Eight crossbred yearling steers were used in a Latin rectangle design to determine the in vivo digestibility of five different forages. Feed intakes were higher when steers were fed forages with higher IVDMD. In vivo digestibility of the hay used in this trial was highly correlated to in vitro digestibility. On average, in vitro DMD was 5.4 percentage units higher than in vivo digestibility. Including these five hay samples as standards for in vitro analysis allows researchers to compare samples analyzed across in vitro runs. It also allows researchers to adjust the in vitro DMD to in vivo DMD, which allows for more accurate ration formulation and animal response prediction

Adams, Don C.

Geisert, Bobbi Gene

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

MacDonald, James C.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 1-1-2007 Comparison of In Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to Steers Bobbi Gene Geisert University of Nebraska-Lincoln Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu Don C. Adams University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.edu James C. MacDonald University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmacdonald2@unl.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Geisert, Bobbi Gene; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Adams, Don C.; and MacDonald, James C., "Comparison of In Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to Steers" (2007). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 95. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/95 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. © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 109 Comparison of In Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to SteersBobbi Gene GeisertTerry J. KlopfensteinDon C. AdamsJim C. MacDonald1SummaryEight crossbred yearling steers were used in a Latin rectangle design to de-termine the in vivo digestibility of five different forages. Feed intakes were higher when steers were fed forages with higher IVDMD. In vivo digestibility of the hay used in this trial was highly correlated to in vitro digestibility. On average, in vitro DMD was 5.4 percentage units higher than in vivo digestibility. Including these five hay samples as standards for in vitro analysis allows researchers to compare samples analyzed across in vitro runs. It also allows researchers to adjust the in vi-tro DMD to in vivo DMD, which allows for more accurate ration formulation and animal response prediction. Introduction Previous research indicates in vitro DMD of forages is highly correlated with in vivo digestibility. Including a set of samples within each in vitro run which has known in vivo digestibilities allows research-ers to adjust in vitro digestibility of forages to in vivo values using regres-sion equations generated from the standards. It has been shown that the regression equations differ within plant type (C, C4 and legumes) and the same samples run in dif-ferent laboratories also differ. This is due to a number of factors which include donor animals, diets fed to donor animals, and differences in analytical techniques. In vitro runs analyzed in different runs cannot be compared equally because of run variability. Adjusting the in vitro re-sults using the equations generated from the standards (with known in vivo digestibility) allows researchers to compare estimates from differ-ent in vitro runs. With these adjust-ments, forage samples with different species composition, such as grasses vs. legumes, can also be compared because each sample has been adjusted accordingly. The objective of this experiment was to determine the in vivo digestibility of five different hay samples and to use these samples as standards in in vitro DM digest-ibility procedures and make com-parisons between in vivo and in vitro digestibility. ProceedureThis experiment used eight cross-bred yearlings in a 5x5 Latin rectangle with five periods and five diets. Diets consisted of five chopped hays includ-ing mature brome grass (MBrome), immature brome grass (IBrome), mature alfalfa (MAlf), immature alfalfa (IAlf), and prairie (Prairie). Prairie hay consisted of a mixture of warm season grasses. All hay was chopped on one day, through a 4 inch screen using a tub grinder at the begin-ning of the trial, mixed, and stored on concrete in an enclosed building. Periods consisted of a 16-day adapta-tion period followed by a five-day col-lection period. During the adaptation period steers were fed at ad libitum intake for the first 10 days. The following six days steers were fed at 95 % of ad libitum intake to minimize feed refusals and reduce variation in measurements of diges-tion. Steers remained on the restricted DMI throughout the collection period. Steers initially weighed 710 lbs and gained an average of 55 lbs throughout the trial. Hay samples were taken daily dur-ing the last eight days of each period, composited and a sub-sampled for lab analysis. If necessary feed refusals were also collected the last eight days of each period for analysis. Steers were fitted with fecal collection bags