Claim · model-written summary
The alternative in situ procedure is less variable than the purine-corrected in situ procedure and simpler to perform.
- Taxon
- foraget0
- Outcome
- less variablee2
- Direction
- lesse2
- Qualifier
- simpler to performe2
- Comparator
- purine-corrected in situ proceduree2
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValue
Verbatim
t0“Estimating forage protein degradation in the rumen”
e2“This alternative correlates highly to the purine-corrected in situ procedure, and it is less variable and simpler to perform”
Title
Estimating forage protein degradation in the rumen
T. J. Klopfenstein; R. A. Mass; K. W. Creighton; et al. Journal of Animal Science 2001. doi:10.2527/jas2001.79e-supple208x
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Method / resource A modified purine procedure yielded three to four times more purines than the original procedure in duodenal samples and NDF residue.
- Method / resource The alternative in situ NDIN procedure correlates highly with the purine-corrected in situ procedure.
- Recommendation Differential centrifugation may be inappropriate for obtaining clean samples of rumen microbes.
- Recommendation The authors suggest measuring the purine-to-N ratio with NDF incubated in situ and particle-associated microorganisms measured.
- Recommendation The authors propose adding a lag time associated with passage to the UIP calculation.
- Intervention effect Degradation with no passage (applying a lag) reduced UIP values of forage with high potentially available UIP pools.
- Method / resource Enzyme analysis and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy show promise for measuring UIP when fistulated cattle are unavailable.
- Recommendation The in situ NDIN procedure appears to be a simple and acceptable method of UIP determination.
- Recommendation The modified purine assay should be considered when purine measurement is needed.