ESTIMATION OF THE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF GRASS SILAGES INTRODUCTION
|
|
- Madeline Barton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ESTIMATION OF THE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF GRASS SILAGES P. Huhtanen 1, M. Rinne 2 and J. Nousiainen 3 1 Department of Animal Science, Cornell University 2 Animal Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland 3 Farm Services, Valio Ltd. Finland INTRODUCTION The main objective of feed evaluation including chemical laboratory analysis, in vitro digestibility with rumen bacteria or enzymes as well as adjunct methods such as in situ incubation in nylon bags and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) is to predict the availability of nutrients and feeding value for animal production systems. Accurate estimation of the nutritive value of forages is more important than that of concentrate feedstuffs due to the large variation in the nutritive value of forages and also because in most cases the contribution of forage to total diet DM is markedly greater than that of any of the individual concentrate ingredients. In addition to direct influence of forage quality on nutrient availability in ruminant diets, indirect effects to the total nutrient supply can be great because of the large impact of both digestibility and fermentation characteristics on silage DM intake (Rinne 2000; Huhtanen et al. 2007a). Accurate estimation of forage digestibility is a prerequisite for diet formulation, economic evaluation of forages and prediction of animal responses. Determination of in vivo digestibility is time consuming and expensive for routine use and even in nutrition research and therefore different laboratory methods have been developed to estimate digestibility of forages. Biological laboratory methods, even those based on rumen bacteria, very seldom estimate digestibility values directly. This does not mean that these methods are not useful, since they often present very close empirical relationships to in vivo digestibility, and hence empirical correction equations are required for estimating digestibility. It is also evident that these equations are often specific for different forages, environments and even laboratories (Weiss 1994, Van Soest 1994, Nousiainen 2004). The objectives of this paper are to evaluate the methods predicting digestibility of grass silages using empirical, biological and summative approaches. This paper is to a large extent based on results presented in Huhtanen et al. (2006a). DIGESTIBILITY The discussion is based on a dataset comprising of Finnish silages with known in vivo digestibility in sheep determined using total fecal collection method. The grass silages were harvested from mixed timothy - meadow fescue leys in primary growth (PG, n=33) and in regrowth (RG, n=27) and ensiled with formic acid based additives in pilot-scale tower silos or farm-scale bunker silos. The data set also included 19 legume
2 (red clover) and 7 whole crop silages (barley or wheat). Overview of the silages used is presented in Table 1. Table 1.Chemical composition and digestibility of silages Concentration (g/kg DM) Digestibility Ash CP NDF indf Lignin a OMS OMD NDFD pdndfd Mean SD Min Max a Analyzed as permanganate lignin Much effort has been directed into developing empirical regression equations that relate various chemical components to digestibility, although these attempts have not been very successful because of large interspecies and environmental variation (Van Soest 1994). We evaluated the empirical relationships between selected chemical parameters (CP, NDF, ADF and lignin) and in vivo organic matter digestibility (OMD) by regression analysis. The concentrations of feed chemical fractions were poorly related to in vivo OMD of silages. Although the relationships were statistically significant, prediction error using CP, NDF and ADF as independent variables was not markedly less than the standard deviation of OMD in the data set. Lignin was the best single predictor of OMD, but it explained only 43% of the variation and prediction error (4.2 %-units) is too high for practical feed evaluation and ration formulation. A large proportion of unexplained variation was related to forage type, and the use of forage specific equations decreased the error of predictions markedly. The decrease was greater for the cell wall components than for CP. The better relationship between NDF and ADF, and especially that of lignin, is due to these components being causative factors and related to the biological availability, whereas CP has no direct effect on digestibility provided that minimum N requirements of rumen microbes are met. When random study effect was included in the model RMSE decreased markedly, i.e. within forage and year, the changes in digestibility with advancing maturity can be predicted accurately from the chemical composition (Figure 1). Organic Matter Pepsin Cellulase Solubility (OMS) For digestibility determination, laboratory in vitro methods have been developed and widely exploited, based on ruminal fluid (introduced by Tilley and Terry 1963; extensively reviewed by Weiss 1994) or commercial fungal cellulases. Due to difficulties in obtaining rumen fluid in commercial laboratories and standardization of the system we have evaluated the enzymatic in vitro procedure in the determination of forage digestibility.
3 Enzymatic digestion procedures have been described and discussed in detail in a review by Jones and Theodorou (2000). Basically the method includes removing of cell solubles either by HCl-pepsin or neutral detergent followed by a 24 or 48 h incubation in buffered enzyme solution. The cellulase method differs from the in vivo digestion at least in two aspects: no metabolic matter is produced, i.e. the solubility reflects true rather than apparent digestibility and secondly, the capacity of commercial enzymes to degrade cell wall carbohydrates is smaller than that of rumen microbes (McQueen and Van Soest 1975, Nousiainen 2004) RMSE (%) s.d. A B C CP NDF ADF Lignin Figure 1. Residual mean squared errors (RMSE) of the empirical relationships between feed components and organic matter digestibility estimated with different models (s.d. = standard deviation of the data; A = general relationship; B = forage type specific equations; C = variation from a random study effect excluded). Data contains all forage types. Our data indicates that the relationship between OMS and in vivo OMD is not uniform between the forage types (Table 2), because the prediction error within each forage type was markedly smaller than that estimated using the general correction equation. However, compared to chemical components, the prediction error was much smaller even with the general equation suggesting that OMS reflects the mechanisms behind digestibility better than components of the proximal analysis or detergent fractionation. When the forage specific equation was used, prediction error for OMD decreased from 2.45 to 1.53%. The differences in RMSE between fixed and mixed model regressions with grass silages suggest that the relationship between OMS and OMD may also be year-dependent. In addition to forage specific equations, the laboratory specific equations may be needed. Despite of serious attempts, the laboratories of Valio Ltd. and MTT Agrifood Research Finland were not able to standardize the methods (Nousiainen 2004). There was a difference in the intercept, but the slope was 1.00 and R 2 high (0.97). The intercept difference suggests particle loss during the procedures (manual filtration vs.