during the collection period to measure total fecal output. Bags were emptied and feces weighed and sub-sampled twice daily (7:00 am and 4:00 pm). All feed samples and fecal samples were dried in a 60°C forced air oven and ground through a Wiley mill (1mm screen) for analysis.In Vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) analysis was conducted on the five hay samples and replicated six times. The IVDMD values from each run were regressed against the in vivo DMD. The slopes of each regression line were compared. Dif-ferences between regression equa-tions were also tested. Total protein was determined as well as degradable intake protein (DIP) and undegrad-able intake protein (UIP) using in situ mobile bag technique (2005 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 25-27) using two ruminally and duodenally fistulated Holstein steers. ResultsIn VitroCrude protein of the diets were 7.9, 7.5, 9., 16., and 17.6% for Prairie, MBrome, IBrome, MAlf, and IAlf, respectively (Table 1). UIP ranged from 10.1% (% of total CP) for IAlf to 7.2 % for the MBrome (Table 1). Total Tract indigestible protein (TTIDP) follows the same pattern as the UIP (5.0, 8.0, 14.8, 15., and 16.6 for IAlf, Malf, IBrome, MBrome, and Prairie, respectively). Digestibility of UIP frac-tion was highest for MAlf (62.4%) and lowest for IBrome (4.0%). UIP digestibility of these forages are lower than the NRC assumed 80%. These UIP digestibilities agree with results from Haugen et al., (2005 Nebraska Beef Report, pp. 25-27) who reported UIP digestibilities lower than the NRC (Continued on next page)Page 110 — 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.estimates. There was a wide range in IVDMD between the different hays as well (50.2, 51.2, 56.4, 50.9, and 60.6 % for Prairie, MBrome, IBrome, MAlf, and IAlf, respectively). As digestibil-ity of the hay increased so did DMI (P<0.001; Table 1). Intakes were highest when steers were fed either of the al-falfa hays and lowest when fed mature grass hay. There were no differences in intake within the three grass hays or within the two alfalfa hays. This would be expected as it is well documented that cattle intakes increase when fed a highly digestible forage (Figure 1) compared to forages that are lower in digestibility, presumably, due to increased rate of passage. In vitro DMD and OMD were higher for IAlf than the other four hays (Table 2). Unlike the in vivo DMD data, the IBrome hay was similar (P>0.05) to the MBrome and the MAlf and Prairie was similar to the IAlf hay. In VivoIn vivo DM digestibility was signifi-cantly higher (P<0.001)for the IBrome and the IAlf (62.2 and 66.5%, respec-tively) compared to the other three hays (56.5, 58.1, and 55.5% for MAlf, MBrome, and Prairie, respectively) (Table 2). There were no differences (P=0.74) between the Prairie, MBrome, and the MAlf hay. Organic matter digestibility followed the same pattern as DMD, with IBrome and IAlf hav-ing greater (P<0.001) digestibility than the other three hays. Neutral detergent fiber digestibility followed the same pattern as DMD and OMD. There were no differences between IBrome and IAlf, but they were significantly higher than Prairie, MBrome, and MAlf. Regression analysis indicated no significant difference (P=0.99) between the slopes of the regression lines (Figure 1). However, there was a differ-ence (P=0.04) between the six different runs. This difference between the runs demonstrates the need for standards to adjust in vitro values in order make comparisons to in vivo digestibility and between different forages. The differ-ences between the in vitro runs could be attributed to rumen fluid from Table 1. Chemical composition of the experimental hays.   DietVariable  Prairie   MAlfa  MBromeb  IBromec   IAlfdCP, % 7.9  16.  7.5  9.  17.6IVDMD, %  52.8  58.6  54.5  60.1   67.1NDF, %   68.   67.9   69.6   66.7  60.5ADF,% 4.4 4.7 4.7 40.0 5.2UIP, %  27.9  14.9  7.2   22.6   10.1TTIDP, %e  16.6   8.0  15.   14.8   5.0UIPD,%f 40.1  62.4  58.9  4.0  46.0aMean Mature Alfalfa HaybMeans Mature Brome Grass HaycMeans Immature Brome Grass HaydMeans Immature Alfalfa HayeTotal tract Indigestible Proteinf Lower tract UIP DigestibilityTable 2. In Vivo and In Vitro digestibility of five different hays fed to yearling steers. Diet StatisticsVariable Prairie MAlf1 MBrome2 IBrome IAlf4 SEM P-valueIn VivoDMI, lb  11.9ce   14.7ad  1.0be   1.6abc  16.1d   0.6 <0.01DMD, %   50.2cf   50.9ad   51.2be   56.4abc  60.6def   1.6  <0.01OMD, %  55.5be  56.5ac   58.1d   62.2ab  66.5cde  1.4  <0.01NDFD, %   47.1cf   47.0ad   45.2be   57.0abc   5.7def   2.   <0.01In VitroDMD, %  52.8be  52.9ac 5.9d 59.1ab  6.9cde 1.6 0.02OMD, %  49.8acd 54.5b 57.9c 62.4a 64.2bd 2.0 0.0NDFD, %  4.8bd  4.4ac 48.6 54.0ab  51.5cd 1.6 0.01Mean Mature Alfalfa Hay2Means Mature Brome Grass HayMeans Immature Brome Grass Hay4Means Immature Alfalfa Hayabcdef Means with like superscripts differ significantly (P<0.001) Figure 1. Regression analysis of in vivo vs. in vitro digestibility.80706050400201000 10 20 0 40 50 60 70 80In Vivo DMD, %y = 0.8574x + 12.175R2 = 0.778y = 0.8215x + 10.67R2 = 0.985y = 0.9941x + 4.9755R2 = 0.759y = 1.0228x + 4.851R2 = 0.8401y = 0.892x + 15.25R2 = 0.798y = 1.0458x + 2.94R2 = 0.6785In Vitro DMD, %© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 111 donor animals, differences in techni-cians, and the handling of rumen fluid prior placing in the tubes. However, in vitro (test tube) and in vivo (in the animal) digestibilities had good agree-ment, and were significantly correlated (r = 0.82 to 0.99). When the six runs were averaged (Figure 2) together IVD-MD was 5.4 percentage units higher than in vivo DMD. This equates to an 8% difference between in vivo and in vitro digestibility.ImplicationsIncluding these five hay samples with in vitro DMD analyse as standards will allow prediction of in vivo digest-ibility for new forages. This is impor-tant in research settings where a large number of samples are collected and cannot be included within the same in vitro run. Samples can be analyzed at different times and the adjustment allows us to compare different runs. 1Bobbi Gene Geisert, graduate student; Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, Lincoln; Don C. Adams, director, WCREC North Platte; Jim C. MacDonald, research technician, Animal Science, Lincoln.Figure 2. Regression analysis of the average of all six in vitro runs. Each point represents the aver-age of each of the five different hay samples.y = 0.9406x + 8.709R2 = 0.90048070605040020100In Vitro DMD, % 0 10 20 0 40 50 60 70 80In Vivo DMD, %

Comparison of \u3ci\u3eIn Vivo\u3c/i\u3e Digestibility to \u3ci\u3eIn Vitro\u3c/i\u3e Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to Steers

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
1-1-2007 
Comparison of In Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility of Five 
Forages Fed to Steers 
Bobbi Gene Geisert 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Terry J. Klopfenstein 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu 
Don C. Adams 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.edu 
James C. MacDonald 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmacdonald2@unl.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Geisert, Bobbi Gene; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Adams, Don C.; and MacDonald, James C., "Comparison of In 
Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to Steers" (2007). Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Reports. 95. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/95 
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. 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 109 
Comparison of In Vivo Digestibility to In Vitro Digestibility 
of Five Forages Fed to Steers
Bobbi Gene Geisert
Terry J. Klopfenstein
Don C. Adams
Jim C. MacDonald1
Summary
Eight crossbred yearling steers were 
used in a Latin rectangle design to de-
termine the in vivo digestibility of five 
different forages. Feed intakes were higher 
when steers were fed forages with higher 
IVDMD. In vivo digestibility of the hay 
used in this trial was highly correlated to 
in vitro digestibility. On average, in vitro 
DMD was 5.4 percentage units higher 
than in vivo digestibility. Including these 
five hay samples as standards for in vitro 
analysis allows researchers to compare 
samples analyzed across in vitro runs. It 
also allows researchers to adjust the in vi-
tro DMD to in vivo DMD, which allows 
for more accurate ration formulation and 
animal response prediction. 
Introduction
 Previous research indicates 
in vitro DMD of forages is highly 
correlated with in vivo digestibility. 
Including a set of samples within 
each in vitro run which has known in 
vivo digestibilities allows research-
ers to adjust in vitro digestibility of 
forages to in vivo values using regres-
sion equations generated from the 
standards. It has been shown that the 
regression equations differ within 
plant type (C, C4 and legumes) 
and the same samples run in dif-
ferent laboratories also differ. This 
is due to a number of factors which 
include donor animals, diets fed to 
donor animals, and differences in 
analytical techniques. In vitro runs 
analyzed in different runs cannot 
be compared equally because of run 
variability. Adjusting the in vitro re-
sults using the equations generated 
from the standards (with known in 
vivo digestibility) allows researchers 
to compare estimates from differ-
ent in vitro runs. With these adjust-
ments, forage samples with different 
species composition, such as grasses 
vs. legumes, can also be compared 
because each sample has been 
adjusted accordingly. The objective of 
this experiment was to determine the 
in vivo digestibility of five different 
hay samples and to use these samples 
as standards in in vitro DM digest-
ibility procedures and make com-
parisons between in vivo and in vitro 
digestibility. 
Proceedure
This experiment used eight cross-
bred yearlings in a 5x5 Latin rectangle 
with five periods and five diets. Diets 
consisted of five chopped hays includ-
ing mature brome grass (MBrome), 
immature brome grass (IBrome), 
mature alfalfa (MAlf), immature 
alfalfa (IAlf), and prairie (Prairie). 
