{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05480540111199365, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021048451151707705, 'mean_word_length': 4.9270588235294115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of roughage sources produced in a tropical environment on forage intake, and ruminal and microbial parameters.

Our objective was to study the effect of different roughage sources produced in a tropical environment on intake, digestibility, and ruminal parameters of crossbred bulls. Five rumen-fistulated 30-mo-old Holstein × Bos indicus bulls (average BW =459 ± 32.5 kg) were utilized in a 5 × 5 randomized Latin square design. The experiment consisted of five 19-d experimental periods (10 d for adaptation and 9 d for data collection) and 5 treatments. Experimental diets consisted of corn (Zea mays L.) silage (CS), Brachiaria grass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf.) silage (BGS), elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) silage(EGS), Tifton 85 (Cynodon spp.) hay (T85), and fresh sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.; SC). Diets were formulated to have approximately 11% CP (DM basis)using a mixture of urea and ammonium sulfate (9:1 ratio) that was diluted in water and then mixed with roughage. Intake, ruminal outflow, digestibility coefficients,ruminal pool, intake, passage (kp) and digestion rates, microbial parameters, and pH data were assessed.D ry matter intake was greater (P < 0.01) for CS compared with SC. Among treatments, lesser (P < 0.01)potentially digestible NDF, ash- and protein-free NDF(apNDF), and digestible ash- and protein-free NDF intake values were observed for SC. Ruminal outflows of DM and nonfibrous carbohydrates were lesser (P <0.01) for SC compared with other treatments. Dry matter apparent digestibility and ruminal digestibility did not differ (P > 0.27) among treatments. No differences (P = 0.11) were observed for ruminal apNDF pool and ruminal kp of apNDF (P = 0.06) among treatments. No treatment effect (P > 0.28) was observed for DM and nitrogen of rumen-isolated bacteria, and microbial efficiency was greater (P = 0.02) for BGS among treatments.A treatment × time interaction (P < 0.01) was found for ruminal pH, with a quadratic pattern in terms of time for CS, BGS, EGS, and T85, whereas pH values for CA linearly decreased as a function of time. In summary, these roughages, when supplemented with an additional nitrogen sources, show similar overall apparent digestibility and ruminal pool values, but conversely, bulls fed sugarcane had less overall nutrient intake and lower ruminal outflow and digestion rate values. We conclude that fresh-cut sugarcane, when provided with urea, can affect digestion rate and, consequently, impact nutrient intake.