Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
186 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Pectins - description
|
v. dig fiber, soluble in hot water, in soft plant tissue, gelling properties
galacturonic acid with monisachharides |
|
Extracellular starch degredation
|
starch ---dextrins---maltose---glucose
|
|
Extracellular cellulose degredation
|
b(1-4) links hydrolyzed to cellobiose and then to glucose by mo cellulase enzymes
|
|
Extracellular pectin degredation
|
hydrolyzed by pectinases into galacturonic acid units and mono
|
|
cell contents
|
organic acids, sugars, starch, fructans
|
|
Middle lamella
|
pectin
b-glucans |
|
cell wall
|
hemicellulose
cellulose lignin |
|
CHO classification by PA
|
CHO=CF + NFE
est by diff errors |
|
CHO classification NRC
|
CH0= NDF+NFC
NFC = 100 - (NDF + CP+Fat+ash) est by diff error |
|
Digested by mammalian enzymes
|
organic acids
sugar starch |
|
potentially ferment to lactic acid
|
sugar
starch fructans |
|
support mo growth
|
sugar
starch fructans pectic substances b-glucans |
|
decreased fermentation at low ph
|
pectc substances
b-glucans |
|
Non-starch polusachharides
|
b-linked
resist enzymatic dig mannose, rhamnose, arabinose, xylose, glucose, galactose, glucoronic and galacturonic acids released by acid hydrolases after amylase trtmnt |
|
starch
|
a linked
hydrolyzed by pancreatic amylase |
|
water for partitioning NSC
|
extracts sugars
hot water solubilizes some dxtrins |
|
acetate phosphate buffer for partitioning NSC
|
extracts sugars
also extracts some poly pH modifies what they extract |
|
Low molecular weight CHO analysis
|
reducing sugars extracted with ethanol or water
condensation rxn --simple, fast enzymatic rxn ---$, more smpl chromatographic tech--" " |
|
reducing sugar analysis
|
carbonyl grp reduces alkaline solutions of metallic salts
must hydrolyze all CHO into mono (unhydrolyzed undetected) protein, ntl reducing agents, alcohol interfere |
|
Enzymatic assay
|
gluscose hydrolyzed from CHO w/specific enzyme
only detects glucose |
|
Condenstation assay
|
aka - phenol sulfuric assay
chromegen quantified phenolic acid+CHO+acid= chromogen no need to hydrolyze sample depends on type and pH of acid and temp, and ethanol strength cellulostic lint interferes |
|
High molecular wt NSC analysis
|
starch= polarimetry, enzymatic
Soluble fiber |
|
Enzymatic starch analysis
|
specific enzymes hydrolyze to glucose (determined colormetrcally)
1) gelatinization 2) enzymatic hydrolysis 3) end product quantification |
|
Phosphate soluble fiber
|
AOAC method
non starch, non NDF = pectin, fructan, gum 1) solubolize CHO in phosphate 2)hydrolze w/ amylogluconidsase 3) filter off insoluble residue 4) precipitaet soluble fiber ethanol may incolmpletely precipitate soluble fiber and may precipitate other cmpds phosphate depolymerizes some pstcin |
|
Neutral detergent soluble fiber
|
extract with ethanol
subtract NDF and starch est by diff error |
|
High molecular wt NSC
|
enzymatic starch analysis
Phophate soluble fiber Neutral detergent soluble fiber |
|
Low molecular wt NSC
|
reducing sugar analysis
condenstauion rxn enzymatic rxn chromatographic techniques |
|
determining mo w/ diet
|
purified or urea +purified
doudenal protein assumed to be mo |
|
determining mo with fistulatoion
|
quantify mo in sample
fistulation affects motility and limits replication rep smapling difficult correct for dietary and endogenous N |
|
tubidity assesments
|
increased color depth due to mo growth
|
|
mp synthesis in vitro
|
in vitro ferm - mo harvested
still req fistulation easier to replicate and sample |
|
measuring MP with TCA
|
TCA = trichloro acetic acid precipitation
TCA precipitates protein and small peptides MP=TCA CP in residue - (TCA CP in smaple + TCA CP in media) |
|
measuring mp with markers
|
internal = DAPA, D alanine, DNA, lipid
external = isotope incorporated into mo matter during growth |
|