4 Tecator crucibles). The lower OMS with centrifugation method compared with Tecator crucibles (71.6 vs. 74.7%) indicates particle loss (Rinne et al. unpublished), but the material was too small to conclude whether the precision of OMS method can be improved by replacing filtration with centrifugation. It is also noteworthy that in our study with legume silages (Rinne et al. 2006), in vitro OMD determined by Tilley and Terry (1963) method significantly underestimated in vivo OMD. In their original evaluation, Tilley and Terry (1963) underlined that despite a close relationship between in vivo and in vitro digestibility, these values are not correspondent and a specific correction equation within laboratory and possibly within forage type are needed. Previous interpretation by Weiss (1994) of the between laboratory variations using ruminal in vitro system clearly suggests that corrections need to be laboratory specific. Table 2. Empirical relationships between pepsin-cellulase organic matter (OM) solubility (%) and in vivo OM digestibility determined with fixed or mixed regression analysis with random study effect (adapted from Huhtanen et al. 2006a). Silage raw material Model a Intercept Slope s.e. RMSE Adj. R 2 Primary growth grass F Primary growth grass M Regrowth grass F Regrowth grass M Legume F Legume M Whole-crop F Whole-crop M All F All M a Regression model: F = Fixed effect model; M = Mixed model with random study effect. Organic matter digestibility of grass silages can be predicted from OMS of ensiled herbage as precisely as from OMS of the resultant silages provided that silages are well preserved with low or moderate ensiling losses (Huhtanen et al. 2005). For practical ration formulation, sampling of herbage during silage harvesting allows obtaining more representative samples and provides a better illustration of the variation in silage digestibility than samples taken from the silos. Advance information of silage digestibility would also be useful in the ration planning. Indigestible Neutral Detergent Fiber (indf) A part of the forage cell wall is protected from all microbial and enzymatic digestion in ruminants, although the total tract residence time of fibre could be extended to ultimate time period (Allen and Mertens 1988, Van Soest 1994). This forage DM fraction can be called potentially indigestible fibre, here referred to as indigestible NDF (indf). In addition to neutral detergent solubles (NDS), indf represents by definition a uniform
5 feed fraction with zero true digestibility. Potentially digestible fibre (pdndf) may then be calculated as pdndf = NDF indf. Several methods may be used in dividing forage NDF to digestible and indigestible fractions, e.g. end-point measurement with long-term (up to 144 h) in vitro batch rumen fluid incubation (Traxler et al. 1998) or fitting time-dependent (0-96 h) in vitro or in situ NDF degradation data to the single digestion pool rumen model. Van Soest et al. (2005) used 216 or 240 h in vitro incubation and re-inoculated samples after each 72 h. We have used a long-term (12 d) in situ incubation to ensure complete digestion of pdndf. The small pore size (6 or 17 μm) combined with a relatively large open surface area of the nylon bag cloth used allows moderate microbial activity within the bags (Huhtanen et al. 1998) and prevents particle in- and out-flow from the bags. The incubations are carried out in cows fed diets ensuring optimal rumen environment for cell wall digestion. After in situ incubation, the residues are washed with water and treated with ND solution to remove metabolic matter. The details of the procedures have been described by Huhtanen et al. (1994) and Ahvenjärvi et al. (2000). We have also evaluated the use of NIRS in predicting grass silage indf with promising results (Nousiainen et al. 2004), but the standardization of the reference method is a vital prerequisite in developing robust multi-purpose calibrations. Because forage indf fraction is attributable to cross-linking between cell wall lignin and hemicellulose when plants mature (Van Soest 1994), several attempts to predict indf concentration from lignin concentration in DM or NDF have been made (see Traxler et al. 1998). The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein system uses a factor 2.4 lignin concentration in NDF in describing indf concentration of forages (Van Soest et al. 2005). This factor is presumed to be universal across forage species and growth environments. Validation of this concept with data containing several forage species (n=21) resulted in satisfactory regression (R 2 = 0.94) between observed and predicted (2.4 lignin) indf concentrations (Van Soest et al. 2005). In contrast, our data (n=87) does not support a generally applicable relationship between lignin and indf concentrations Although the overall slope was 2.4, a general regression equation predicted indf concentration with an unsatisfactory accuracy (R 2 = 0.56; RMSE = 27.4 g/kg DM). The relationships were reasonably good within forage types, but varied greatly between the forage types. Mertens and Huhtanen (2007) concluded that indf concentration is correlated to lignin concentration, but the relationship may not be consistent. The results for grass silages (Nousiainen et al. 2003, Nousiainen 2004) suggested that indf concentration can be used in a single empirical linear regression equation to predict forage OMD relatively universally over a range of species and harvesting conditions. The intercept of this equation represents a theoretical maximum of forage OMD provided that all NDF is potentially digestible and that the rate of pdndf digestion (k d ) is the only limiting factor for availability when the forage is fed to sheep at maintenance feed intake. The slope of the regression describes the decline in OM digestibility with increasing indf concentration. When the original data comprising mainly of grass silages was extended to include legume and whole crop silages, the
6 relationship between indf and OMD seems not to be completely uniform (Huhtanen et al. 2006a). However, the relationship was more uniform compared with OMS both in terms of RSME (1.90 vs. 2.45%) and R 2 (0.883 vs ). The respective negative slope of indf was smaller for legume compared with grass silages, probably because of faster digestion rate of legume silages at the same indf concentration. SUMMATIVE MODELS Van Soest (1967) developed a comprehensive system of feed analysis and its application to forages. He divided the feed into NDS fraction which is essentially completely available but its digestibility is apparently incomplete because of faecal endogenous and microbial non-cell wall material. The second fraction corresponds to plant cell wall and its availability is controlled by structural features that link cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin together. Cell wall fraction is not uniform between forages. Goering and Van Soest (1970) presented a summative model to describe availability of forage DM: ddm = 0.98 NDS + NDFD NDF M, where ddm = digestible DM, NDFD = coefficient of NDF digestibility, and M = metabolic fecal output. Digestibility of NDS fraction in this equation is based on the Lucas test (see Van Soest 1994). The purpose of the Lucas test is to identify ideal nutritional entities that have uniform digestibility over a wide range of feedstuffs by plotting the digestible nutrient concentration in DM against the nutrient concentration in DM. The slope of regression estimates the true digestibility and the intercept is an estimate of the metabolic fecal matter (M) for the nutrient. Theoretically the Goering and Van Soest (1970) model is model is sound, but generally NDFD is not known. Conrad et al. (1984) developed this model by dividing feeds into NDS and potentially digestible NDF. They applied surface area law (mass raised to power 0.67) to calculate NDF that is covered by lignin, and this proportion was multiplied by lignin-free NDF to obtain an estimate of the potentially digestible NDF. Weiss et al. (1992) revised the Conrad et al. (1984) model and it was adopted by NRC (2001) to estimate total digestible nutrients (TDN). Huhtanen (2003) evaluated the NRC (2001) model using in vivo digestibility data. The predicted and observed digestible OM concentrations were relatively well correlated, but NRC (2001) clearly underestimated the digestibility and there was a considerable slope bias. Because the in vivo pdndf digestibility is markedly less variable than the total NDF digestibility, and because the fraction subjected to this variation (pdndf vs. NDF) is smaller, the accuracy of the summative systems based on three fractions (NDS, pdndf and indf) could be improved compared to systems dividing feeds only to total NDF and NS solubles. In our data set, the coefficient of variation of pdndf and NDF digestibility was and 0.135, and respective concentrations 403 and 500 g/kg DM. In the total data set R 2 for the pdndf Lucas test was high (0.95) and intercept close to zero. However, between the forage types the intercepts varied from negative to positive, which both are biologically meaningless.
