A digestion study was conducted using 18 crossbred wether lambs to evaluate the effects of corn residue harvesting method and ensiling on the digestibility of corn residue. Husks had the greatest digestibility compared to any of the harvesting methods. No differences were observed for the digestibility of husklage, ensiled husklage, or stalklage. None of the harvest methods resulted in residue digestibilities similar to husks

Harding, Jana L.

Jolly- Breithaupt, Melissa L., Breithaupt

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

MacDonald, Jim C.

McPhillips, Levi J.

Updike, Janessa J.

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department
2016
Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivo
and In Vitro Digestibility
Janessa J. Updike
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Levi J. McPhillips
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt Breithaupt
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, melissa_jolly_brethaupt@unl.edu
Jana L. Harding
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jharding3@unl.edu
Terry J. Klopfenstein
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr
Part of the Meat Science Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Updike, Janessa J.; McPhillips, Levi J.; Jolly- Breithaupt, Melissa L. Breithaupt; Harding, Jana L.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; and
MacDonald, Jim C., "Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility" (2016). Nebraska Beef Cattle
Reports. 913.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/913
Authors
Janessa J. Updike, Levi J. McPhillips, Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt Breithaupt, Jana L. Harding, Terry J.
Klopfenstein, and Jim C. MacDonald
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/913
76 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
©  Th e Board Regents of the University of 
Nebraska. All rights reserved.
by 5 foot metal screen by hand to remove 
any remaining corn. Th e husklage and en-
siled husklage were produced with the use 
of a John Deere 569 round baler that was 
modifi ed with the Hillco single pass round 
bale system (SPRB). Th is modifi cation to 
the baler allows for the baler to connect to 
the combine, where it collects the residue 
aft er it passes through the combine. Th e 
producer can harvest both corn and resi-
due in one pass through the fi eld. To ensile 
the husklage, water was added to a target 
DM of 35%, and the mixture was bagged 
in an agricultural bag for a minimum of 30 
days. Th e residue collected was 27% leaf, 
17% husk, 42% cob and 14% upper stem. 
In order to obtain the bales of stalklage, 
a New Holland Cornrower Corn Head 
was used. Th e Cornrower corn head was 
described in the 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Report (pp. 62– 63).
Th e fourth period of the digestion trial 
consisted of a Sweet Bran®/ brome mixture 
(Table 1.).Th is mixture was fed to deter-
mine the amount of feces that was con-
tributed by the Sweet Bran®/ brome in the 
treatment diets collected in the fi rst three 
periods. Th e contribution from Sweet Bran® 
be used to adjust in vitro data to in vivo 
digestibility values for corn residues.
Procedure
A 64- d digestion study utilized 18 
crossbred wethers (BW = 57.4 lb, SD = 9.9 
lb) in a Latin square design with three in-
dependent squares. Wethers were blocked 
into three blocks based on previous DMI, 
and then assigned randomly to one of six 
treatment diets. Five of those treatments 
are reported here, while the remaining 
treatment comparisons are reported in 
another report (2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Report pp. 74–75).
Th e trial was comprised of four, 16- d 
periods. Days 1– 8 allowed for adaptation 
to the diet. Wethers were also allowed to 
adapt to the metabolism crates and fecal 
collection bags on day 8. Total fecal collec-
tions were performed on days 9– 16. Five 
forage based diets were used for three of 
the periods, consisting of: husk, husklage, 
ensiled husklage, stalklage, or brome. Diet 
composition is shown in Table 1.
Husks were obtained from Hoegemey-
er Seed. Husks were sift ed through a 3 foot 
Summary
A digestion study was conducted using 
18 crossbred wether lambs to evaluate the 
eff ects of corn residue harvesting method and 
ensiling on the digestibility of corn residue. 
Husks had the greatest digestibility com-
pared to any of the harvesting methods. No 
diff erences were observed for the digestibility 
of husklage, ensiled husklage, or stalklage. 
None of the harvest methods resulted in 
residue digestibilities similar to husks.
Introduction
Th e digestibilities of various residue 
components from corn diff er. Th e husk is 