complex marker for mo
|
DNA, RNA
|
|
hazardous marker for mo
|
sulpher, phosphorous, carbon, nitrogen
|
|
costly marker for mo
|
amino or fatty acid profiles
phospholipids triated leucine ATP |
|
most commonly used mo marker
|
D-alanine
puring bases DAPA |
|
DAPA
|
aa in bact cell wall
rumen mo have constant DAPA:protein measure DAPA in dueodenol digesta assumes all DAPA is mo and constant ration |
|
problems with DAPA
|
ratio can be affected by morphology of bact, digesta component, time after feeding
DAPA absent n some bact some DAPA not cell bound may overetsimate MP |
|
D-alanine
|
more widely dist in bact than DAPA
part of cell wall peptidoglycans not wdely used bc a) overestimates, b)may not be valid as a marker |
|
Nucleic acids
|
RNA: N ratio of duodenal digesta indicates MP synthesis
ratio varies with grwoth rate requires cannulation nucleic acids present in feed and tissue mo nucleic acids may be degraded ruminally |
|
Purine bases/ derivatives
|
absent in feeds, present in mo
internal marker assume- dietary purines degraded ruminally, purin:N constant purine in doudenal fluid MO but..purine bases may be degreaded in si use excretory products instead - no need fistula |
|
purine excratory products
|
allatoin in urine assumed to be mo
cheap, less invasive, less complictaed, easier to anylyze but..some purines not completelly degraded in rumen, urine collection issues, must account for partioning of allatoin in urine vs recycling some endogenous secretion from animal tissue |
|
General problems with markers for est MP synthesis
|
- diff marker= diff result
- no standard - accurate? - lack knowledge about proportion of bact types in doudenal digesta - in vivo marker require cannulation - rep smapling difficult in vivo |
|
Rumen pH
|
5 (highly fermentable diet) to 8 (lo quality forage)
< 6 - chronic acidosis <5.5 = acute acidosis |
|
acute acidosis
|
rumen stasis, water floods rumen to couter high lactae, kidney , nerve damage, high blood lactae, death
|
|
rumen characteristics
|
anaerobic, low redox potential, lots of saliva as buffer
|
|
ferm products
|
VFA, CO2, CH4, NH3
|
|
Rumen mo
|
bact
protozoa - eat bact fungi - imp for fiber |
|
mo growth determinants
|
for maintenance and growth
req - CHO (nrg), N, vita, min |
|
nrg sources for mo
storage and soluble CHO |
starch glycogen
rapidly released |
|
nrg sources for mo
structual CHO |
cellulose, hemicellolose
slowly released |
|
FME
|
fermentable nrg
mo cant use fats, pre ferm cmpds, VFA silage, growers grain |
|
CH4 and ferm eff
|
not eff
|
|
typical VFA proportions
|
60% acetate
20% proprionate 15% butyrate 5% other |
|
high roughage and VFA
|
high acetate
high milk fat high methane output high rumen ph |
|
high conc and vfa
|
high proprionate
high body fat low ph high glucose levels |
|
Factors influencing VFA prod
|
type of dietary CHO
Forage: conc physical form of diet level of feeding freq of feeding chem additives and ionophoores |
|
VFA absorption
|
80-90% abs in rumen
10-20% abomasum, omasum drain to liver via portal vein |
|
nrg from VFA
|
75% of DE rqmt
|
|
Acetate
|
favored by high fiber diet
abs in rumen converetd to acetyl co-a in liver enters TCA cycle lipogenic milk fat precuror |
|
Propionate
|
favored by starchy diet
20% converted to lactate and enters gluconeogenic pthwy 80% abs intact, converted to PEP in liver glucogenic |
|
Butyrate
|
favored by high fiber diet
converted to b hydroxybutyrate measure of ketosis lipogenic |
|
Methane
|
favored by high fiber diet
formed from reduction of C02 or acetate decraboxylation high pr = low meth pr = H2 sink inhibited by ionophores |
|
N for MP synthesis
|
from dietary RDP, endogenous N, recycled urea
NH3 (not protozoa), free aa, peptides, fatty acids |
|
Yatp
|
relates amt of mp produced to ATP req
varies with bact type, substarate, and mo nrgy req |
|
factors influening yatp
|
composition of diff cells
nut supply nrg used for nut transport maint req of cells |