7 Mertens (2002) proposed a simple equation in which dndf is a linear function of NDF and lignin concentrations: dndf = a NDF (g/kg DM) + b Lignin (g/kg DM), where a and b are constants. Constant a represents the proportion of NDF that is potentially digestible and constant b is the proportion of cell walls protected by lignin. This equation has no intercept, i.e. no endogenous or metabolic excretion of NDF. We compared three methods in estimating dndf and digestible OM (dom) concentrations of the silages: NRC (2001), Mertens (2002) and the Lucas test. Digestible OM was calculated as dndf + dnds. Digestible NDS was estimated by the Lucas test for ashfree NDS (OM NDS). Because indf concentration predicted in vivo OMD better than lignin concentration, the NRC (2001) and Mertens (2002) models were also tested by replacing lignin with indf. For all models, both general equations derived from all data and forage specific equations were used for both dndf and dnds. Parameter values for the NRC (2001) and Mertens (2002) equations were estimated from the data instead of using original parameter values. The results of the evaluation of the general summative models are shown in Table 3. The more complex function of lignin adopted in the NRC (2001) model did not improve the precision of dndf prediction compared to purely empirical prediction based on NDF concentration and linear relationship between NDF digestibility and lignin concentration (MSPE = 33.9 g/kg DM). Mertens (2002) equation resulted in a similar error to that of NRC and empirical approach. Interestingly, the prediction errors of NRC and Mertens equations were strongly correlated (R 2 =0.99) indicating that the form of lignin function had no influence on dndf prediction. Prediction of dndf by the Lucas test resulted in a much lower MSPE than lignin models, and MSPE was only marginally higher than with the NRC (2001) and Mertens (2002) models using indf. RMSE was markedly reduced when indf rather than lignin was used in the NRC (2001) and Mertens (2002) models. Table 3. Prediction of the digestible NDF (dndf) and organic matter (dom) using different summative equations for all forage types; general equations were used to predict both dndf and dnds (Huhtanen et al. 2006a). Independent Distribution of MSPE Trait/method variable Intercept Slope R 2 MSPE Bias Slope Random dndf (g/kg DM) NRC Lignin NRC indf Mertens Lignin Mertens indf Lucas test pdndf dom (g/kg DM) NRC Lignin NRC indf Mertens Lignin Mertens indf Lucas test dndf
8 When the forage specific equations were applied to predict both dndf and dnds (Table 4), prediction errors were markedly reduced compared with the general equations. This was especially the case with lignin models supporting the view that the ratio between lignin and indf is not constant for all forage types. Prediction errors for dndf were only g/kg DM for the three models. The decrease in prediction error of dom was partly due to the fact that true digestibility of NDS and fecal output of metabolic and endogenous matter were not entirely constant. Prediction error of this fraction decreased from 16.2 to 8.6 g/kg DM when forage specific rather than general Lucas equations were used. Metabolic fecal output was markedly higher for the regrowth silages, but the reason for this is not known. The Mertens (2002) equation can also be formulated as dndf = a (NDF indf) + b indf. In this equation coefficient a represents digestibility of pdndf (=NDF indf) and b is a coefficient for indf allowing pdndf digestibility to vary with indf concentration. Table 4. Prediction of digestible NDF (dndf) and organic matter (dom) using different summative equations from data comprising of silages made from primary or regrowth grass and leguminous or whole crop forages; forage specific equations were used to predict both dndf and dnds (Huhtanen et al. 2006a). Independent Distribution of MSPE variable Intercept Slope R 2 MSPE Bias Slope Random dndf (g/kg DM) NRC Lignin NRC indf Mertens Lignin Mertens indf Lucas test pdndf dom (g/kg DM) NRC Lignin NRC indf Mertens Lignin Mertens indf Lucas test dndf Evaluation of the different approaches reveals that for accurate and precise prediction of D-value, forage-specific equations are needed irrespective of the method used (empirical vs. summative). Basically this is because the metabolic fecal output of NDF and the relationship between indf concentration and the rate of pdndf digestion are not constant among forages. An advantage of the summative systems is that they are based on physical and biochemical factors that influence the bioavailability of various feed fractions. Prediction errors of dom were similar for forage specific empirical OMS and indf equations and summative equations, but with general equations the error was much greater for OMS (22.3) compared with indf (16.9) and summative (16.4) models.
9 MECHANISTIC MODELS Modern feed evaluation models have mechanistic dynamic elements. Sensitivity analysis of the Nordic dairy cow model Karoline (Danfær et al. 2006) clearly indicated that forage indf concentration is the key parameter in predicting the nutrient supply of dairy cows (Huhtanen et al., 2006b). The effect of digestion rate of pdndf on nutrient supply was smaller than that of indf concentration. Variation in pdndf digestibility is related to differences in the digestion rate of pdndf associated with cell wall characteristics, since the variation in compartmental residence time in the rumen is likely to be small in sheep fed at maintenance. Considering the relatively small coefficient of variation in the pdndf digestibility of grass silages (4.1% in the present data; n=52) the potential to improve the accuracy dndf or dom predictions by mechanistic models is rather limited. Digestion rate must be predicted accurately and precisely and/or the errors in predicting fecal NDS must be reduced compared with the general Lucas test. Much better relationship between indf concentration and NDFD than that between pdndfd (reflects digestion rate) indicate that accurate determination of potentially indigestible NDF fraction is more important than accurate estimation of digestion rate (Figure 2). A prerequisite of accurate determination of indf is that incubation time is long enough to reach potential extent of digestion. It is often argued that the measurement of digestion after long fermentation times is irrelevant because average retention times of feeds in the rumen are much shorter (Mertens and Huhtanen, 2007). However, this contention is wrong for two reasons. First, selective retention of feeds in the rumen can result in long retention times in the rumen for some feed fractions. Second, and more importantly, long times of digestion are needed to measure the indigestible fraction so that the potentially digestible fraction can be determined. Only by partitioning feed components into potentially digestible and indigestible pools can we measure or assign accurate digestion kinetics. NDFD (%) y = x R 2 = indf (g/kg DM) NDFD (%) y = 1.162x R 2 = pdndfd (%) Figure 2. Effects of indf concentration and potentially digestible NDF digestibility (pdndfd) on NDF digestibility of grass silages in sheep fed at maintenance level of intake.