the most digestible while the stem is the 
least (2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, 
pp.11– 12). Advancements in residue 
harvesting technology now allow producers 
to decrease the proportion of stem in the 
bale compared to conventional baling. A 
previous evaluation of harvest methods 
reported improved in vitro digestibility 
estimates for residues harvested with 
methods that minimized the proportion 
of stalk (2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, 
pp.62– 63). Additionally, steers consuming 
residue harvested using new harvesting 
technology had improved F:G compared to 
steers consuming diets with conventional 
harvested corn residue (2015 Nebraska Beef 
Cattle Report pp. 42– 44).
Digestibility estimates from in vitro 
techniques are known to be variable. How-
ever, in vitro estimates may be adjusted to 
in vivo values if forage samples with known 
in vivo digestibilities are included in each 
run as internal standards (2007 Nebraska 
Beef Cattle Report pp. 109– 111). Currently, 
no internal standards exist for crop resi-
dues. Th e objectives of the current study 
were to determine the eff ects of corn resi-
due harvest method on in vivo digestibility 
and to determine if internal standards can 
 Eff ect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on 
In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility
Janessa J. Updike, Levi J. McPhillips, Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt, Jana L. Harding, 
Terry J. Klopfenstein and Jim C. MacDonald
Table 1. Composition of diets (DM basis)
Ingredient, % DM Husk Husklage Ensiled 
Husklage
Stalklage Brome Sweet 
Bran®
Huska 64.18 — — — — — 
Husklageb — 64.18 — — — — 
Ensiled Husklagec — — 64.18 — — — 
Stalklaged — — — 64.18 — — 
Brome hay 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 97.25 9.6
Sweet Bran® 29.73 29.73 29.73 29.73 — 86.4
Supplement 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.0 2.0
Limestone 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 2.0
aHusk were obtained from Hoegemeyer Seed and sift ed through a screen to remove remaining grain
bHusklage was produced with the John Deere 569 round bailer modifi ed with the Hillco single pass round bale system
cEnsiled Husklage was produced the same as the husklage, then water was added to target of 35% DM and bagged in an agricul-
tural bag for a minimum of 30 days
dStalklage was produced with the New Holland Cornrower cornhead, with all 8 rows operating
2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 77 
across all treatments (P < 0.01). Th e DM 
digestibility of the brome (45.11%) was 
similar only to the stalklage (49.37%; P 
= 0.14). Th e OM and NDF digestibilities 
of the brome treatment were the lowest, 
47.77% and 46.92%, respectively, across all 
treatments (P ≤ 0.06).
Th e IVDMD and IVOMD of each of the 
forages were diff erent from other forages (P 
< 0.01; Table 4). Th e husk had the greatest 
IVDMD and IVOMD, which is consistent 
across many observations. Th e average OM 
digestibility was 10.8 units greater for the 
in vivo analysis than the in vitro analysis. 
A regression analysis was performed for 
both the DMD and OMD of the residue 
from both the experiments. Th e DMD had 
an R2= 0.65, (Figure 1) meaning that the 
in vivo and in vitro digestibilities are 65% 
related to each other. Th e OMD, (Figure 
2) however, had an R2= 0.88. Ideally the 
relationship between in vitro and in vivo 
tively), compared to the other treatments 
(P < 0.01) which is consistent with 
previous observations. Th e digestibility 
of OM and NDF did not diff er among the 
two residues collected using alternative 
harvesting methods (i.e. husklage and 
stalklage; P > 0.12). Ensiling the husklage 
did not signifi cantly change DM or OM 
intakes compared to non- ensiled husklage 
(P = 0.33 and P = 0.32, respectively). Th e 
NDF digestibility of the ensiled husklage, 
57.52%, tended to be less than the NDF di-
gestibility of the husklage (P = 0.11). Th ere 
were no signifi cant diff erences between the 
ensiled husklage and stalklage on DM, OM, 
and NDF digestibilities (P > 0.88). While 
ensiling the husklage appeared to numeri-
cally increase DMI, we could not observe a 
diff erence statistically (P = 0.33).
Th e brome treatment had the greatest 
7 day period DM, OM, and NDF intakes, 
10.04 lb, 9.45 lb, and 7.51 lb, respectively, 
and brome to the total fecal output was 
then subtracted to determine the digestibil-
ity of the residue.
Fecal samples were composited on a wet 
basis by wether within period. Both feed 
and fecal samples were dried and ground 
through a 1- mm screen. Th e ground 
samples were then ashed. Th e residue left  
was used to calculate OM. All samples were 
analyzed for DM, OM, and NDF.