|
synchrony theory
|
sychronizing the supply of dietary N and nrg imporves eff of mp synth
|
|
straw + urea
|
N quick release
high blood urea (hyperexcitability), N loss in urine NH3 wasted, MP synth reduced |
|
corn + SB
|
nrg quick release
risk of acidosis NH3 wasted, MP synth reduced |
|
grass hay + SBM
|
ideal
NH2 reduced MP optimized |
|
problems with synchrony theory
|
- bact can make and store starch
- does not always improve eff balane may be better than synchrony |
|
Factors affecting eff of MP synthesis
|
-dietary P and nrg source
- ruminal P and nrg balance - ruminal outflow rate - feeding level and rate - ph - min and vit availability - recycling of bact N due to bact lysis and protozoal predation |
|
Zero grazing criteria
|
rep. grazing conditions
freq feeding collect and analyze refusal feeding level choice |
|
zero grazing pro and con
|
pro - easy to replicate, ideal for conserved forage
con - selection reduced, affected by wilting/deteoration, labor, no competition effects, no sward structure effetcs |
|
Electronic gates
calan gates broadbent gates |
pro - allows single animal to designated manger, social interaction, excercise, no confinement
con - cost, train animals, stealing, circuit failure |
|
continous reading mangers
hoko feeders |
mangers on pressure sensors, measure wt changes, intake kinetics (meal patterns), smae pro and con as calan gates
|
|
perforate sward boards
|
what and how quick
pro - allows precise sward description, indicates bite area and depth cons - short term, representative? |
|
Turves
|
wiehg and measure, offer tray to animal, reweigh and measure
pro - accounts for sward structure, less deteroiation of forage cons - short term, rep? |
|
Grazing cages
|
pro - account for sward structure
con - time consuming, short term, rep?, no competition |
|
herbage mass measurment
|
esclusion cages
sample cuts from within cage pro - no animal handling con - need uniform height and surface intensive smapling short term trampling, fouling, rep?, soil contamination |
|
Short term BW measurements
|
wiegh, graze, weigh
account for fecal and urine losses pro - longer than sward boards and turves animals graze real pasture con - watre intake and insensible loss quantification environmnet affects results non forage intake needs to be accounted for |
|
measure grazing time/behavior
|
watch and record # bites
pro - wild and domestic con - observer may affect behavior, short duratio, subjective, assumes bite mass constant |
|
vibracorders
|
like truck tachographs
measures time head lowered cons - equip may affect ntake head low may not = biting |
|
jaw recorders
|
differentiate rumination from eating
con - may not work on some cows equip affect intake |
|
total feces collection
|
pro - gives individual intakes
req only dm and ash determination cons - bags may affect intake, lose some fecal matter on low DM diets, better for sheep (drier feces) |
|
Markers for intake
|
dose and collect samples
|
|
internal markers
|
lignin, AIA, silica, fecal N, indigestable NDF, chromogens
must get rep sample of what grazed |
|
internal marker problems
|
silica incompletely recovered and infl by soil contam
lignin subject to diurnal variation iNDF incompl recovered chromogens not good for drought stresses pastures AIA low in forages = need lrg samples lignin depends on what is eaten and when its eaten |
|
external markers - chromic oxide
|
pro - ind intake, suitable for long term studies
con - carcinogenic, daily dose = labor and stress, lrg diurnal variation if only dosed 1x/dy, continous release devices may not be reliable |
|
markers - alkanes
|
main component of plant surfae wax
inert, easy to use and anylyze plants have high levels of odd chained alkanes and low levels of even chained alkanes profile of each plant unique odd - internal even - external dose with both and measue |
|
alkane pro and con
|
pro - indv intakes for various spp.