10 Errors in estimating digestion rate of pdndf can result in greater prediction errors of mechanistic models in predicting forage feeding values compared with empirical or summative models. Although ruminal in situ incubation generally ranks digestion rates correctly, the method underestimates the in vivo digestion rate (Huhtanen et al. 2006b). In vitro gas production technique (for review see Schofield 2000) is a promising tool for estimating digestion rate of NDF. When the parameter values derived from gas production kinetics of isolated NDF were used in dynamic mechanistic rumen models, in vivo NDF digestibility was predicted accurately and precisely (Huhtanen et al. 2007b). Another alternative is to estimate pdndf digestion rate indirectly from dom concentration. Digestible NDS can be estimated by the Lucas test and consequently dndf can be computed. Digestibility of pdndf can be estimated by dividing dndf with pdndf (=NDF indf). Digestion rate of pdndf is then calculated by solving the equation of Allen and Mertens (1988) for digestion rate by assuming a fixed compartmental residence time as described by Huhtanen et al. 2006b). Digestion rates estimated from isolated silage NDF with in vitro gas production technique and those calculated from the in vivo data were strongly correlated without mean or slope bias (Huhtanen et al. 2007b). A problem of in vitro gas production system in estimating digestion rate of pdndf is that the rates appear to be time-dependent, which are difficult to use in steady state rumen models. However, prediction error of in vivo NDFD was not greater when single exponential model with discrete lag model was used to fit gas production profile compared with more complicated two pool models with time-dependent digestion rates (Huhtanen et al. 2007b). We also demonstrated that a single first-order digestion rate can be estimated from more complicated models by using the kinetic parameters in twocompartment rumen model to estimate pdndf digestibility and solving digestion rate as described above. CONCLUSIONS Predicting in vivo organic matter digestibility with empirical equations using chemical parameters based either on proximate or detergent analysis gave unsatisfactory results. Pepsin-cellulase solubility predicts OMD precisely especially when forage specific equations are used. Indirect comparisons indicate that the accuracy of the method is at least similar to rumen fluid in vitro methods. The method does not require rumen cannulated animals and the activity of enzyme is most likely to be less variable than that of rumen fluid. The relationship between cellulase solubility and OMD are not uniform between forage types and therefore forage specific equations are needed to calculate OMD from solubility. Determination of indf by a long (10-12 days) in situ or in vitro incubation is a powerful tool in forage evaluation. The empirical relationship between indf and OMD was good (R2 0.88, RMSE 1.9%). The relationship between forage indf concentration and OMD is more uniform between forage types than that between cellulase solubility and OMD. Determination of indf concentration divides feed OM into three fractions (indf, pdndf and NDS), of which indf and NDS are uniform entities and pdndf is also much more uniform than NDF. This allows developing summative
11 equations to predict dom. Modern feed evaluation models require digestion rates of feed components in predicting nutrient supply. However, to improve the feed evaluation models by including dynamic and mechanistic elements into the models, digestion rate of pdndf must be estimated both accurately and precisely. The potential of mechanistic models is that they predict feeding level effects and interactions between dietary components better than factorial models. REFERENCES Ahvenjärvi, S., A. Vanhatalo, P. Huhtanen, and T. Varvikko Determination of reticulo-rumen and whole-stomach digestion in lactating cows by omasal canal or duodenal sampling. Br. J. Nutr. 83: Allen, M.S., and D.R. Mertens Evaluating constraints of fibre digestion by rumen microbes. J. Nutr. 118: Conrad, H.R., W.P. Weiss, W.O. Odgonwongon, and Shockey, W.L Estimating net energy of lactation from components of cell solubles and cell walls. J. Dairy Sci. 67: Danfær, A., P. Huhtanen, P. Udén, J. Sveinbjörnsson, and H. Volden Karoline - a Nordic cow model for feed evaluation - model description. In: Kebreab, E. Dikstra, J, Bannink, A, Gerrits, J., France, J. (eds) Nutrient Digestion and Utilization in Farm Animals: Modelling approaches. CAB International, pp Goering, H.R., and P.J. Van Soest Forage fiber analysis. Agricultural Handbook No USDA, Washington, 22 p. Huhtanen, P Factors influencing on voluntary intake of silage-based diets, and the responses of silage quality in milk production. In: T. Garmo (ed). Proc.Int. Symp.: Early harvested forage in milk and meat production. Kringler, Nannestad, Norway. Ås: pp Huhtanen, P., S. Ahvenjärvi, M.R. Weisbjerg, and P., Nørgaard. 2006b. Digestion and passage of fibre in ruminants. In: Sejrsen, K., Hvelpund, T. and Nielsen, M.O. (eds.), Ruminant Physiology. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp Huhtanen, P., K. Kaustell, and S. Jaakkola The use of internal markers to predict total digestibility and duodenal flow of nutrients in cattle given six different diets. Anim. Feed Sci.Technol. 48: Huhtanen, P., J. Nousiainen, and M. Rinne Prediction of silage composition and organic matter digestibility from herbage composition and pepsin-cellulase solubility. Agric.Food Sci. 14: Huhtanen, P., J. Nousiainen, and M. Rinne. 2006a. Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agric. Food Sci. 3: Huhtanen, P., A. Vanhatalo, and T. Varvikko Enzyme activities of rumen particles and feed samples incubated in situ with differing types of cloth. Br. J. Nutr. 79:
12 Huhtanen, P., M. Rinne, and J. Nousiainen. 2007a. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows; a revision of the relative silage dry matter intake index. Animal 1, Huhtanen, P., A. Seppälä, M. Ots, S. Ahvenjärvi, and M. Rinne. 2007b. Use of in vitro gas production profiles in estimating digestion rate parameters: prediction of in vivo cell wall digestibility and effective first-order digestion rate in the rumen. Manuscript. Jones, D.I.H., and M.K. Theodorou Enzyme techniques for estimating digestibility. In: Givens, D.I., Owen, E., Axford, R.F.E., Omed, H.M., (eds.), Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp McQueen, R., and P.J. Van Soest Fungal cellulase and hemicellulase in prediction of forage digestibility. J.Dairy Sci. 58: Mertens, D.R Fiber: measuring, modelling and feeding. In: Proceedings Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers Oct East Syracuse, NY. p Mertens, D., and P. Huhtanen Grass forages: Dynamics of digestion in the rumen Proceedings of the New York Sate Ruminant Health-Nutrition Conference. Syracuse March 27, p. Nousiainen, J Development of tools for the nutritional management of dairy cows on silage-based diets. Academic dissertation. University of Helsinki, Department of Animal Science Publications 72, 61 p. + 5 encl. Available at Nousiainen, J., S. Ahvenjärvi, M. Rinne, M. Hellämäki, and P. Huhtanen Prediction of indigestible cell wall fraction of grass silage by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 115: Nousiainen, J., M. Rinne, M. Hellämäki, and P. Huhtanen Prediction of the digestibility of the primary growth and regrowth grass silages from chemical composition, pepsin-cellulase solubility and indigestible cell wall content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 110: NRC National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7 th revised Edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 381 Rinne, M Influence of the timing of the harvest of primary grass growth on herbage quality and subsequent digestion and performance in the ruminant animal. Univ.Helsinki, Dep.Anim. Sci.. Publ p. + 5 encl. Academic dissertation. Available at: Rinne, M., A. Olt, J. Nousiainen, A. Seppälä, M. Tuori, C. Paul, M.D Fraser, and P. Huhtanen Prediction of legume silage digestibility from various laboratory methods. Grass Forage Sci. 61: Scofield, P Gas production methods. In: D Mello, J.P.F. (Ed.), Farm Animal Metabolism and Nutrition. CAB International, p Tilley, J.M.A., and R.A. Terry A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 18: Traxler, M.J., D.G. Fox, P.J. Van Soest, A.N. Pell, C.E. Lascano, D.P.D. Lanna, J.E. Moore, R.P. Lana, M. Velez, and A. Flores Predicting forage indigestible NDF from lignin concentration. J. Anim. Sci. 76:
13 Van Soest, P.J Developments of a comprehensive system of feed analysis and its application to forages. J.Anim. Sci. 26: Van Soest, P.J Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Second Edition. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 476 p. Van Soest, P.J., M.E. Van Amburgh, J.B. Robertson, and W.F. Knaus Validation of the 2.4 times lignin factor for ultimate extent of NDF digestion, and curve peeling rate of fermentation curves into pools. In: Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. for Feed Manufacturers Oct East Syracuse, NY. p Weiss, W.P Estimation of digestibility of forages by laboratory methods. In: Fahey, G.C. Jr (Ed.), Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. pp Weiss, W.P., H.R. Conrad, and N.R. St.Pierre A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrients of forages and concentrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 39:
WHAT DO THE COWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NDF AND STARCH DIGESTION?
WHAT DO THE COWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NDF AND STARCH DIGESTION? 2014 Ohio Nutrition Workshop Rock River Laboratory Dr. John Goeser, PAS & Dipl. ACAN Animal Nutrition and R&I Director Rock River Lab, Inc.
More informationMeasuring DM and NDF Digestibility and Defining Their Importance
Measuring DM and NDF Digestibility and Defining Their Importance David R. Mertens USDA-ARS US Dairy Forage Research Center Why do we measure digestibility Digestibility is important because feces represent
More informationEvaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index
Animal (2007), 1: pp. 758 770 Q The Animal Consortium 2007 doi: 10.1017/S175173110773673X animal Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter
More informationIn vivo digestibility of different types of forages using sheep as a model of ruminants
In vivo digestibility of different types of forages using sheep as a model of ruminants Janina Stefanska, Marketta Rinne, Terttu Heikkilä and Seppo Ahvenjärvi MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production
More informationReference methods for assessing rumen degradation characteristics of nutreints
Feed evaluation for dairy cows Reference methods for assessing rumen degradation characteristics of nutreints Peter Lund, Maria Chrenková & Martin Weisbjerg Department of Animal Science, AU-Foulum, Aarhus
More informationACCURATELY ESTIMATING COW-LEVEL DIGESTION: WHERE DO DIGESTION RATES FIT AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN?
ACCURATELY ESTIMATING COW-LEVEL DIGESTION: WHERE DO DIGESTION RATES FIT AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN? 2014 Formuleite Conference Dr. John Goeser, PAS Animal Nutrition and R&I Director Rock River Lab, Inc. Adjunct
More informationMaking Forage Analysis Work for You in Balancing Livestock Rations and Marketing Hay
A3325 Making Forage Analysis Work for You in Balancing Livestock Rations and Marketing Hay Dan Undersander, W. Terry Howard, and Randy Shaver Forage and grain samples differ in their chemical composition
More informationGut Fill Revisited. Lawrence R. Jones 1 and Joanne Siciliano-Jones 2 1. American Farm Products, Inc. 2. FARME Institute, Inc. Introduction.
113 Gut Fill Revisited Lawrence R. Jones 1 and Joanne Siciliano-Jones 2 1 American Farm Products, Inc. 2 FARME Institute, Inc. Summary Generally, a dairy cow s daily dry matter intake (DMI) will be under
More informationFACTORS AFFECTING MANURE EXCRETION BY DAIRY COWS 1
FACTORS AFFECTING MANURE EXCRETION BY DAIRY COWS 1 W. P. Weiss Department of Animal Sciences Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University Manure in an inevitable byproduct
More informationFibre is complicated! NDFD, undfom in forage analysis reports NDF. Review. NDF is meant to measure Hemicellulose Celluose Lignin
Fibre is complicated! Understanding andf, andfom, NDFD, undfom in forage analysis reports T.P. Tylutki PhD Dpl ACAS CEO AMTS LLC Groton NY USA NDF NDF is meant to measure Hemicellulose Celluose Lignin
More informationINTERPRETING FORAGE QUALITY TEST REPORTS
INTERPRETING FORAGE QUALITY TEST REPORTS Donna M. Amaral-Phillips, Ph.D. Department of Animal and Food Sciences University of Kentucky Forages are the foundation for building diets for beef and dairy cattle,
More informationESTIMATING THE ENERGY VALUE OF CORN SILAGE AND OTHER FORAGES. P.H. Robinson 1 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
ESTIMATING THE ENERGY VALUE OF CORN SILAGE AND OTHER FORAGES P.H. Robinson 1 ABSTRACT It is possible to estimate the energy value of ruminant feeds if some chemical assays of the feedstuffs, and the estimated
More informationBENCHMARKING FORAGE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY. R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., PAS
BENCHMARKING FORAGE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., PAS Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist Department of Dairy Science College of Agricultural and Life Sciences University
More informationUNDERLYING FIBER CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 1. D. R Mertens Mertens Innovation & Research LLC Belleville, WI INTRODUCTION
UNDERLYING FIBER CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 1 D. R Mertens Mertens Innovation & Research LLC Belleville, WI INTRODUCTION Fiber is the indigestible and slowly digesting fraction of a feed that occupies space
More informationProtein and Carbohydrate Utilization by Lactating Dairy Cows 1
Protein and Carbohydrate Utilization by Lactating Dairy Cows 1 Bill Weiss Department of Animal Sciences Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University, Wooster 44691 email:
More informationDr. Dan Undersander Professor of Agronomy University of Wisconsin
Dr. Dan Undersander Professor of Agronomy University of Wisconsin Hybrid South Central South Hybrid 1 Milk/t 3180 3340 Milk/a 35400 37100 NDFD 62 63 Starch 28 33 Hybrid 2 Milk/t 3250 3040 Milk/a 36000
More informationUnderstanding Dairy Nutrition Terminology
Understanding Dairy Nutrition Terminology Mat Haan, Penn State Dairy Educator, Berks County Lucas Mitchell, Penn State Department of Animal Science Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop November 15, 2017 Interpreting
More informationRFV VS. RFQ WHICH IS BETTER
RFV VS. RFQ WHICH IS BETTER Tom Keene, University of Kentucky, Plant & Soil Science Department Peter Jeranyama, South Dakota State University, Plant Science Department Alvaro D. Garcia, South Dakota State
More informationFiber for Dairy Cows
Fiber for Dairy Cows R. D. Shaver, Ph.D. Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist Department of Dairy Science College of Agricultural and Life Sciences University of Wisconsin Madison University of Wisconsin
More informationEffective Practices In Sheep Production Series
Effective Practices In Sheep Production Series Understanding Feed Test Analysis Terms The key to accurate feed tests is correct sampling of your forages and grains. Equally important, is understanding
More information4º International Symposium on Advances on Ruminant Nutrition Research Techniques. Pirassununga, SP, Brazil. April 10-11, 2014.
4º International Symposium on Advances on Ruminant Nutrition Research Techniques. Pirassununga, SP, Brazil. April 10-11, 2014. Omasal and Reticular Sampling Techniques for Assessing Ruminal Digestion,
More informationEvaluation of five intake models predicting feed intake by dairy cows fed total mixed rations
Evaluation of five intake models predicting feed intake by dairy cows fed total mixed rations EAAP Conference August 28 2014 Laura Mie Jensen, N. I. Nielsen, E. Nadeau, B. Markussen, and P. Nørgaard Evaluation
More informationUsing Models on Dairy Farms How Well Do They Work? Larry E. Chase, Ph. D. Cornell University
Using Models on Dairy Farms How Well Do They Work? Larry E. Chase, Ph. D. Cornell University Email: lec7@cornell.edu INTRODUCTION The use of computer models as a tool used by nutritionists to evaluate
More informationQuick Start. Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System for Sheep
Quick Start Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System for Sheep The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) for Sheep is a feeding system derived from the CNCPS for cattle (Fox et al., 2003).
More informationDAIRY FOCUS AT ILLINOIS NEWSLETTER. Focus on Forages Volume 2, Number 1
Volume 2, Number 1 Focus on Forages 2015 Forages have always been an important source of nutrients for the dairy cow. Feeding high quality forages can increase dairy efficiency and help reduce the feed
More informationWhy is forage digestibility important?
