Prediction of CP concentration and rumen degradability by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

Similar documents
BUCHI NIR Applications Feed Industry

Reference methods for assessing rumen degradation characteristics of nutreints

Feed Ingredient Options for Sheep Rations Siobhán Kavanagh, Specialist,Teagasc Kildalton, Piltown, Co. Kilkenny

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS. Rumen Escape Protein of some Dairy Feedstuffs

Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle 1

HarvestLab John Deere Constituent Sensing

Feed ID Options /10/2016. DM% CP% TDN% Fat% Ca% P%

Lesson 2 Meeting the Nutritional Needs of Animals

Protein and Carbohydrate Utilization by Lactating Dairy Cows 1

Valorisation of agri/food wastes as animal feed. Phil Garnsworthy Professor of Dairy Science School of Biosciences

The positive response S T RAIGHT S QUALITY STRAIGHTS AND CO-PRODUCT FEEDS

Dairy Update. Issue 110 July 1992 ALTERNATIVE FEEDSTUFFS FOR DAIRY. Vern Oraskovich Agriculture Extension Agent Carver County

Fiber for Dairy Cows

Feeding Strategies When Alfalfa Supplies are Short

CHARACTERISATION OF FEEDSTUFFS FOR RUMINANTS

Nutritive Value of Feeds

Title. Issue Date Doc URL. Type. File Information THE RUMEN DEGRADABILITY OF PROTEIN FOR VARIOUS FEEDS.

There are six general classes of nutrients needed in the horse s diet: water carbohydrates fats protein minerals vitamins.

Starch digestibility in dairy cows how do we handle starch in ration evaluation systems?

Production Costs. Learning Objectives. Essential Nutrients. The Marvels of Ruminant Digestion

COW SUPPLEMENTATION: GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. Low Quality Forage. Ruminant Digestive Anatomy. How do we get the best bang for the buck?

The Benefits and Costs of Commodity Feeding

Feed. The major cost of animal production

Exercise 2 Feed Composition and Nutrient Requirements 20 Points

Reducing the reliance on purchased protein. Improving the value of home grown proteins

FEEDING SHEEP FOR PROF$T

Right Quality vs High Quality Forages

BUCHI NIR Applications Milling & Bakery Industry

Supplementation of High Corn Silage Diets for Dairy Cows. R. D. Shaver Professor and Extension Dairy Nutritionist

CHAMPION TOC INDEX. Protein Requirements of Feedlot Cattle. E. K. Okine, G. W. Mathison and R. R. Corbett. Take Home Message

Setting of new MRLs for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in various commodities of plant and animal origin 1

Prospects of Palm Kernel Cake. use in Cattle Feed

Understanding and Managing Variation in Nutrient Composition

BUILDING ON MILK PROTEIN

Feeding Considerations for Byproduct Feeding

5.20 PROTHIOCONAZOLE (232)

Approaches for 100 percent organic feed to organic poultry in Sweden

4-H Premier Exhibitor

Matching Hay to the Cow s Requirement Based on Forage Test

Navigating the dairy feed situation

Forage Testing and Supplementation

Concentrates for dairy cattle

Intro to Meat Goat Nutrition

DAIRY FOCUS AT ILLINOIS NEWSLETTER. Focus on Forages Volume 2, Number 1

Effect of corn silage chemical analysis and ration adjustment frequency on milk production and profitability

A Comparison of MIN-AD to MgO and Limestone in Peripartum Nutrition

Guidelines for the evaluation of feed resources

The Real Value of Canola Meal

2. Initialisation Properties

Feeding Methods. Assist.Prof.Dr. Dhia Al-Khayat

Optimizing Starch Concentrations in Dairy Rations

CUSTOMS TARIFF - SCHEDULE 23 - i

NEED FOR RUMINALLY DEGRADED NITROGEN BY FINISHING CATTLE FED PROCESSED GRAINS Mike Brown West Texas A&M University Canyon, TX

Boscalid BOSCALID (221)

The Mini Feeds Directory. Produced by

BENCHMARKING FORAGE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY. R. D. Shaver, Ph.D., PAS

RESIDUES AND WASTE FROM THE FOOD INDUSTRIES; PREPARED ANIMAL FODDER

FORAGE NEWS FROM SGS AGRIFOOD LABORATORIES

PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAMS FEED

Overview of Today s Discussion

FACING THE DIMINISHING CORN SUPPLY: DAIRY ALTERNATIVES

Introduction. Carbohydrate Nutrition. Microbial CHO Metabolism. Microbial CHO Metabolism. CHO Fractions. Fiber CHO (FC)

Animal Digestion and Nutrition. Objective 7.02: Understand the digestive process

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Advances in Trace Mineral Nutrition

Making Forage Analysis Work for You in Balancing Livestock Rations and Marketing Hay

r EFFECT OF BYPASS PROTEIN ON YIELD AND COMPOSITION OF MILl'" IN CROSS BRED COWS V.H. KALBANDE THESIS

Accompanying this discussion is a table showing the typical

By-Product Feed Utilization for Forage Diets

MAKING IT HAPPEN: NIR CALIBRATION TRANSFER

Why Does the Dollar Value of Alfalfa Hay Not Continue to increase as its TDN Increases?