slow release bolus only give 1x con - lab analysis, relies on accurate alkane extraction, and rep smpling |
|
fecal index methods
|
based on inverse relationship bw fecal N and digy
diff eq needed for diff species |
|
In vitro pasture quality analysis
|
tilley and terry
pepsin cellulase NIR rumen simulation |
|
In vivo pasture qual analysis
|
dacron bags
whole tract digy n-alkanes (C36) |
|
diet selection includes
|
plant community, idividual plant, part of plant
|
|
factors affecting diet selection
|
- animal: species and size, gut type, mouth morphology, physiological state, parasite burden
Forgage: leaf:stem, weeds, sward structure Environment: social and physical |
|
snip samples
est diet comp |
pro - quick and cheap
con - difficult to mimic grazing |
|
Cages
est diet comp |
compare forage under exclusion cage w/ grazed pasture
pro - accurate con - cages dont suit all veg type # of cages req for patchy sward |
|
N-alkane methods
est diet comp |
plant finger print
anylyze feces/ esophageal samples and hand plucked samples pro - useful if #alkanes>diet componnets con - complex math, must know alkane profile, alkane content varies with plant parts and soil type |
|
Fecal analysis for est diet comp
|
examine fecal samples under microscope for plant tissue fragments
pro- minimal dist of animals animals can be free ranging con - not accurate, under est dig and over est undig |
|
GIT tract analysis for est diet comp
|
kill animal collect samples from rumen and gut
pro - if animal will die anyway con - only est what last eated, cant repeat, partial dig may affect results, depends on indv animal metabolism |
|
Surgical modification for est diet comp
|
collect samples from fistula
pro - repeatable and accurate con - ethical, short sample time, assumes behavior of fistulates is same as normal animal |
|
Nut value of tropical grasses
|
low CP, low sugar and starch, high NDF, high lignin
|
|
method of imporving forage quality
|
1) improve forage: breeding, proceesing, chemical trt, enzymes, innoculants
2) provide missing nut: increase amt offered, supplememt conc, byproducts, intercropping |
|
Criteria for assesing trtmnts
|
economics
effectivness saftey availabilty/ feasabilty infrastructure |
|
breeding for imp qual
|
effective but slow
extensive reseeding req |
|
processing for imp qual
|
effective for mature poor qual forage
chop, grind, pellet less sorting, increased intake, easy handling, increased surface area |
|
fine ground and gut fill
|
less sorting, less gut fill, higher passage rate, higher intake, lower digy
|
|
unprocessed and gut fill
|
high gut fill, low passage rate, low intake, more sorting, low performance
|
|
dangers of excess processing
|
reduced effective fiber content
rdeuced fiber dig decreased salivation acidosis risk low acetate = low milk fat increased maillard products |
|
steam trtmnt
|
bioconversion of lignin to cellulose
disrupts cell wall solubolizes cmpnts excess= dry matter loss too$ for animal feeding |
|
chem trt
oxidizing agents |
solubilize lignin
too expensive |
|
chem trt
hydrolytic agents |
more effective on monocots
incl ammonia, urea, urine, CaOH, NaOH, KOH |
|
NaOH trt
|
widely used
disprupts linkages, partially solubolizes hemicellulose and lignin soak - pollution spray - less effective pockets of high NaOH = caustic soda |
|
Ammoniation
|
most wiely used in US
less effective than NaOH increases TDN and CP hazardous pro - decreased mold, increase digy an p con - $, avialbility, corrosive, dangerous, bovine bonkers if not mixed, need CP:S = 10:1 S for S aa from natl gas = $$ |
|
Urea
|
converted to ammonia by plant urease
safer but more variable than ammonia must use feed grade need moist forage no handling or applicatio problems |
|
Urine
|
increase digy
collection problems health mold |
|
Fungal trt
|
fungi solubolize lignin
big increase in digy also lose substrate (incl CHO) |
|
enzyme trt
|
hydrolyze polysaccharides
increase intake increase rate but not extent of dig most effetcive when applied to high quality forages fed to stressed cattle |
|
mixing forages
|
increases intake and imprives performance
|
|
supp
|
biprod and forage supp may be cheaper and more effective than con
trans$ for conc |
|
antinutrient definition
|
subs which either by themselves or through metabolic products interfere with the food utilisation and affect the health and production of animals
|
|
