Gonzalo Gonzalez Mateos, this is an interesting and timely article. I fully agree that classifying the fibrous material of a food, based on crude fiber (FB), which is routinely used, is not the most correct. In the case of ruminants, there would be no major complications, because all dry matter ingested initially passes through the rumen fermentation chamber. In the monogastric, the fibrous material enters the stomach, passing to the small intestine, which is characterized by being the main digestive and absorptive region of the gastrointestinal tract, constituting the place where the different sources of fiber most interfere in the digestibility of the energy of nutrients If the ration is correct, which would be more efficient to mitigate the negative effects of the fibrous source, the use of specific enzymes, prebiotic or probiotic. I want to take advantage of your understanding of the subject, which I think is of scientific and practical merit.
The topic is quite logical.The materials that are used as sources of fibre in non ruminant animals have different cf values most animal nutritionists based feed formulation on the CF values,does it mean that the CF values of feed materials are not necessarily important?
Not good enough. To formulate on CF based rather than on type of fiber is like formulating with CP rather than with AA. To formulate using CF is better than nothing but not good enough
Dr. Mateos; I could not agree more!! We have already moved far beyond CRUDE fibre, with reliable analytical methods to measure soluble and insoluble fractions, levels of discrete NSPs etc. As various companies develop NIR techniques for these analytes, diet design should reflect these capabilities. The two areas requiring attention now, to my mind, is education of some farmers and almost all legislators, to bring these communities into the 21st century.
.jpg&w=3840&q=75)