In vitro DM (IVOMD) and in vitro 
OM (IVOMD) digestibility estimates were 
performed on the residue samples. Samples 
were dried and ground through a 1- mm 
screen. Test tubes contained 0.5 grams of 
feed and 50 mL of inoculum. Th e was a 
combination of ruminal fl uid from two 
donor steers that were consuming a 70:30 
roughage:concentrate diet (DM basis). 
McDougall’s buff er was mixed into the 
ruminal fl uid at a 1:1 ratio, along with the 
inclusion of 1 gram of urea/L.
Inoculated tubes were incubated in a 
water bath to allow fermentation. To end 
fermentation, each test tube received 6 
mL of 20% HCL and 2mL of 5% pepsin 
solution were added. Tubes remained in 
the water bath for an additional 24 hours. 
At the end of the 24 hours, the residue was 
fi ltered through a non- ash fi lter. Filters 
containing the residues were placed in an 
oven to obtain the IVDMD. Aft er obtaining 
IVDMD, fi lters were ashed. Remaining 
residue allowed for calculation of IVOMD.
Data were analyzed using the MIXED 
procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., 
Cary, N.C.). For in vivo digestion data, the 
model included treatment, block, period, 
and wether within block as fi xed eff ects. 
For in vitro data, the response variable 
was IVDMD or IVOMD, with the tube 
being the experimental unit. Th e in vivo 
digestibility estimates were regressed with 
in vitro digestibility estimates for DM and 
OM to determine if of in vitro digestibilities 
of residues can predict in vivo estimates.
Results
Nutrient composition of the feed ingre-
dients is presented in Table 2. Dry matter 
and NDF intakes of the residues were not 
signifi cantly diff erent (P ≤ 0.83, Table 3.), 
whereas the brome had the greatest DM 
and NDF intake (P < 0.01). Th e husk had 
the greatest digestibility of DM, OM, and 
NDF (68.11%, 70.49, and 75.28% respec-
Table 2. Nutrient composition of diff erent corn residues (DM- basis)
Residue DM OM NDF CP
Husk 93.27 96.53 85.48 5.74
Husklage 88.54 97.37 90.82 5.95
Ensiled Husklage 36.15 96.32 84.78 7.46
Stalklage 89.80 92.28 86.74 5.48
Brome 92.78 93.60 74.35 10.89
Table 3. Eff ects of harvest method on intakes and in vivo digestibilities in wether lambs.
Husk Husklage Ensiled 
Husklage
Stalklage Brome SEM P- value
DM
Intake, lb/period 5.55b 5.74b 6.59b 5.78b 10.04a 0.62 < 0.0001
Fecal output, lb 1.92c 2.65bc 3.34b 2.95b 5.48a 0.34 < 0.0001
Digestibility, % 68.11a 54.07b 50.90bc 49.37cd 45.11d 2.07 < 0.0001
OM
Intake, lb 5.36b 5.55b 6.38b 5.32b 9.45a 0.58 < 0.0001
Fecal output, lb 1.72d 2.43bc 3.09b 2.28cd 4.92a 0.31 < 0.0001
Digestibility, % 70.49a 56.40b 53.30b 57.58b 47.77c 2.18 < 0.0001
NDF
Intake, lb 4.68b 5.13b 5.54b 4.99b 7.51a 0.50 < 0.0001
Fecal output, lb 1.24c 1.95b 2.46b 2.12b 3.98a 0.26 < 0.0001
Digestibility, % 75.28a 62.40b 57.52b 57.94b 46.92c 2.14 < 0.0001
a- dMeans within a row without a common superscript are diff erent, (P < 0.10)
78 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
values would have a slope of 1 and an inter-
cept of 0. Th e slopes for both OM and DM 
were approximately 0.51 and the intercepts 
were approximately 0.3. Th ese relationships 
suggest that in vitro estimates would need 
to be adjusted to in vivo values.
Th e methods used to harvest residue 
appear to infl uence the digestibility and 
quality of the residue. Th e diff erences are 
likely due to changing the proportion of 
husk, leaf, and cob compared to the pro-
portion of stem in the bale. Since in vitro 
digestibility estimates do not accurately 
predict in vivo digestion values, there is a 
need to develop lab standards to adjust in 
vitro digestion estimates.
Janessa J. Updike, graduate student
Levi J. McPhillips, undergraduate student
Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt, research tech-
nician
Jana L. Harding, research technician
Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor
Jim C. MacDonald, associate professor, 
University of Nebraska- Lincoln Depart-
ment of Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb
Table 4. Th e eff ect of harvest method of corn residue on IVDMD and IVOMD
Husk Husklage Ensiled 
Husklage
Stalklage Brome SEM P- value
IVDMD, % 61.34a 38.71d 30.43e 42.91c 46.67b 0.70 < 0.01
IVOMD, % 67.12a 43.16d 36.27e 48.08c 50.13b 0.67 < 0.01
a- eMeans within a row without a common superscript are diff erent, (P < 0.01)
In
 v
itr
o y = 0.5113x + 0.2906
R2 = 0.6531
In vitro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In
 v
itr
o
y = 0.5138x + 0.3287
R2 = 0.8792
In vitro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 1. Regression of the dry matter digestibility of corn residue. In vitro vs in vivo
Figure 2. Regression of the organic matter digestibility of corn residue. In vitro vs. in vivo


Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on
In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2016Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivoand In Vitro DigestibilityJanessa J. UpdikeUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLevi J. McPhillipsUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnMelissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt BreithauptUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, melissa_jolly_brethaupt@unl.eduJana L. HardingUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, jharding3@unl.eduTerry J. KlopfensteinUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.eduSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Meat Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Updike, Janessa J.; McPhillips, Levi J.; Jolly- Breithaupt, Melissa L. Breithaupt; Harding, Jana L.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; andMacDonald, Jim C., "Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility" (2016). Nebraska Beef CattleReports. 913.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/913AuthorsJanessa J. Updike, Levi J. McPhillips, Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt Breithaupt, Jana L. Harding, Terry J.Klopfenstein, and Jim C. MacDonaldThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/91376 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report©  Th e Board Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.by 5 foot metal screen by hand to remove any remaining corn. Th e husklage and en-siled husklage were produced with the use of a John Deere 569 round baler that was modifi ed with the Hillco single pass round bale system (SPRB). Th is modifi cation to the baler allows for the baler to connect to the combine, where it collects the residue aft er it passes through the combine. Th e producer can harvest both corn and resi-due in one pass through the fi eld. To ensile the husklage, water was added to a target DM of 35%, and the mixture was bagged in an agricultural bag for a minimum of 30 days. Th e residue collected was 27% leaf, 17% husk, 42% cob and 14% upper stem. In order to obtain the bales of stalklage, a New Holland Cornrower Corn Head was used. Th e Cornrower corn head was described in the 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report (pp. 62– 63).Th e fourth period of the digestion trial consisted of a Sweet Bran®/ brome mixture (Table 1.).Th is mixture was fed to deter-mine the amount of feces that was con-tributed by the Sweet Bran®/ brome in the treatment diets collected in the fi rst three periods. Th e contribution from Sweet Bran® be used to adjust in vitro data to in vivo digestibility values for corn residues.ProcedureA 64- d digestion study utilized 18 crossbred wethers (BW = 57.4 lb, SD = 9.9 lb) in a Latin square design with three in-dependent squares. Wethers were blocked into three blocks based on previous DMI, and then assigned randomly to one of six treatment diets. Five of those treatments are reported here, while the remaining treatment comparisons are reported in another report (2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp. 74–75).Th e trial was comprised of four, 16- d periods. Days 1– 8 allowed for adaptation to the diet. Wethers were also allowed to adapt to the metabolism crates and fecal collection bags on day 8. Total fecal collec-tions were performed on days 9– 16. Five forage based diets were used for three of the periods, consisting of: husk, husklage, ensiled husklage, stalklage, or brome. Diet composition is shown in Table 1.Husks were obtained from Hoegemey-er Seed. Husks were sift ed through a 3 foot SummaryA digestion study was conducted using 18 crossbred wether lambs to evaluate the eff ects of corn residue harvesting method and ensiling on the digestibility of corn residue. Husks had the greatest digestibility com-pared to any of the harvesting methods. No diff erences were observed for the digestibility of husklage, ensiled husklage, or stalklage. None of the harvest methods resulted in residue digestibilities similar to husks.IntroductionTh e digestibilities of various residue components from corn diff er. Th e husk is the most digestible while the stem is the least (2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp.11– 12). Advancements in residue harvesting technology now allow producers to decrease the proportion of stem in the bale compared to conventional baling. A previous evaluation of harvest methods reported improved in vitro digestibility