characteristics of antinutrients
|
products of 2ndary metabolism
in all plants to some degree common in tropical forages defensive role may be immunosuppresive |
|
glycosides
|
bitter
CHO and non CHO moiety toxicity results from aglycone release during enzymatic dig linssed, cassava, sorghum, clover, soya |
|
phytoestrogens
glycoside subgroup |
female sterility
estrogenic activity male sterility |
|
sapponins
glycoside subgroup |
foaming
bloat, haemolysis, GIT erosion, inhibit enzyme action |
|
alkaloids
|
basic, bitter, toxic, potent
cocaine, nicotine, caffeine lupins, potatoes kidney, pulmonary, liver damage diarrhea |
|
Protease inhibitors
|
inhibit GIT proteolytic enzymes
pea, bean, soya, potatoe competitive inhibition N retention reduced groeth rate |
|
Lectin
|
high molecular weight glycoproetin
beans mucosla erosian in SI |
|
Mimosiene
non proetin aa |
leucaena leucocephala
goiter, alopecia, anorexia, gastroenteritis, hepatotoxicity inactivated by s.jonesii |
|
oxalate
metal ion scavanger |
cause ca def
urinary calculi and oxalate crystals rumen stasis, hypocalcemia, renal failure |
|
phytases
metal ion scavenger |
Zn, P, Mg deficiency
|
|
Glucosinolates
|
kale, rape, linseed
thyrotoxic, milk taint, goiter |
|
mycotoxins
|
moldy feed
hemorrhagic bowel syndrome |
|
tannins
|
form complexes with proteins, cho, minerals
grapes, wine, tea, fruit juice, cider, trees high in tropical browses |
|
hydrolyzable tannins
anthocyanidins |
water soluble
can be toxic |
|
condensed tannins
proanthocyandins (PAs) |
less toxic
widespread form strong H bonds with nutrients |
|
effect of PA depends on
|
concentration and properties
animal spp protein conc ph tannin binding agents |
|
negative PA effect on forage qual
|
reduce VFI
reduce digy erode gut lining toxic |
|
positive effects of PA on forage qual
|
increased eff of protein utilisation
reduce parasite burden reduce proteolyisi during ensiling prevent bloat increase qual of animal products defaunte rumen reduce N emmision |
|
General prob of feed analysis
|
- unrep sampling
- sample deterioration in transit/ storage - outdates, innacuare mthods - intra vs inter lab variation - lack of validation before adoption - misuse of equations - disemnetaion of biologically unmeaningful results |
|
consequences of wrong results
|
- wasted time, $, effort
- reduced profits - compromised animal productivity and welfare - litigation |
|
Reason for discrepency
|
Analytical: sampling, storage, procedure, reagents, calculations, equip, terms and units
Human: attention, skill, expertise Random |
|
Good labs should
|
monitor precision, accuracy, repeatability
validate with in vivo enforce quality control calibrate and standarize with regularity ensure health and safety in workplace |
|
Association of Official Analytical Chemists
AOAC |
monitor precision, repeatability, reproducability
NDF - not approved |
|
National forage testing association
|
certifies proefciency
voluntary only DM, CP, ADF, amylase NDF |
|
constraints to standardization
|
"my way is best" mentality
need to change procedure or equip who will monitor what penalties for offenders and how will they be enforced |
|
precision
|
same result again and again
depends on sampling and analytical error |
|
accuracy
|
truth
degree of conformity with standard depends on appropriatness of method for acheiving result use check or standard sample |
|
predictor
|
independent
|
|
predicted
|
dependent
|
|
consideration for predicting nut value
|
lrg population
valid relationship |
|
critera for choosing a predictor
|
biologically meaningful
rapid and easily determined inexpensive to anylyze repeatbale precise and accurate ethical |
|
correlation coefficient
|
measures only linear association
does not reflect causation |
|
coefficient of determination
r2 |
does not imply cause
|
|
residual standard deviation
|
important for measuring error
|
|
factors that affect prediction relationship
|
spp
site plane of nut latitude season maturity/regrowth fertilization ferm processing |
|
empirical
|
may be accurate but not bio meaningful
|
|
summative
|
empirical est with bio meaning
|
|
mechnanistic models
|
explain underlying mechanisms
complex computer computations costly |
|
benefits of decreased forage:conc
|
increased ruminal nrg release for mp and fiber degredation
decreased limiting effect of proprionate def on fiberous diet intake |
|
increase conc beyond 60% DM??
|
no - dpress intake, acidosis
|
|
associative effect
|
interaction bw nut in ration which cause a higher or lower performance than expected for individual ingrediants
may be positive, negative, or absent |
|
positive assoc effetcs
|
increased fiber utilisation after N supp on N def forages
increased fiber utilisation after supplementeing roughages with sugar increased intake increased mp due to synchrony/balance ex) high NSC and RDP forgages may redce need for supp |
|
negative assoc effetcs
|
more than 60% conc decrease fiber utilization
fat supp> 5-6% reduces intake and coats particles = prevent ferm presence of antinutritive factors |
|
factors determining assoc effect
|
palatibilty of ingrediants
nut content of ingrediants nutrient fractions physical form of feed mo activity nrg:P sub rate of conc for forages level of feeding passage rate |
|
Silages
|
- anaerobic storgae of high moisture forage
- 20-40% DM imp for dairy cows |
|
types of silage
|
cereal: frem CHO and fiber, palatible
Temp grass: high NPN and sugar, low NDF trop grass: poor ferm, high NDF, low sugar Legume: difficult b/c buffering capacity, high CP Haylage: high DM grass, in bales, may benefit from additive |
|
chem changes during ferm
|
sugars ferm into VFA
low pH protein degraded into ammonia and NPN |
|
Homolactic ferm
|
v. desiarable
sugars into lactic acid lactobacillushigh sugar grasses |
|
heterolactic ferm
|
undesiarble
brevis, buchnerii sugar to acetic, alcohol. butyric high ph allows secondary ferm |
|
secondary fermentation
|
degredation of lactate by clostridium to ac and bu
high moisture and high pH |
|
Aerobic spoilage
|
sig loss of nut
casued by aerobic sugar and lactate utilizing yeasts and molds heat production denatures protien |
|
preventing aerobic spoilage
|
proper packing
manage silo face additives |
|
silage additives
|
direct acidifers: acids to lower ph - sulpheric
ferm inhibitors: lower ph, inhibit microflora, formaldehyde ferm stimulents: substrate for ferm (molasses), enzymes to speed up, mo innoculants specific antiobio |
|
problems with additives
|
snake oil
lack of scientific eveidence |
|
nut targets for grass silage
|
30% DM
avoid prolonged wilting or execess moisture 3.8-4.2 pH ammonia N <50g/kg >10.8ME >700 DOMD |
|
bucherii
|
higher acetic acid
|
|
sweet smell
|
not good
high ethanol conc heteroferentative pthwy proliferation of yeasts sig DM losses likely |
|
vinager smell
|
acetic acid
heterofermentative pthwy antifungal = aerobically stable may reduce intake |
|
tobacco/molsasses/burnt smell
|
protein dmage
maillard rxn N wastage |
|
foul fishy smell
|
butyric acid
clostridial 2ndary ferm excess moisture poor nut value |
|
moldy musty smell
|
aerobic spoilage
possible mycotoxins inhaliation risk |
|
no smell
|
lactic acid
desiarable |
|
BOD
|
amt of )2 req by aerobic mo to decompose organic matter
measures water pollution silage effluent major contributer |