Outline 1. How fiber digestibility is assessed in the lab 2. Factors affecting forage quality 3. How lactating dairy cows respond to changes in fiber digestibility Outline 1. How fiber digestibility is
More informationNutritive Value of Feeds
Nutritive Value of Feeds Chapter 12 A working knowledge of the nutrient composition of available feeds is an integral part of a successful beef cattle operation. * The rumen fermentation process allows
More informationRight Quality vs High Quality Forages
Forage In Dairy Cow Rations Right Quality vs High Quality Forages Forage 50-60% NonForage 40-50% Mary Beth Hall USDA Agricultural Research Service VSFA 2/18/2016 14 herds, 28,600 36,960 kg RHA What cows
More informationHAY QUALITY EVALUATION
- 16 - HAY QUALITY EVALUATION William C. Templeton, Jr. Professor Emeritus Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky and Director (Retired) U.S. Regional Pasture Research Laboratory USDA/ARS During
More informationNormand St-Pierre The Ohio State University. Copyright 2011 Normand St-Pierre, The Ohio State University
Normand St-Pierre The Ohio State University Forages are Feeds Animals do not require feeds! Feeds are packages of nutrients. The value of a feed is the sum of the values of the nutrients that it contains.
More informationINTERPRETATION OF FORAGE ANALYSIS REPORTS. David R. Mertens 1 ABSTRACT
INTERPRETATION OF FORAGE ANALYSIS REPORTS David R. Mertens 1 ABSTRACT Forage analyses are a valuable tool for determining the economic value of forages and for formulating efficient and profitable rations.
More informationRation Formulation Models: Biological Reality vs. Models
Ration Formulation Models: Biological Reality vs. Models H.A. Rossow, Ph.D. Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, Tulare, CA Email: heidi.rossow@gmail.com
More informationQuantifying ruminal nitrogen metabolism using the omasal sampling technique in cattle A meta-analysis 1
J. Dairy Sci. 93 :3216 3230 doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2989 American Dairy Science Association, 2010. Quantifying ruminal nitrogen metabolism using the omasal sampling technique in cattle A meta-analysis 1
More informationIn Vitro Digestibility of Forages
81 In Vitro Digestibility of Forages Masahito Oba 1,3 and Mike Allen 2 1 Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science University of Alberta 2 Department of Animal Science Michigan State University
More informationFIBER DIGESTIBILITY AND FORAGE FRAGILITY IN DAIRY CATTLE. K. Cotanch and R. Grant William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Chazy, NY
FIBER DIGESTIBILITY AND FORAGE FRAGILITY IN DAIRY CATTLE K. Cotanch and R. Grant William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Chazy, NY Physically Effective Fiber System INTRODUCTION Mertens (1997)
More informationCHAMPION TOC INDEX. Protein Requirements of Feedlot Cattle. E. K. Okine, G. W. Mathison and R. R. Corbett. Take Home Message
TOC INDEX CHAMPION Feed Services Ltd. Protein Requirements of Feedlot Cattle E. K. Okine, G. W. Mathison and R. R. Corbett Take Home Message The new Nutrient Requirements (NRC) of Beef Cattle published
More informationThe Effect of Maturity and Frost Killing of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration
The Effect of Maturity and Frost Killing of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration A. S. Leaflet R1546 M. A. Karsli, graduate research assistant, and J. R. Russell, professor
More information11/17/2017. Application of undf in Ration Formulation. Ian Shivas, Renaissance Nutrition UNDF WHAT IS IT?
Application of undf in Ration Formulation Ian Shivas, Renaissance Nutrition UNDF WHAT IS IT? 1 What is undf Some papers call it indf for indigestible NDF Mertens pushed us to call it undf for undigestible
More informationALMLM HAY QUALITY: TERMS AND DEFIN"IONS
ALMLM HAY QUALITY: TERMS AND DEFIN"IONS Garry D. Lacefield Extension Forage Specialist University of Kentucky At the 22"d Kentucky Alfalfa Conference we discussed the relationship among Alfalfa - Yield-Quality-Persistence.
More informationFORAGE NEWS FROM SGS AGRIFOOD LABORATORIES
FORAGE NEWS FROM SGS AGRIFOOD LABORATORIES NEW TMR PACKAGE Historically, wet chemical analysis (Excel Basic or Excel Basic Plus) has been used for SGS AgriFood Laboratories to measure nutritional quality
More informationNonstructural and Structural Carbohydrates in Dairy Cattle Rations 1
CIR1122 Nonstructural and Structural Carbohydrates in Dairy Cattle Rations 1 Barney Harris, Jr. 2 Carbohydrates are the largest component in the dairy ration and contribute 60 to 70% of the net energy
More informationHow Fiber Digestibility Affects Forage Quality and Milk Production
How Fiber Digestibility Affects Forage Quality and Milk Production Dr. Dave Combs Professor Dept of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison What causes performance swings in dairy diets? MOST OF
More informationUsing Feed Analysis to Troubleshoot Nutritional Problems in Dairy Herds 1
Using Feed Analysis to Troubleshoot Nutritional Problems in Dairy Herds 1 Bill Weiss Department of Animal Sciences Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University, Wooster 44691
More informationThe Effect of Heat Treatment of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration
The Effect of Heat Treatment of Forages on Degradation Kinetics and Escape Protein Concentration A. S. Leaflet R1547 M. A. Karsli, graduate research assistant, and J. R. Russell, professor of animal science.
More informationCOOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
UC CE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Dried Corn Distillers Grains in Dairy Cattle Feeding Part 2 Nutrient Profiles, Variability and Key Impacts on Cattle P.H. Robinson Cooperative
More information(Equation 1) (Equation 2) (Equation 3)
TESTING ALfALfA HAY: NEW HAY QUALITY STANDARDS AND TESTING PROCEDURES Donald L. Bath Energy and protein are the most valuable components of alfalfa. Crude protein content of alfalfa can be determined directly
More informationMaking sense of starch by NDF interactions. Luiz Ferraretto and Randy Shaver Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison
Making sense of starch by NDF interactions Luiz Ferraretto and Randy Shaver Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Introduction Associative effects of feeds, nutrients, diets and dry
More informationP. Namanee, S. Kuprasert and W. Ngampongsai. Abstract
ก ก Apparent nutrient digestibility coefficient, nitrogen retention and rumen ecology of goat fed pineapple waste as roughage source P. Namanee, S. Kuprasert and W. Ngampongsai Abstract The objective of
More informationABSTRACT FORAGE SAMPLING AND TESTING ACCURACY CHOOSING A FORAGE TESTING LAB
PARAMETERS FOR GOOD QUALITY ALFALFA HAY Glenn E. Shewmaker, Mireille Chahine, and Rikki Wilson 1 ABSTRACT When alfalfa hay is tested in a laboratory analysis, several forage quality factors are considered.
