The objective of this study was to compare the application of different in vitro and in situ methods in empirical and mechanistic predictions of in vivo OM digestibility (OMD) and their associations to near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy spectra for a variety of forages. Apparent in vivo OMD of silages made from alfalfa (n = 2), corn (n = 9), corn stover (n = 2), grass (n = 11), whole crops of wheat and barley (n = 8) and red clover (n = 7), and fresh alfalfa (n = 1), grass hays (n = 5), and wheat straws (n = 5) had previously been determined in sheep. Concentrations of indigestible NDF (iNDF) in all forage samples were determined by a 288-h ruminal in situ incubation. Gas production of isolated forage NDF was measured by in vitro incubations for 72 h. In vitro pepsin-cellulase OM solubility (OMS) of the forages was determined by a 2-step gravimetric digestion method. Samples were also subjected to a 2-step determination of in vitro OMD based on buffered rumen fluid and pepsin. Further, rumen fluid digestible OM was determined from a single 96-h incubation at 38°C. Digestibility of OM from the in situ and the in vitro incubations was calculated according to published empirical equations, which were either forage specific or general (1 equation for all forages) within method. Indigestible NDF was also used in a mechanistic model to predict OMD. Predictions of OMD were evaluated by residual analysis using the GLM procedure in SAS. In vitro OMS in a general prediction equation of OMD did not display a significant forage-type effect on the residuals (observed - predicted OMD; P = 0.10). Predictions of OMD within forage types were consistent between iNDF and the 2-step in vitro method based on rumen fluid. Root mean square error of OMD was least (0.032) when the prediction was based on a general forage equation of OMS. However, regenerating a simple regression for iNDF by omitting alfalfa and wheat straw reduced the root mean square error of OMD to 0.025. Indigestible NDF in a general forage equation predicted OMD without any bias (P ≥ 0.16), and root mean square error of prediction was smallest among all methods when alfalfa and wheat straw samples were excluded. Our study suggests that compared with the in vitro laboratory methods, iNDF used in forage-specific equations will improve overall predictions of forage in vivo OMD. The in vitro and in situ methods performed equally well in calibrations of iNDF or OMD by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy.
This study was designed to obtain information on prediction of diet digestibility from near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) scans of faecal spot samples from dairy cows at different stages of lactation and to develop a faecal sampling protocol. NIRS was used to predict diet organic matter digestibility (OMD) and indigestible neutral detergent fibre content (iNDF) from faecal samples, and dry matter digestibility (DMD) using iNDF in feed and faecal samples as an internal marker. Acid-insoluble ash (AIA) as an internal digestibility marker was used as a reference method to evaluate the reliability of NIRS predictions. Feed and composite faecal samples were collected from 44 cows at approximately 50, 150 and 250 days in milk (DIM). The estimated standard deviation for cow-specific organic matter digestibility analysed by AIA was 12.3 g/kg, which is small considering that the average was 724 g/kg. The phenotypic correlation between direct faecal OMD prediction by NIRS and OMD by AIA over the lactation was 0.51. The low repeatability and small variability estimates for direct OMD predictions by NIRS were not accurate enough to quantify small differences in OMD between cows. In contrast to OMD, the repeatability estimates for DMD by iNDF and especially for direct faecal iNDF predictions were 0.32 and 0.46, respectively, indicating that developing of NIRS predictions for cow-specific digestibility is possible. A data subset of 20 cows with daily individual faecal samples was used to develop an on-farm sampling protocol. Based on the assessment of correlations between individual sample combinations and composite samples as well as repeatability estimates for individual sample combinations, we found that collecting up to three individual samples yields a representative composite sample. Collection of samples from all the cows of a herd every third month might be a good choice, because it would yield a better accuracy.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of fecal output measurements using polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an external marker determined by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. In addition, the accuracy of dry matter intake predictions based on fecal output and digestibility estimated using an internal marker [indigestible neutral detergent fiber (iNDF)] was assessed. The experiment was conducted using 6 lactating dairy cows fed 2 different diets. Polyethylene glycol was administered twice daily into the rumen and the diurnal pattern of fecal concentrations and recovery in feces were determined. To evaluate the effects of alternative marker administration and sampling schemes on fecal output estimates, the passage kinetics of PEG in the digestive tract of dairy cows was determined and used for simulation models. The results indicate that PEG was completely recovered in feces and, thus, fecal output was accurately estimated using PEG. Good agreement between measured and predicted dry matter intake (standard error of prediction = 0.86 kg/d, R = 0.81) indicates good potential to determine feed intake using PEG in combination with iNDF. The precision of cow-specific digestibility estimates based on iNDF was unsatisfactory, but for a group of cows iNDF provided an accurate estimate of dry matter digestibility. The current study indicated that, to overcome inherent day-to-day variation in feed intake and fecal output, the minimum of 4 fecal spot samples should be collected over 4 d. Preferably, these samples should be distributed evenly over the 12-h marker administration interval to compensate for the circadian variation in fecal PEG concentrations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.