Know Your Feed Terms. When you are talking nutrition and feeds with your

Creating a System for Meeting the Fiber Requirements of Dairy Cows

Reproductive efficiency Environment 120 Low P ( ) High P ( ) ays

FEEDING and MANAGEMENT OF DAMASCUS GOATS CYPRUS EXPERIENCE By Miltiades Hadjipanayiotou

Investigation of relationship of chemical composition, viscosity, and metabolizable energy of distillers grains for poultry

Nutritional requirements

Biofuels: Consequences for Feed Formulation

Typical Composition of Feeds for Cattle and Sheep, 2004

Meeting the Nutritional Needs of Animals

IF YOU HAVE a pet at home, you probably just scoop out

Meeting the Nutritional Needs of Animals

Randomness Rules: Living with Variation in the Nutrient Composition of Concentrate Feeds 1

HYPO-ALLERGENIC SUPER PREMIUM DOG & CAT FOODS

Know Your Feed What to feed when and why. Ian Williams, Forage Specialist, Pioneer Brand Products

Dietary Protein. Dr. Mark McGuire Dr. Jullie Wittman AVS Department University of Idaho

Lamb Feedlot Nutrition

EASYLIN. For a better efficiency. in partnership with

PREDICTION OF CORRECTED IN SITU FORAGE PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY BY THE CORNELL METHOD

Feeding Horses: What Every Vet Should Know. Dr. Marty Adams, PAS Equine Nutritionist Southern States

PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAMS GRAINS

Recent Developments in Net Energy Research for Swine

UTILIZATION OF BY-PRODUCTS FROM FOOD PROCESSING AS LIVESTOCK FEED IN JAPAN

FACING THE DIMINISHING CORN SUPPLY: DAIRY ALTERNATIVES

5.20 PYRACLOSTROBIN (210)

Impact of Processing and Genetics on Starch Digestibility

Animal Nutrition Teacher s Outline

- Dual Flow Continuous Culture System (Hoover, 1964) - Hohenheim System (Single Flow Continuous Culture. valerate, isobutyrate, isovalerate)

Kashif Ishaq PhD; DVM

G2355 Byproducts, Damaged Feeds, and Nontraditional Feed Sources fo...

Transcription:

IBERS Prediction of CP concentration and rumen degradability by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) Belanche A., G.G. Allison, C.J. Newbold, M.R. Weisbjerg and J.M. Moorby EAAP meeting, 27 August, Bratislava (Slovakia)

Introduction Optimize the ruminant nutrition Animal requirements -In: -Energy -Protein (digestible) -Depends on: -Physiological state (Mant. Grow. Preg.) -Animal performance -Others (BW, º C, activity, etc.) -Estimation - Trial and error (production data) -Tables (INRA, AFRC, NRC, etc) Feed nutritional value -Tables of feed evaluation -Ingredients in the diet? -Broad approach -Chemical analysis -Expensive -No degradability data -In situ degradability -Alternatives -Accurate prediction -Simple and cost-effective

Infrared Spectroscopy neurologists NIR vs. FTIR volcanologists nutritionists

Objectives: 1) Investigate whether FTIR spectra differ between feeds 2) Evaluation the potential of FTIR spectrometry to predict the CP concentration and rumen degradability Dataset = 786 samples (80 different feeds) 38 Barley-wheat forage 111 Grass-clover forage 39 Legume forage 200 Oil by products 10 Barley whole crop 10 Winter wheat whole crop 8 Winter wheat silage 4 Barley whole crop silage 4 Green barley forage 2 Barley straw 36 Grass-clover forage 26 Grass silage 16 Grass-clover silage 14 Grass forage 7 Artificial-dry grass 8 Clover forage 2 Grass straw 2 Festulolium forage 12 Lupinus whole crop 7 Lucerne forage 5 Peas whole crop forage 4 Peas whole crop silage 4 Galega forage 4 Field beans whole crop 2 Artificial dry lucerne 1 Peas straw 112 Rapeseed 42 Soybean 25 Sunflower 12 Cotton seed 2 Soypass 2 Treated soybean meal 4 Others 18 Mill by products 63 Cereal grains 18 Legume seeds 17 Protein products 7 Maize gluten feed 4 Maize feed meal 3 Wheat gluten feed 2 Wheat bran 2 Amyfeed 30 Barley 12 Wheat 7 Rye 5 Triticale 4 Oat 3 Maize 2 Grain mix 7 Peas 3 Soybean 3 Toasted soybean 2 Rapeseed 2 Lupinus 1 Field beans 7 Guar meal 5 Malt sprouts 3 Brewers grains 2 Potato protein 22 Maize silage 32 Maize forage 22 Beets 35 Distillers 22 Maize silage 14 Dry sugar beet pulp 28 Corn distillers 2 Maize silage with pulp 6 Fodder beets 5 Wheat distillers 2 Beet pulp 2 Barley distillers 16 Soybean hulls 127 Concentrate mix 19 Total mixed ration 9 Tropical feeds