Prairie hay consisted of a mixture 
of warm season grasses. All hay was 
chopped on one day, through a 4 inch 
screen using a tub grinder at the begin-
ning of the trial, mixed, and stored 
on concrete in an enclosed building. 
Periods consisted of a 16-day adapta-
tion period followed by a five-day col-
lection period. During the adaptation 
period steers were fed at ad libitum 
intake for the first 10 days. 
The following six days steers were 
fed at 95 % of ad libitum intake to 
minimize feed refusals and reduce 
variation in measurements of diges-
tion. Steers remained on the restricted 
DMI throughout the collection 
period. Steers initially weighed 710 
lbs and gained an average of 55 lbs 
throughout the trial. 
Hay samples were taken daily dur-
ing the last eight days of each period, 
composited and a sub-sampled for 
lab analysis. If necessary feed refusals 
were also collected the last eight days 
of each period for analysis. Steers were 
fitted with fecal collection bags during 
the collection period to measure total 
fecal output. Bags were emptied and 
feces weighed and sub-sampled twice 
daily (7:00 am and 4:00 pm). All feed 
samples and fecal samples were dried 
in a 60°C forced air oven and ground 
through a Wiley mill (1mm screen) 
for analysis.
In Vitro dry matter digestibility 
(IVDMD) analysis was conducted on 
the five hay samples and replicated 
six times. The IVDMD values from 
each run were regressed against the 
in vivo DMD. The slopes of each 
regression line were compared. Dif-
ferences between regression equa-
tions were also tested. Total protein 
was determined as well as degradable 
intake protein (DIP) and undegrad-
able intake protein (UIP) using in situ 
mobile bag technique (2005 Nebraska 
Beef Report, pp. 25-27) using two 
ruminally and duodenally fistulated 
Holstein steers. 
Results
In Vitro
Crude protein of the diets were 7.9, 
7.5, 9., 16., and 17.6% for Prairie, 
MBrome, IBrome, MAlf, and IAlf, 
respectively (Table 1). UIP ranged from 
10.1% (% of total CP) for IAlf to 7.2 
% for the MBrome (Table 1). Total 
Tract indigestible protein (TTIDP) 
follows the same pattern as the UIP 
(5.0, 8.0, 14.8, 15., and 16.6 for IAlf, 
Malf, IBrome, MBrome, and Prairie, 
respectively). Digestibility of UIP frac-
tion was highest for MAlf (62.4%) 
and lowest for IBrome (4.0%). UIP 
digestibility of these forages are lower 
than the NRC assumed 80%. These 
UIP digestibilities agree with results 
from Haugen et al., (2005 Nebraska 
Beef Report, pp. 25-27) who reported 
UIP digestibilities lower than the NRC 
(Continued on next page)
Page 110 — 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
estimates. There was a wide range in 
IVDMD between the different hays as 
well (50.2, 51.2, 56.4, 50.9, and 60.6 % 
for Prairie, MBrome, IBrome, MAlf, 
and IAlf, respectively). As digestibil-
ity of the hay increased so did DMI 
(P<0.001; Table 1). Intakes were highest 
when steers were fed either of the al-
falfa hays and lowest when fed mature 
grass hay. There were no differences in 
intake within the three grass hays or 
within the two alfalfa hays. This would 
be expected as it is well documented 
that cattle intakes increase when fed 
a highly digestible forage (Figure 1) 
compared to forages that are lower 
in digestibility, presumably, due to 
increased rate of passage. 
In vitro DMD and OMD were 
higher for IAlf than the other four 
hays (Table 2). Unlike the in vivo 
DMD data, the IBrome hay was similar 
(P>0.05) to the MBrome and the MAlf 
and Prairie was similar to the IAlf hay. 
In Vivo
In vivo DM digestibility was signifi-
cantly higher (P<0.001)for the IBrome 
and the IAlf (62.2 and 66.5%, respec-
tively) compared to the other three 
hays (56.5, 58.1, and 55.5% for MAlf, 
MBrome, and Prairie, respectively) 
(Table 2). There were no differences 
(P=0.74) between the Prairie, MBrome, 
and the MAlf hay. Organic matter 
digestibility followed the same pattern 
as DMD, with IBrome and IAlf hav-
ing greater (P<0.001) digestibility than 
the other three hays. Neutral detergent 
fiber digestibility followed the same 
pattern as DMD and OMD. There were 
no differences between IBrome and 
IAlf, but they were significantly higher 
than Prairie, MBrome, and MAlf. 
Regression analysis indicated no 
significant difference (P=0.99) between 
the slopes of the regression lines 
(Figure 1). However, there was a differ-
ence (P=0.04) between the six different 
runs. This difference between the runs 
demonstrates the need for standards 
to adjust in vitro values in order make 
comparisons to in vivo digestibility and 
between different forages. The differ-
ences between the in vitro runs could 
be attributed to rumen fluid from 
Table 1. Chemical composition of the experimental hays.
   Diet
Variable  Prairie   MAlfa  MBromeb  IBromec   IAlfd
CP, % 7.9  16.  7.5  9.  17.6
IVDMD, %  52.8  58.6  54.5  60.1   67.1
NDF, %   68.   67.9   69.6   66.7  60.5
ADF,% 4.4 4.7 4.7 40.0 5.2
UIP, %  27.9  14.9  7.2   22.6   10.1
TTIDP, %e  16.6   8.0  15.   14.8   5.0
UIPD,%f 40.1  62.4  58.9  4.0  46.0
aMean Mature Alfalfa Hay
bMeans Mature Brome Grass Hay
cMeans Immature Brome Grass Hay
dMeans Immature Alfalfa Hay
eTotal tract Indigestible Protein
f Lower tract UIP Digestibility
Table 2. In Vivo and In Vitro digestibility of five different hays fed to yearling steers.
 Diet Statistics
Variable Prairie MAlf1 MBrome2 IBrome IAlf4 SEM P-value
In Vivo
DMI, lb  11.9ce   14.7ad  1.0be   1.6abc  16.1d   0.6 <0.01
DMD, %   50.2cf   50.9ad   51.2be   56.4abc  60.6def   1.6  <0.01
OMD, %  55.5be  56.5ac   58.1d   62.2ab  66.5cde  1.4  <0.01
NDFD, %   47.1cf   47.0ad   45.2be   57.0abc   5.7def   2.   <0.01
In Vitro
DMD, %  52.8be  52.9ac 5.9d 59.1ab  6.9cde 1.6 0.02
OMD, %  49.8acd 54.5b 57.9c 62.4a 64.2bd 2.0 0.0
NDFD, %  4.8bd  4.4ac 48.6 54.0ab  51.5cd 1.6 0.0
1Mean Mature Alfalfa Hay
2Means Mature Brome Grass Hay
Means Immature Brome Grass Hay
4Means Immature Alfalfa Hay
abcdef Means with like superscripts differ significantly (P<0.001) 
Figure 1. Regression analysis of in vivo vs. in vitro digestibility.
80
70
60
50
40
0
20
10
0
0 10 20 0 40 50 60 70 80
In Vivo DMD, %
y = 0.8574x + 12.175
R2 = 0.778
y = 0.8215x + 10.67
R2 = 0.985
y = 0.9941x + 4.9755
R2 = 0.759
y = 1.0228x + 4.851
R2 = 0.8401
y = 0.892x + 15.25
R2 = 0.798
y = 1.0458x + 2.94
R2 = 0.6785
In
 V
it
ro
 D
M
D
, %
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2007 Nebraska Beef Report  — Page 111 
donor animals, differences in techni-
cians, and the handling of rumen fluid 
prior placing in the tubes. However, 
in vitro (test tube) and in vivo (in the 
animal) digestibilities had good agree-
ment, and were significantly correlated 
(r = 0.82 to 0.99). When the six runs 
were averaged (Figure 2) together IVD-
MD was 5.4 percentage units higher 
than in vivo DMD. This equates to an 
8% difference between in vivo and in 
vitro digestibility.
Implications
Including these five hay samples 
with in vitro DMD analyse as standards 
will allow prediction of in vivo digest-
ibility for new forages. This is impor-
tant in research settings where a large 
number of samples are collected and 
cannot be included within the same 
in vitro run. Samples can be analyzed 
at different times and the adjustment 
allows us to compare different runs. 
1Bobbi Gene Geisert, graduate student; 
Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor, Animal Science, 
Lincoln; Don C. Adams, director, WCREC North 
Platte; Jim C. MacDonald, research technician, 
Animal Science, Lincoln.
Figure 2. Regression analysis of the average of all six in vitro runs. Each point represents the aver-
age of each of the five different hay samples.
y = 0.9406x + 8.709
R2 = 0.9004
80
70
60
50
40
0
20
10
0
In
 V
it
ro
 D
M
D
, %
 0 10 20 0 40 50 60 70 80
In Vivo DMD, %


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Comparison of \u3ci\u3eIn Vivo\u3c/i\u3e Digestibility to \u3ci\u3eIn Vitro\u3c/i\u3e Digestibility of Five Forages Fed to Steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries