{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024602026049204053, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002894356005788712, 'mean_word_length': 4.810924369747899, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
Effect of different methods for conserving rice grain on in situ ruminal degradation and in vivo nutrient digestion and rumen fermentation in steers.

We investigated the effects of different rice conservation techniques on in situ ruminal degradation and in vivo nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation in steers. Raw rice grain was dried before crushing (DRY), ensiled after crushing (ENS-A), or ensiled before crushing (ENS-B). Six ruminally cannulated steers were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design with three dietary treatments: diets containing DRY, ENS-A, or ENS-B at 36% of the dietary dry matter. The in situ rapidly degradable fraction and effective ruminal degradability were higher for ensiled rice than for DRY, and higher for ENS-A than for ENS-B. The ruminal pH was lower and the lactic acid and total volatile acid concentrations were higher for the steers fed ensiled rice than those fed the DRY diet, but a treatment effect was not observed in the comparison between ENS-A and ENS-B. The whole-tract digestibility of crude protein and ether extract was improved when the rice grain was ensiled, but there were no differences in nutrient digestibility between ensiling methods. These results show that ensiling treatment can be a strategy to improve the nutrient value of rice grain, but the ensiling method has little impact on in vivo digestion.