Protein nutritional value of feeds Parameter Abbreviation Method Crude protein CP Kjeldahl Water soluble CP CP WS Water Total tract CP digestibility CP TTD Mobile bag (Duodenum-faeces) Rumen degradation pattern a, b, c and CP ED In situ or in sacco method 100% Undegraded value c Degradation rate of b Disappeared (%) fraction b Degradable but not soluble Effective degradability CP ED = a + b [c / (c + k)] k= rumen outflow rate = 5%/h RRT=20h 0% fraction a Immediately degraded 0 2 4 6 8 12 24 Incubation time 48h

Sample preparation: FTIR analysis Dry at 60ºC and milled at 1.5 mm diameter FTIR analysis: Equinox 55 FTIR spectrometer fitted with a Golden Gate ATR accessory Wavelength: 500 to 4000 cm -1 (resolution 2cm -1 ) 64 scans per sample in duplicate Raw spectra 1 st derivative & vector normalization

Modelling Metadata (n=663) Mean centre scaled Prediction models Partial Least Squares (PLS-Matlab) Spectral data Calibration dataset (85% samples) Validation dataset (15% samples) Data transformation (de-trend, SNV, MSC) 1 st or 2 nd derivative Vector normalized (mean=0, variance=1sd) Mean centre scale Outliers (high hotelling, Q residuals, >3SD) Cross validation ( Venetian Blinds ) Number of LV chosen to minimize RMSECV Model accuracy (R 2 & RPD=SD/SEP) Very satisfactory R 2 > 0.90 & RPD > 3.0 Satisfactory: R 2 > 0.80 & RPD > 2.5 For screening: R 2 > 0.70 & RPD > 2.0 : R 2 < 0.70 & RPD < 2.0

Universal model % CP (n = 655) R 2 =0.93 RPD=4.00 Very satisfactory

CP WS Universal models (n =655) R 2 =0.65 RPD=1.99 CP TTD R 2 =0.82 RPD=2.26 Screening

a R2 =0.76 RPD=1.75 b R 2 =0.74 RPD=1.65 c R 2 =0.38 RPD=1.43 CP E R 2 =0.69 D RPD=1.56

Canonical analysis of variance (10 PCs = 90%var) Starch MANOVA, P<0.001 CVA axis 2 (21% variance) Protein Forage CVA axis 1 (79% variance) Concentrate

Feeds classification FORAGES Barley-wheat forage Grass-clover forage Maize forage Legume forage Total mixed ration Soybean hulls Beets ENERGY-RICH concentrates Cereal grains Mill by products Tropical feeds Concentrate mix PROTEIN-RICH concentrates Legume seeds Protein products (>30%CP) Oil by products Dried distiller grains (DGGS)

% CP R 2 =0.90 RPD=2.53 Satisfactory Crude protein FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.93 RPD=3.50 Very satisfactory PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.92 RPD=3.20 Very satisfactory

CP WS Water soluble CP FORAGES (n =183) R 2 =0.91 RPD=2.68 Satisfactory ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.74 RPD=1.42 PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.76 RPD=2.40 Screening

CP TTD R 2 =0.79 RPD=2.32 Screening Total tract digestible CP FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.60 RPD=2.32 PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.73 RPD=2.85 Screening

Fraction a R 2 =0.93 RPD=2.89 Satisfactory Immediately degradable CP FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.68 RPD=1.85 PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.83 RPD=2.22 Screening

Fraction b R 2 =0.91 RPD=2.80 Satisfactory Degradable but not soluble CP FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.68 RPD=1.91 PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.82 RPD=2.08 Screening

Value c R 2 =0.64 RPD=2.49 Screening Degradation rate of b FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.54 RPD=1.82 PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.71 RPD=1.95

CP ED R 2 =0.85 RPD=2.21 Screening Effective digestible CP FORAGES (n =183) ENERGY-RICH concentrates (n =215) R 2 =0.74 RPD=2.41 Screening PROTEIN-RICH concentrates (n =266) R 2 =0.82 RPD=2.11 Screening

Conclusions Mid-infrared spectra allows to classify feeds according to the nutritional value UNIVERSAL equations: Quantification: CP Screening: CP WS Equations for FORAGES: Quantification: CP WS, a and b Screening: CP TTD, CP ED and c Equations for PROTEIN-RICH RICH concentrates: Screening: CP WS, CP TTD, CP ED, a and b Equations for ENERGY-RICH RICH concentrates: Screening: CP ED