estimates for residues harvested with methods that minimized the proportion of stalk (2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp.62– 63). Additionally, steers consuming residue harvested using new harvesting technology had improved F:G compared to steers consuming diets with conventional harvested corn residue (2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp. 42– 44).Digestibility estimates from in vitro techniques are known to be variable. How-ever, in vitro estimates may be adjusted to in vivo values if forage samples with known in vivo digestibilities are included in each run as internal standards (2007 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp. 109– 111). Currently, no internal standards exist for crop resi-dues. Th e objectives of the current study were to determine the eff ects of corn resi-due harvest method on in vivo digestibility and to determine if internal standards can  Eff ect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivo and In Vitro DigestibilityJanessa J. Updike, Levi J. McPhillips, Melissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt, Jana L. Harding, Terry J. Klopfenstein and Jim C. MacDonaldTable 1. Composition of diets (DM basis)Ingredient, % DM Husk Husklage Ensiled HusklageStalklage Brome Sweet Bran®Huska 64.18 — — — — — Husklageb — 64.18 — — — — Ensiled Husklagec — — 64.18 — — — Stalklaged — — — 64.18 — — Brome hay 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 97.25 9.6Sweet Bran® 29.73 29.73 29.73 29.73 — 86.4Supplement 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.0 2.0Limestone 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 2.0aHusk were obtained from Hoegemeyer Seed and sift ed through a screen to remove remaining grainbHusklage was produced with the John Deere 569 round bailer modifi ed with the Hillco single pass round bale systemcEnsiled Husklage was produced the same as the husklage, then water was added to target of 35% DM and bagged in an agricul-tural bag for a minimum of 30 daysdStalklage was produced with the New Holland Cornrower cornhead, with all 8 rows operating2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 77 across all treatments (P < 0.01). Th e DM digestibility of the brome (45.11%) was similar only to the stalklage (49.37%; P = 0.14). Th e OM and NDF digestibilities of the brome treatment were the lowest, 47.77% and 46.92%, respectively, across all treatments (P ≤ 0.06).Th e IVDMD and IVOMD of each of the forages were diff erent from other forages (P < 0.01; Table 4). Th e husk had the greatest IVDMD and IVOMD, which is consistent across many observations. Th e average OM digestibility was 10.8 units greater for the in vivo analysis than the in vitro analysis. A regression analysis was performed for both the DMD and OMD of the residue from both the experiments. Th e DMD had an R2= 0.65, (Figure 1) meaning that the in vivo and in vitro digestibilities are 65% related to each other. Th e OMD, (Figure 2) however, had an R2= 0.88. Ideally the relationship between in vitro and in vivo tively), compared to the other treatments (P < 0.01) which is consistent with previous observations. Th e digestibility of OM and NDF did not diff er among the two residues collected using alternative harvesting methods (i.e. husklage and stalklage; P > 0.12). Ensiling the husklage did not signifi cantly change DM or OM intakes compared to non- ensiled husklage (P = 0.33 and P = 0.32, respectively). Th e NDF digestibility of the ensiled husklage, 57.52%, tended to be less than the NDF di-gestibility of the husklage (P = 0.11). Th ere were no signifi cant diff erences between the ensiled husklage and stalklage on DM, OM, and NDF digestibilities (P > 0.88). While ensiling the husklage appeared to numeri-cally increase DMI, we could not observe a diff erence statistically (P = 0.33).Th e brome treatment had the greatest 7 day period DM, OM, and NDF intakes, 10.04 lb, 9.45 lb, and 7.51 lb, respectively, and brome to the total fecal output was then subtracted to determine the digestibil-ity of the residue.Fecal samples were composited on a wet basis by wether within period. Both feed and fecal samples were dried and ground through a 1- mm screen. Th e ground samples were then ashed. Th e residue left  was used to calculate OM. All samples were analyzed for DM, OM, and NDF.In vitro DM (IVOMD) and in vitro OM (IVOMD) digestibility estimates were performed on the residue samples. Samples were dried and ground through a 1- mm screen. Test tubes contained 0.5 grams of