JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80 No. 7 1296-1314
© 1997 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bannink, A.
Right arrow Articles by De Visser, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bannink, A.
Right arrow Articles by De Visser, H.

Comparison of Mechanistic Rumen Models on Mathematical Formulation of Extramicrobial and Microbial Processes

A. Bannink 1 and H. De Visser 1

1 Department of Ruminant Nutrition, Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO), PO Box 65, NL 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands

This study investigated the consequences of differences in applied concepts and individual mathematical formulations on steady-state behavior of three important mechanistic rumen models. In the models of Baldwin et al. (2) and Danfær (6), the formulation of passage rate, nondietary inputs, defined rumen substrate pools, absorption rates, degradation rates, molecular weights, parameterization of VFA production, and physical compartmentalization were sequentially exchanged for the formulation of the model of Dijkstra et al. (9). Most of these adaptations had a considerable influence on model behavior, indicating large qualitative differences in formulation and sensitivity to concept choice. Because microbial substrate environments were similar after all adaptations, the microbial mechanisms could be compared objectively without being concealed by differences in extramicrobial formulation. None of the microbial functions were altered except for substrate degradation, which gave rise to a similar rate of substrate entrance to soluble rumen pools that are available for microbial utilization. Large differences remained in microbial functions of substrate fermentation, substrate incorporation, and microbial synthesis. Differences in extramicrobial rumen functions and microbial mechanisms had important consequences for simulated nutrient outputs from the rumen, illustrating the necessity for further validation of individual formulations.

Key Words: rumen function • mechanistic model • model comparison • mathematical formulation

Submitted on April 6, 1994
Accepted on April 21, 1995




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
J. T. Sylvester, S. K. R. Karnati, Z. Yu, M. Morrison, and J. L. Firkins
Development of an Assay to Quantify Rumen Ciliate Protozoal Biomass in Cows Using Real-Time PCR
J. Nutr., December 1, 2004; 134(12): 3378 - 3384.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.