The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In vitro gas production: a technique revisited
Abstract
Summary: The stoichiometrical relationship between gas volumes and short chain fatty acid (SCFA) production has been exemplified for an in vitro gas test based on the bicarbonate buffer. It is outlined that, even though variation in the molar proportion of acetate, propionate and butyrate will influence gas volumes, quite similar amounts of total carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are required for widely different SCFA patterns (0.748: 0.194: 0.058 or 0.459: 0.462: 0.079 for C 2: C 3: C 4), namely, 2.20–2.34 mg to produce 1 ml of gas. However, the variation in microbial biomass production per mole adenosine triphosphate (ATP) presents a serious limitation for in vitro gas tests, since these tests reflect SCFA production only. As a consequence in vitro gas tests need to be complemented by a quantification of substrate concomitantly truly degraded to avoid selection of a substrate with proportionally higher SCFA production and lower microbial biomass yield. This intrinsic problem of in vitro gas tests was experimentally demonstrated for 61 roughages, where a gravimetric determination of microbial biomass yield showed a highly significant (r = −0.78, p < 0.0001) negative relationship between microbial biomass and gas volumes in vitro when both were related to 100 mg of substrates truly degraded. The relationship was further examined for 35 roughages, being representative of the 61 samples, using incubations with stable isotopie nitrogen (15 N). In these studies, 15 N incorporation and gas production were significantly (r = −0.78, p < 0.001) inversely related. An in vitro method is proposed which combines gas volume and substrate degradability measurements to estimate microbial yield and these estimations agreed well (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) with 15 N measurements. Zusammenfassung: Die stöchiometrischen Zusammenhänge von Gas ‐und kurzkettiger Fettsäuren ‐ Produktion im Bikarbonat gepufferten in vitro Gastest wurden exemplarisch dargestellt. Es wird gezeigt, daß unterschiedliche molare Anteile von Essig ‐, Propion ‐ und Buttersäure zwar Auswirkungen auf das Gasvolumen haben, die Masse an Kohlen‐, Wasser‐und Sauerstoff, die für 1 ml Gas nötig ist, jedoch für unterschiedliche molare Fettsäurenzusammensetzung (0.748: 0.194: 0.058 oder 0.459: 0.462: 0.079 für C 2: C 3: C 4) mit 2.20 bis 2.34 mg sehr ähnlich ist. Unterschiedliche mikrobielle Biomasse‐Bildung per mol Adenosintriphosphat (ATP) begrenzt jedoch die Aussagefähigkeit des Gastests, da dieser nur die Bildung von kurzkettigen Fettsäuren reflektiert. In vitro Gastests bedürfen der begleitenden Quantifizierung der Menge an wahr abgebauter Substanz, um die Selektion von Substraten zu vermeiden, die eine proportional hohe kurzkettige Fettsäuren‐Produktion aber niedrigere mikrobielle Biomasse‐Bildung aufweisen. Diese Beziehung wurde experimentell für 61 Rauhfuttermittel aufgezeigt. Die gravimetrisch bestimmte mikrobielle Biomasse zeigt, bezogen auf 100 mg wahr abgebaute Substanz, eine hoch negative Beziehung (r = −0.78, p < 0.0001) zwischen diesem Parameter und dem Gasvolumen. Diese Beziehung wurde mit 35 (von den 61) representativen Rauhfuttermittel, unter Anwendung von stabilen Stickstoff ‐ Isotopen (15 N) überprüft. Die Untersuchungen zeigten eine signifikante (r = −0.78, p < 0.001) negative Beziehung zwischen 15 N Anreicherung und Gasvolumen. Es wird eine in vitro Methode vorgeschlagen, die Messungen von Gasvolumen und Substratabbau vereint und die es ermöglicht, die mikrobielle Biomasse abzuschätzen. Diese Schätzungen wiesen eine gute Übereinstimmung (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) mit 15 N Bestimmungen auf.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant
Van Soest, P. J. (1994) · Cornell University Press eBooks · doi:10.7591/9781501732355 · Cited by 7,312
A TWO‐STAGE TECHNIQUE FOR THE IN VITRO DIGESTION OF FORAGE CROPS
Tilley, J. M. A., & Terry, R. A. (1963) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x · Cited by 6,609
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D., & Schneider, W. (1979) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s0021859600086305 · Cited by 1,927
A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: I. Ruminal fermentation
Russell, J. B., O'Connor, J. D., Fox, D. G., Van Soest, P. J., & Sniffen, C. J. (1992) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1992.70113551x · Cited by 1,294
Makkar, H. P. S., Blümmel, M., Borowy, N. K., & Becker, K. (1993) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740610205 · Cited by 1,216
Self-citationHungate, R. E. (1975) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.06.110175.000351 · Cited by 933
Blu¨mmel, M., & Ørskov, E. R. (1993) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/0377-8401(93)90150-i · Cited by 553
A Theoretical Rumen Fermentation Balance
Wolin, M. J. (1960) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(60)90348-9 · Cited by 478
Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction
(2000) · CABI Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1079/9780851994635.0000 · Cited by 448
Blümmel, M., & Becker, K. (1997) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1079/bjn19970073 · Cited by 216
Self-citation
Cited by
Goel, G., Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K. (2008) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.09.010 · Cited by 189
Self-citationContreras-Govea, F. E., Muck, R. E., Mertens, D. R., & Weimer, P. J. (2011) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.09.015 · Cited by 161
Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield
Contreras-Govea, F. E., Muck, R. E., Broderick, G. A., & Weimer, P. J. (2013) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.008 · Cited by 87
Amer, S., Hassanat, F., Berthiaume, R., Seguin, P., & Mustafa, A. F. (2012) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.024 · Cited by 85
Impact of lemongrass and galangal as feed additives on performance of lactating Barki goats
Khattab, M. S. A., El-Zaiat, H. M., Abd El Taw, A. M., Matloup, O. H., Morsy, A. S., Abdou, M. M., Ebeid, H. M., Attia, M. F. A., & Sallam, S. M. A. (2017) · International Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3923/ijds.2017.184.189 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Blümmel, M., Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-01-08
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1-5
- Pages
- 24-34
- ISSN
- 0931-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-0396
- OpenAlex
- W2032755053
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 8.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In vitro gas production: a technique revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x
- The paper
- Blümmel, M., Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K. (1997). In vitro gas production: a technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.1997.tb00734.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.