More informationImplementing the Corn Silage Trial Results on Your Farm. Dr. Jessica Williamson, Penn State Joe Lawrence, Cornell CALS PRO-DAIRY
Implementing the Corn Silage Trial Results on Your Farm Dr. Jessica Williamson, Penn State Joe Lawrence, Cornell CALS PRO-DAIRY Implementing the Corn Silage Trial Results on Your Farm 2018 PENNSYLVANIA
More informationComposition and Nutritive Value of Corn Fractions and Ethanol Co-products Resulting from a New Dry-milling Process 1
Composition and Nutritive Value of Corn Fractions and Ethanol Co-products Resulting from a New Dry-milling Process 1 Greg B. Kleinhans 2, Robbi H. Pritchard 3, and Simone M. Holt 4 Department of Animal
More informationIntroduction. Use of undf240 as a benchmarking tool. Relationships between undigested and physically effective fiber in lactating dairy cows
Relationships between undigested and physically effective fiber in lactating dairy cows R. Grant 1, W. Smith 1, M. Miller 1, K. Ishida 2, and A. Obata 2 1 William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute,
More informationTRANSITION COW NUTRITION AND MANAGEMENT. J.E. Shirley
Dairy Day 2003 TRANSITION COW NUTRITION AND MANAGEMENT J.E. Shirley Summary Dairy cows are generally provided with a 60-day dry period. The first part of the dry period is called the far-off dry period
More informationNEW/EMERGING MEASUREMENTS FOR FORAGE QUALITY. Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT
NEW/EMERGING MEASUREMENTS FOR FORAGE QUALITY Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT A nationally accepted standard hay test for alfalfa hay has included measurement of Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF), Neutral Detergent Fiber
More informationUsing the 2001 Dairy NRC to Optimize the Use of Dietary Protein for Milk Protein Production
Using the 2001 Dairy NRC to Optimize the Use of Dietary Protein for Milk Protein Production Charles G. Schwab Department of Animal and Nutritional Sciences University of New Hampshire Durham, NH Introduction
More informationEVOL VING FORAGE QUALITY CONCEPTS
EVOL VING FORAGE QUALITY CONCEPTS Dr. Dan Undersander Forage Research and Extension Agronomist UniversityofWisconsin As we begin our discussion of forage quality concepts, we should remember why we are
More informationCOOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and its Role in Alfalfa Analysis
UC CE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) and its Role in Alfalfa Analysis P.H. Robinson Cooperative Extension Specialist Department of Animal Science University
More informationFermentrics Interpretation and Guidelines September 2013
Fermentrics Interpretation and Guidelines September 2013 Fermentrics is a novel laboratory method utilizing a batch culture, rumen fluid, gas fermentation system combined with mathematical curve peeling
More informationPredicting Degradation Characteristics from Chemical Composition and Soluble Fraction of Poor Quality Roughage Diets
IJAAAR 4 (1&2): 97-102, 2007 International Journal of Applied Agricultural and Apicultural Research (C) Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Lautech, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. 2007 Predicting Degradation Characteristics
More informationChoosing the Right Corn Hybrid for Silage 1. William P. Weiss
1. Take Home Message Choosing the Right Corn Hybrid for Silage 1 William P. Weiss Department of Animal Sciences Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH
More informationInterpretation and Guidelines. May 2012
Interpretation and Guidelines May 2012 Fermentrics is a novel laboratory method utilizing a batch-culture, rumen-fluid, gas-fermentation system combined with mathematical curve-peeling techniques allowing
More informationEvaluation of Models to Estimate Urinary Nitrogen and Expected Milk Urea Nitrogen 1
J. Dairy Sci. 85:227 233 American Dairy Science Association, 2002. Evaluation of Models to Estimate Urinary Nitrogen and Expected Milk Urea Nitrogen 1 R. A. Kohn, K. F. Kalscheur, 2 and E. Russek-Cohen
More informationHarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing
HarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing Frequently Asked Questions Why should I buy a HarvestLab? HarvestLab allows for on farm monitoring of the nutrient qualities in feedstuffs. It can be used during
More informationAbstract. Keywords: Tropical grasses, Degradability, Nutrient, Rumen fermentation. Introduction. Chaowarit Mapato a* and Metha Wanapat a
1 The use of the in vitro gas production technique to study the fermentation characteristics of tropical grasses at different roughage to concentrate ratios Chaowarit Mapato a* and Metha Wanapat a a Tropical
More informationTHIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE.
THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF MINNESOTA New Developments in Analytical Evaluation of Forages and Total Mixed Rations Introduction
More informationHIGHER FORAGE DIETS: DYNAMICS OF PASSAGE, DIGESTION, AND COW PRODUCTIVE RESPONSES
HIGHER FORAGE DIETS: DYNAMICS OF PASSAGE, DIGESTION, AND COW PRODUCTIVE RESPONSES R. J. Grant and K. W. Cotanch William H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Chazy, NY BACKGROUND: FIBER WORKING GROUP
More informationMaking Sense of Modern Feed Tests
Making Sense of Modern Feed Tests Randy Shaver & Luiz Ferraretto Dairy Science Department Mention of companies, labs, trade names, products or assays solely for the purpose of providing specific information
More informationResponse of Ruminants to Protein Supplementation is Affected by Type of Low-quality Forage 1
Oregon State University BEEF0028 Beef Research Report Beef Cattle Sciences Response of Ruminants to Protein Supplementation is Affected by Type of Low-quality Forage 1 David W. Bohnert 2, Timothy DelCurto
More informationCorn Silage Evaluation: MILK2000 Challenges & Opportunities With MILK2006
Corn Silage Evaluation: MILK2000 Challenges & Opportunities With MILK2006 Professor Randy Shaver Department of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Wisconsin - Extension Whole-Plant
More informationPrediction of the energy and protein value of DDGS for cattle
Prediction of the energy and protein value of DDGS for cattle De Boever J., Teirlynck E., Blok M.C. & De Brabander D. Johan.deboever@ilvo.vlaanderen.be EAAP/Bratislava 29/08/2012 Session 26 Institute for
More informationRelative Forage Quality
Relative Forage Quality Dr. Dan Undersander University of Wisconsin Why a Forage Quality Index? When to harvest Benchmark quality performance Match forage quality to animal needs Inventory feeds Buying/selling
More informationPREDICTION OF CORRECTED IN SITU FORAGE PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY BY THE CORNELL METHOD
2011, Scienceline Publication Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research Volume 2, Issue 2: 149-154 (2012) ISSN 2228-7701 PREDICTION OF CORRECTED IN SITU FORAGE PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY BY THE CORNELL METHOD
More information- Dual Flow Continuous Culture System (Hoover, 1964) - Hohenheim System (Single Flow Continuous Culture. valerate, isobutyrate, isovalerate)
In vitro Techniques Simulation of the rumen fermentation Alternative to time consuming and expensive in vivo trials Quantification of the end products of fermentation and/or rumen dry matter digestibility
More informationINTAKE AND QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF GUINEA GRASS GRAZED BY SHEEP OVER THREE DIFFERENT SEASONS. W.A. van Niekerk. Africa
INTAKE AND QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF GUINEA GRASS GRAZED BY SHEEP OVER THREE DIFFERENT SEASONS ID # 09-40 W.A. van Niekerk Department of Animal & Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002,
More informationThe Nutritionist 2019
The Nutritionist 2019 Live and Recorded Ruminant Nutrition Webinars More Information at https://agmodelsystems.com/webinars/ Email: webinars@agmodelsystems.com 14 February 2019 9:00 am EST 5:00 pm EST
More informationIN SITU RUMEN DEGRADATION KINETICS OF FOUR SORGHUM VARIETIES IN NILI RAVI BUFFALOES ABSTRACT
Nawaz et al., The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 26(2): 2016, Page: J. 355-359 Anim. Plant Sci. 26(2):2016 ISSN: 1018-7081 IN SITU RUMEN DEGRADATION KINETICS OF FOUR SORGHUM VARIETIES IN NILI RAVI
More informationMODELING MILK COMPOSITION. J.P. Cant Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph, Canada INTRODUCTION
MODELING MILK COMPOSITION J.P. Cant Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph, Canada INTRODUCTION "Modeling" has taken on the status of a buzz word in the past few years but animal
More informationFormulating Lactating Cow Diets for Carbohydrates
for Carbohydrates MIKE ALLEN Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, 2265G Anthony Hall Tel: 517-432-1386 Fax: 517-432-0147 allenm@pilot.msu.edu Take Home Messages The goal of formulating
More informationWhy Does the Dollar Value of Alfalfa Hay Not Continue to increase as its TDN Increases?
Why Does the Dollar Value of Alfalfa Hay Not Continue to increase as its TDN Increases? P.H. Robinson 1 and E.J. DePeters 2 1 Cooperative Extension Specialist and 2 Professor Department of Animal Science
More informationFiber Digestibility & Corn Silage Evaluation. Joe Lawrence Cornell University PRO-DAIRY
Fiber Digestibility & Corn Silage Evaluation Joe Lawrence Cornell University PRO-DAIRY Three key elements of forage quality Maturity (stage of harvest/grain fill) Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content
More informationIS A ONE TMR APPROACH RIGHT?
IS A ONE TMR APPROACH RIGHT? Michael F. Hutjens Extension Dairy Specialist University of Illinois, Urbana 232 ASL, 1207 W. Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801 hutjensm@illinois.edu 217-333-2928 Take Home Messages
More informationOptimizing Starch Concentrations in Dairy Rations
73 Optimizing Starch Concentrations in Dairy Rations Rick Grant 1 W. H. Miner Agricultural Research Institute Abstract Currently, many nutritionists consider only the total nonfiber carbohydrate (NFC)
More informationForage Testing and Supplementation
Outline Forage Testing and Logan Wallace Livestock Specialist Testing Hay Nutrient Value/Requirements Strategies Management based Feed substitution Variance in Hay Species Maturities Weathering Why take
More informationPROCESSING ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND INTAKE DISCOUNTS Noah B. Litherland Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK
PROCESSING ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND INTAKE DISCOUNTS Noah B. Litherland Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK noah.litherland@okstate.edu ABSTRACT Processing adjustment factors (PAF) and intake discounts
More informationAmino Acid Balancing in the Context of MP and RUP Requirements
Amino Acid Balancing in the Context of MP and RUP Requirements Charles G. Schwab, Ryan S. Ordway, and Nancy L. Whitehouse Department of Animal and Nutritional Sciences University of New Hampshire Durham,
More informationPractical Application of New Forage Quality Tests
Practical Application of New Forage Quality Tests R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist, 1675 Observatory Drive, Room 280 Animal Sciences Building, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
More informationRuminal degradability of neutral detergent insoluble protein of selected protein sources
SHORT COMMUNICATION Ruminal degradability of neutral detergent insoluble protein of selected protein sources A. F. Mustafa 1, D. A. Christensen 2, and J. J. McKinnon 2 1 Department of Animal Science, Macdonald
More informationThe Cornell Value Discovery System Model. CVDS version 1.0 September Model Documentation. Luis O. Tedeschi, Danny G. Fox, and Michael J.
The Cornell Value Discovery System Model CVDS version 1.0 September 2003 Model Documentation Luis O. Tedeschi, Danny G. Fox, and Michael J. Baker Department of Animal Science, Cornell University 130 Morrison
More informationOverview of Today s Discussion
Determination of First Limiting Physical Factors in Corn Silage Hybrids: Modeling Multiple Pools of andfom Mike Van Amburgh, Mike Dineen, Andrew LaPierre, Joe Lawrence, Allison Kerwin and Tom Overton Dept.
More informationFORMULATION OF RUMINANT DIETS USING BY- PRODUCT INGREDIENTS ON THE BASIS OF FERMENTABLE...
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242509068 FORMULATION OF RUMINANT DIETS USING BY- PRODUCT INGREDIENTS ON THE BASIS OF FERMENTABLE...
More informationCOOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Rumen Escape Protein of some Dairy Feedstuffs
UC CE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS Rumen Escape Protein of some Dairy Feedstuffs P.H. Robinson Cooperative Extension Specialist University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8521 Dairy
More informationThe four stomachs of a dairy cow
The four stomachs of a dairy cow Left side view 1) Rumen 2) Reticulum 3) Omasum 4) Abomasum Reticulo-omasal orifice (reticulo-rumen exit) (on the right side of the cow) (on the right side of the cow) Esophagus
More informationAGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE. Vol. 18 (2009):
Formic acid treated whole crop barley and wheat silages in dairy cow diets: effects of crop maturity, proportion in the diet, and level and type of concentrate supplementation Seija Jaakkola 1, Eeva Saarisalo
More informationAssessing Your J Grennan & Sons Silage Report.
Assessing Your J Grennan & Sons Silage Report. Silage analysis is a useful if not essential tool when diets are to be formulated for ruminant livestock. All farmers should have their silage analysed in
More informationTHIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE.
THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY THE MINNESOTA DAIRY HEALTH CONFERENCE. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF MINNESOTA Introduction Energy in the 2001 Dairy NRC: Understanding the System Jim Linn Department
More informationIN SACCO DEGRADABILITY OF WHEAT STRAW TREATED WITH UREA AND FIBROLYTIC ENZYMES
Indian J. Anim. Res., 48 (1) : 21-26, 2014 DOI- 10.5958/j.0976-0555.48.1.005 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com IN SACCO DEGRADABILITY OF WHEAT STRAW TREATED WITH UREA AND
More informationThe Diploma in Ruminant Nutrition
Further Information on the Modules that Make Up The Diploma in Ruminant Nutrition Taken from the Module Descriptors Ruminant Animal Production and the Feed Industry A4057 Academic Level 4 Rationale and
More informationMatching Hay to the Cow s Requirement Based on Forage Test
Matching Hay to the Cow s Requirement Based on Forage Test Ed Rayburn, Extension Specialist WVU Extension Service, Agriculture and Natural Resources October 2013 The conventional method for matching hay
More informationSupplementation of High Corn Silage Diets for Dairy Cows. R. D. Shaver Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist
INTRODUCTION Supplementation of High Corn Silage Diets for Dairy Cows R. D. Shaver Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist Department of Dairy Science College of Agricultural and Life Sciences University
More informationTitle. Author(s)Liu, Jian Xin; OKUBO, Masahiko; KONDO, Seiji; SEKINE. Issue Date Doc URL. Type. File Information OF DIGESTA
Title A NOTE ON THE SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCEDURE DETERMININ OF DIGESTA Author(s)Liu, Jian Xin; OKUBO, Masahiko; KONDO, Seiji; SEKINE CitationJournal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido Univ Issue Date
More information