feed and 50 mL of inoculum. Th e was a combination of ruminal fl uid from two donor steers that were consuming a 70:30 roughage:concentrate diet (DM basis). McDougall’s buff er was mixed into the ruminal fl uid at a 1:1 ratio, along with the inclusion of 1 gram of urea/L.Inoculated tubes were incubated in a water bath to allow fermentation. To end fermentation, each test tube received 6 mL of 20% HCL and 2mL of 5% pepsin solution were added. Tubes remained in the water bath for an additional 24 hours. At the end of the 24 hours, the residue was fi ltered through a non- ash fi lter. Filters containing the residues were placed in an oven to obtain the IVDMD. Aft er obtaining IVDMD, fi lters were ashed. Remaining residue allowed for calculation of IVOMD.Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.). For in vivo digestion data, the model included treatment, block, period, and wether within block as fi xed eff ects. For in vitro data, the response variable was IVDMD or IVOMD, with the tube being the experimental unit. Th e in vivo digestibility estimates were regressed with in vitro digestibility estimates for DM and OM to determine if of in vitro digestibilities of residues can predict in vivo estimates.ResultsNutrient composition of the feed ingre-dients is presented in Table 2. Dry matter and NDF intakes of the residues were not signifi cantly diff erent (P ≤ 0.83, Table 3.), whereas the brome had the greatest DM and NDF intake (P < 0.01). Th e husk had the greatest digestibility of DM, OM, and NDF (68.11%, 70.49, and 75.28% respec-Table 2. Nutrient composition of diff erent corn residues (DM- basis)Residue DM OM NDF CPHusk 93.27 96.53 85.48 5.74Husklage 88.54 97.37 90.82 5.95Ensiled Husklage 36.15 96.32 84.78 7.46Stalklage 89.80 92.28 86.74 5.48Brome 92.78 93.60 74.35 10.89Table 3. Eff ects of harvest method on intakes and in vivo digestibilities in wether lambs.Husk Husklage Ensiled HusklageStalklage Brome SEM P- valueDMIntake, lb/period 5.55b 5.74b 6.59b 5.78b 10.04a 0.62 < 0.0001Fecal output, lb 1.92c 2.65bc 3.34b 2.95b 5.48a 0.34 < 0.0001Digestibility, % 68.11a 54.07b 50.90bc 49.37cd 45.11d 2.07 < 0.0001OMIntake, lb 5.36b 5.55b 6.38b 5.32b 9.45a 0.58 < 0.0001Fecal output, lb 1.72d 2.43bc 3.09b 2.28cd 4.92a 0.31 < 0.0001Digestibility, % 70.49a 56.40b 53.30b 57.58b 47.77c 2.18 < 0.0001NDFIntake, lb 4.68b 5.13b 5.54b 4.99b 7.51a 0.50 < 0.0001Fecal output, lb 1.24c 1.95b 2.46b 2.12b 3.98a 0.26 < 0.0001Digestibility, % 75.28a 62.40b 57.52b 57.94b 46.92c 2.14 < 0.0001a- dMeans within a row without a common superscript are diff erent, (P < 0.10)78 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Reportvalues would have a slope of 1 and an inter-cept of 0. Th e slopes for both OM and DM were approximately 0.51 and the intercepts were approximately 0.3. Th ese relationships suggest that in vitro estimates would need to be adjusted to in vivo values.Th e methods used to harvest residue appear to infl uence the digestibility and quality of the residue. Th e diff erences are likely due to changing the proportion of husk, leaf, and cob compared to the pro-portion of stem in the bale. Since in vitro digestibility estimates do not accurately predict in vivo digestion values, there is a need to develop lab standards to adjust in vitro digestion estimates.Janessa J. Updike, graduate studentLevi J. McPhillips, undergraduate studentMelissa L. Jolly- Breithaupt, research tech-nicianJana L. Harding, research technicianTerry J. Klopfenstein, professorJim C. MacDonald, associate professor, University of Nebraska- Lincoln Depart-ment of Animal Science, Lincoln, NebTable 4. Th e eff ect of harvest method of corn residue on IVDMD and IVOMDHusk Husklage Ensiled HusklageStalklage Brome SEM P- valueIVDMD, % 61.34a 38.71d 30.43e 42.91c 46.67b 0.70 < 0.01IVOMD, % 67.12a 43.16d 36.27e 48.08c 50.13b 0.67 < 0.01a- eMeans within a row without a common superscript are diff erent, (P < 0.01)In vitro y = 0.5113x + 0.2906R2 = 0.6531In vitro0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%In vitroy = 0.5138x + 0.3287R2 = 0.8792In vitro0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%Figure 1. Regression of the dry matter digestibility of corn residue. In vitro vs in vivoFigure 2. Regression of the organic matter digestibility of corn residue. In vitro vs. in vivo

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1929&context=animalscinbcr

Effect of Corn Residue Harvest Method on In Vivo and In Vitro Digestibility

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska