0.05) different from 0.bSlope significantly (P< 0.05) different from 1.
1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH = Richards.
Table 7. Relationships between the digestion rates of potential NDF digestibility [pdNDF (1/h)] calculated from
the model-predicted and in vivo-determined digestibility of pdNDF, root mean square error (RMSE), mean bias
(observed predicted), and distribution of the mean squared prediction error (MSPE)
Model1 Intercept Slope R2 RMSE Mean bias
Distribution MSPE
Bias Slope Random
One-pool
EXP0 0.003 1.206 0.823 0.014 0.013 0.902 0.019 0.079
EXPDLag 0.011 0.858 0.864 0.005 0.002 0.160 0.108 0.732
EXPLPool 0.013a 0.823b 0.872 0.005 0.002 0.100 0.178 0.722
France 0.006 0.939 0.846 0.005 0.002 0.160 0.020 0.820
Gen M-M 0.017a
0.933 0.879 0.014 0.014 0.905 0.003 0.092
GOMPS 0.009 0.795b 0.861 0.007 0.005 0.399 0.140 0.461
GOMPF 0.010 0.872 0.858 0.005 0.002 0.107 0.093 0.800
Groot 0.020a
0.832 0.883 0.012 0.011 0.810 0.037 0.153
LOG 0.012 0.740 0.864 0.009 0.007 0.493 0.168 0.338RICH 0.008 0.897 0.882 0.004 0.001 0.060 0.078 0.862
WEIB 0.032a
0.491b
0.303 0.012 0.001 0.010 0.269 0.721Two-pool
GOMP2S 0.001 1.082 0.862 0.006 0.004 0.505 0.023 0.472GOMP2F 0.005 1.055 0.851 0.005 0.001 0.047 0.019 0.934Groot2 0.004 1.182 0.742 0.014 0.013 0.873 0.014 0.112
LOG2 0.001 1.027 0.840 0.005 0.001 0.063 0.004 0.933RICH2 0.004 1.114 0.818 0.006 0.003 0.284 0.048 0.668WEIB2 0.002 0.998 0.833 0.005 0.002 0.144 0.000 0.856
Three-pool
GOMP3S 0.003 0.993 0.840 0.005 0.003 0.233 0.000 0.766
LOG3 0.004 1.075 0.835 0.005 0.001 0.066 0.030 0.903Groot3 0.005 1.011 0.814 0.008 0.005 0.562 0.000 0.438
aIntercept significantly (P< 0.05) different from 0.
bSlope significantly (P< 0.05) different from 1.1Gen M-M = generalized Michaelis-Menten; LOG = logistic; GOMP = Gompertz; WEIB = Weibull; RICH = Richards.
Gas production models 2665
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
11/15
stems and leaves (Chaves et al., 2006) and also between
individual cell wall polysaccharides (Mertens, 1993b).
In vitro NDF digestion of various forages also demon-
strated a fast- and a slow-digesting pool (Van Soest et
al., 2005). Including a second pool for the exponential
models did not improve the fit much, in contrast to the
other 2-pool models. With the exponential model, the
small improvement in the fit is likely because the data
generated by summing 2 exponential functions producea curve shaped very much like a single-pool exponen-
tial function (Schofield et al., 1994).
Including a third pool in the model further decreased
the RMS, and the fit was almost perfect, with the av-
erage RMSE being 0.20, 0.15, and 0.27% of the mean
asymptotic gas production for models GOMP3S, Groot3,
and LOG3, respectively. However, none of the models
were able to identify a gas pool that could result from
the microbial turnover. The proportion of the third gas
pool characterized with the longest lag time and slow
rate decreased with improved in vivo NDF digestibility.
This is in contrast to what could be assumed from the
greater energy supply and increased microbial growthfrom early-harvested silages. Most likely, this pool rep-
resents the gas production both from slowly digestible
fiber and microbial turnover.
Cone et al. (1997) suggested that the 3 phases of gas
production can be related to the fermentation of solu-
ble and insoluble substrates, and microbial turnover.
In their study with sugars, the gas production from the
pool assumed to represent microbial turnover was be-
low 10% of the total gas volume (i.e., much less than
the gas production from the third pool in the present
study). Our data indicate that despite the very good fit
of the models, multipool models do not accurately and
consistently identify feed entities characterized by dif-ferences in degradation kinetics. The pools estimated
by the multipool models should therefore be viewed
as purely mathematical constructs that may or may
not correspond to chemical entities (Schofield, 2000).
Furthermore, the declining robustness with increased
number of pools is inherent in the nonlinear curve-fit-
ting procedure, and when the number of parameters is
increased, the possibility of encountering a local mini-
mum increases.
Relationship Between Potential NDF
Digestibility and Gas ProductionThe close relationship between the extent of poten-
tial NDF digestibility and total volume of gas produced
indicates that isolated NDF used in the present study
was a relatively homogenous substrate. Differences in
VFA pattern in fermentation or changes in partitioning
of carbon between VFA production and microbial syn-
thesis would influence the amount of gas produced per
unit of fermented substrate. However, the large varia-
tion between the models in the predicted asymptotic
gas volumes suggests that it is not possible to estimate
pdNDF from the gas volume. The models LOG, GOMP,
and LOG2 predicted lower asymptotic gas production
than the observed values (mean 70 to 72 h). Because
some gas production still occurred at 72 h (mean 0.12
mL/h), these models were not able to describe the gas
production profiles correctly. On contrary, the mea-
sured value at 70 to 72 h was proportionally only 0.927
to 0.938 of that predicted by the models EXP0, Groot,
Gen M-M, and Groot2. Assuming a digestion rate of
0.05 or 0.06 per hour, proportionally 0.973 to 0.987 ofpdNDF will be digested during 72 h. This together with
the distinct time-related pattern of changes in the re-
siduals after 40 to 50 h of incubation (discussed later)
suggests that these models overestimated the asymp-
totic value of gas production. Overestimation of the as-
ymptotic gas volume by the EXP0 model is related to
its inability to describe the lag phenomenon. The kd de-
creases at later stages of fermentation in the Groot and
Gen M-M models, which although theoretically sound
may lead to overestimation of the asymptotic gas vol-
ume as the time-related pattern of residuals suggests.
To at least partly overcome this problem, the length of
the incubation period may be extended. Another solu-tion is to increase the number of pools as lower asymp-
totic gas volume with the model Groot3 (123.2 mL) com-
pared with Groot1 (128.1 mL) and Groot2 (128.8 mL)
indicates. However, rather than attempting to estimate
the potential extent of NDF digestion from asymptotic
gas production, extended ruminal in situ incubation is
likely to be a more reliable method as indicated by the
close empirical relationship between iNDF concentra-
tion in grass or legume silages and in vivo OM digest-
ibility (Nousiainen et al., 2003b; Rinne et al., 2006).
Prediction of NDF Digestibility
As indicated earlier, using the gas production kinet-
ic data in a rumen model predicted the in vivo NDF
digestibility both accurately and precisely. The good
performance of the model can be attributed to the fol-
lowing 3 factors: (1) separation of NDF into iNDF and
pdNDF, (2) using digesta passage models including se-
lective retention of feed particles in the rumen, and (3)
an accurate and precise prediction of kd by a gas pro-
duction system (Huhtanen et al., 2008). Because the
digestible neutral detergent solubles can be estimated
accurately and precisely by the Lucas test (Huhtanen
et al., 2006), especially if forage-type specific equations
are used, this model can be used to estimate both the
D-value (concentration of digestible OM in DM) and ki-
netic parameters needed in the mechanistic dynamic
models.
Good performance in the curve-fitting was not al-
ways translated to accurate and precise predictions of
the in vivo NDF digestibility values. The France and
RICH models were the best 1-pool models in predicting
NDF digestibility; these models had a small MSPE and
bias, the intercept was not significantly different from
0, and the slope was not different from 1. Although the
use of kinetic parameters estimated by the 1-pool LOG
Huhtanen et al.2666
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
12/15
and GOMP models resulted in accurate and precise es-
timates of NDF digestibility, much poorer fit and un-
derestimation of the asymptotic gas volume preclude
acceptance of these models. The Gen M-M and Groot1
models fit the data much better than the other 1-pool
models, but they were less accurate in predicting the
NDF digestibility than the other 1-pool models except
for EXP0. This may result from the time-related pat-
terns of the residuals (observed predicted) of gasproduction curves. Investigating the residuals fromapproximately 50 h of incubation onwards showed a
clear time-related pattern (Figure 2); with advancing
incubation time, the residuals decreased consistently,
suggesting an overestimation of the asymptotic gas
volume, and consequently underestimation of the pa-
rameters describing kd. The LOG model showed an op-
posite pattern of time-related residual, which resulted
in underestimated extent and overestimated rate of di-
gestion. In the present study, the mean extent and rate
of gas production of the 15 silages were strongly and
negatively correlated (R2 = 0.95; data not shown). Be-
cause the extent of digestion was determined separate-ly using 12-d in situ incubation, biased estimates of the
extent of gas production lead to biased rate estimates
and, consequently, biased digestibility estimates.
Both the Gen M-M and Groot1 models resulted in a
significant slope bias (i.e., the digestibility of low di-
gestibility silages was underestimated more than that
of high-digestibility silages). It is possible that the as-
sumption of decreased kd with increased fermentation
time with these models was not correct, or that the effect
was too strong. In agreement with our data, Dhanoa et
al. (2000) observed a negative bias with the model Gen
M-M compared with the France model in the extent of
rumen digestion, whereas LOG tended to overestimatethe extent of digestion. Dhanoa et al. (2000) compared
several models in estimating the extent of rumen di-
gestion from gas production profiles using measured
values for potentially digestible fraction but assumed
the rumen as a 1-compartment system.
Surprisingly, the EXP0 model was as accurate in pre-
dicting the in vivo NDF digestibility as the models Gen
M-M and Groot despite the fact that the fit of gas pro-
duction data was much better with the latter 2 models.
This may be related to the time-related pattern of re-
siduals during late stages of incubation with the Gen
M-M and Groot models. It seems that large residuals
during early stages of fermentation (
-
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
13/15
in vivo-derived estimates. The estimated effective kd
can be used in steady-state rumen models, and it re-
sults in the same pdNDF digestibility as estimated for
a single feed batch using time-related digestion rates
estimated from the gas production curves.
Pitt et al. (1999) presented a formal derivation for
several models with variable digestion rates for esti-
mating the effective kd including the effects of digestion
lag. They assumed rumen as a single-compartment sys-tem without selective retention of particles, and both
passage and lag time had an influence on the estimat-
ed effective kd. However, in the 2-compartment system,
the proportion of pdNDF disappearing by passage is
smaller during the early residence time compared with
a 1-compartment system, but for later residence times,
the reverse is true. Due to the slow disappearance via
passage during early residence times, a digestion lag
time would have a smaller effect on the digestibility
in the 2-compartment compared with 1-compartment
system (Ellis et al., 1994).
Conclusions
Two-pool models could be fit better to gas produc-
tion data than 1-pool models, indicating that pdNDF
in grass silage cannot be considered as a homogenous
substrate. The best fit was not always translated into
improved accuracy of the in vivo predictions. There was
no evidence of benefits from using 2-pool gas produc-
tion models in terms of predicting the in vivo param-
eters despite markedly better fit of the data. It seems
that large residuals during early stages of fermenta-
tion (
-
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
14/15
Nousiainen, J., M. Rinne, M. Hellmki, and P. Huhtanen. 2003b.
Prediction of the digestibility of primary growth and regrowth
grass silages from chemical composition, pepsin-cellulase solu-
bility and indigestible cell wall content. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech-
nol. 110:6174.
Nozire, P., and B. Michalet-Doreau. 1996. Validation of in sacco
method: Influence of sampling site, nylon bag or rumen con-
tents, on fibrolytic activity of solid-associated microorganisms.
Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 57:203210.
rskov, E. R., and I. McDonald. 1979. The estimation of protein de-
gradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weight-ed according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 92:499503.
Pitt, R. E., T. L. Cross, A. N. Pell, P. Schofield, and P. H. Doane.
1999. Use of in vitro gas production models in ruminal kinetics.
Math. Biosci. 159:145163.
Pond, K. R., W. C. Ellis, J. H. Matis, H. M. Ferreiro, and J. D. Sutton.
1988. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta
flow in cattle. Br. J. Nutr. 60:571595.
Rinne, M., A. Olt, J. Nousiainen, A. Seppl, M. Tuori, C. Paul, M.
D. Fraser, and P. Huhtanen. 2006. Prediction of legume silage
digestibility from various laboratory methods. Grass Forage
Sci. 61:354362.
Ross, S. 1976. A First Course in Probability. Macmillan, New York,
NY.
Schofield, P. 2000. Gas production methods. Pages 209232 in Farm
Animal Metabolism and Nutrition. J. P. F. DMello, ed. CAB
International, Oxon, UK.
Schofield, P., R. E. Pitt, and A. N. Pell. 1994. Kinetics of fiber diges-
tion from in vitro gas production. J. Anim. Sci. 72:29802991.
Schofield, P., and A. N. Pell. 1995. Validity of using accumulated gas
pressure readings to measure forage digestion in vitro: A com-parison involving three forages. J. Dairy Sci. 78:22302238.
Van Soest, P. J., M. E. Van Amburgh, J. B. Robertson, and W. F.
Knaus. 2005. Validation of the 2.4 times lignin factor for ul-
timate extent of NDF digestion, and curve peeling rate of fer-
mentation curves into pools. Pages 139149 in Proc. Cornell
Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, East Syracuse,
NY. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
Gas production models 2669
by on September 21, 2010.jas.fass.orgDownloaded from
http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/http://jas.fass.org/ -
8/8/2019 Modelos Prod de Gas in Vitro
15/15
Referenceshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#BIBL
This article cites 22 articles, 3 of which you can access for free at:
Citationshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#otherarticles
This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted articles:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#BIBLhttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#BIBLhttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#otherarticleshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#otherarticleshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#otherarticleshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#otherarticleshttp://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/10/2657#BIBL