495 Comparison of two internal markers and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) for predicting nutrient digestibility in beef cattle offered diets varying in forage quantity and quality

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate acid detergent lignin (ADL), and amylase-treated ash-corrected undigestible neutral detergent fiber after 240 h of ruminal in vitro incubation (uNDF), and near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) scanning of feces as methods to estimate the digestibility of diets varying in forage quantity and quality when fed to beef cattle. Five total collection (TC) digestibility studies examined 17 different diets and provided individual fecal samples and the corresponding apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients (n = 229). Feed, orts, and fecal samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), nitrogen (N), amylase-treated ash-corrected neutral detergent fiber (aNDFom), acid detergent fiber (ADF), ADL, and uNDF. Previously developed fecal NIRS digestibility calibrations were expanded with dried and ground samples using a FOSS D3F scanning monochromator (FOSS, Eden Prairie, MN). Marker estimated and NIRS predicted nutrient digestibility coefficients were regressed against those determined by TC and goodness-of-fit statistics were applied. Mean concentrations of ADL and uNDF in diets ranged from 23.4 to 96.4 g/kg DM and 67.7 to 200 g/kg DM, respectively, with mean fecal recoveries of 94.2% (SD ± 15.7%) for ADL and 87.5% (SD ± 11.1%) for uNDF. Regression fit statistics between NIRS and TC were not different from one (P > 0.05), with R2 > 0.83 except for ADF digestibility (R2 = 0.63). In comparison, regression statistics between internal markers and TC were poorer with R2 ranging from 0.21 to 0.78. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) between NIRS and TC were greater than 0.90 for DM, OM, N, and aNDFom digestibility, and 0.77 for ADF digestibility. The CCC between ADL and TC ranged between 0.63 and 0.82, and between uNDF and TC from 0.26 to 0.78. Correction bias (Cb) was high for all parameters (Cb > 0.76) except for ADF digestibility (Cb = 0.58) as estimated by uNDF. The mean square error of prediction (MSEP) for NIRS predicted digestibility were lower (< 10.7%) than those estimated by internal markers, and most of the error was attributed to random bias (> 97.9%). Random bias for ADL was also greater (>76.1%); however, for uNDF the error was more evenly partitioned into mean bias (46.4% to 49.4%) and random bias (30.4 to 41.9%). Digestibility predictions from NIRS scanning of feces were more accurate and precise than when estimated using the internal markers ADL and uNDF. In the absence of NIRS, ADL estimations appear to be more precise and accurate than uNDF for forage-based diets, with uNDF possibly of greater value for estimating the digestibility of high concentrate diets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae234.187
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Meat and Animal Product Quality
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.34
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

495 Comparison of two internal markers and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) for predicting nutrient digestibility in beef cattle offered diets varying in forage quantity and quality

Jenilee F Peters, Tim Angus McAllister, G.B. Penner, Gabriel O Ribeiro et al.
1 citations
Journal of Animal Science
Meat and Animal Product Quality
0.34
article

495 Comparison of two internal markers and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) for predicting nutrient digestibility in beef cattle offered diets varying in forage quantity and quality

Jenilee F Peters, Tim Angus McAllister, G.B. Penner, Gabriel O Ribeiro, H.A. Lardner, Mary Lou Swift
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate acid detergent lignin (ADL), and amylase-treated ash-corrected undigestible neutral detergent fiber after 240 h of ruminal in vitro incubation (uNDF), and near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) scanning of feces as methods to estimate the digestibility of diets varying in forage quantity and quality when fed to beef cattle. Five total collection (TC) digestibility studies examined 17 different diets and provided individual fecal samples and the corresponding apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients (n = 229). Feed, orts, and fecal samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), nitrogen (N), amylase-treated ash-corrected neutral detergent fiber (aNDFom), acid detergent fiber (ADF), ADL, and uNDF. Previously developed fecal NIRS digestibility calibrations were expanded with dried and ground samples using a FOSS D3F scanning monochromator (FOSS, Eden Prairie, MN). Marker estimated and NIRS predicted nutrient digestibility coefficients were regressed against those determined by TC and goodness-of-fit statistics were applied. Mean concentrations of ADL and uNDF in diets ranged from 23.4 to 96.4 g/kg DM and 67.7 to 200 g/kg DM, respectively, with mean fecal recoveries of 94.2% (SD ± 15.7%) for ADL and 87.5% (SD ± 11.1%) for uNDF. Regression fit statistics between NIRS and TC were not different from one (P > 0.05), with R2 > 0.83 except for ADF digestibility (R2 = 0.63). In comparison, regression statistics between internal markers and TC were poorer with R2 ranging from 0.21 to 0.78. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) between NIRS and TC were greater than 0.90 for DM, OM, N, and aNDFom digestibility, and 0.77 for ADF digestibility. The CCC between ADL and TC ranged between 0.63 and 0.82, and between uNDF and TC from 0.26 to 0.78. Correction bias (Cb) was high for all parameters (Cb > 0.76) except for ADF digestibility (Cb = 0.58) as estimated by uNDF. The mean square error of prediction (MSEP) for NIRS predicted digestibility were lower (< 10.7%) than those estimated by internal markers, and most of the error was attributed to random bias (> 97.9%). Random bias for ADL was also greater (>76.1%); however, for uNDF the error was more evenly partitioned into mean bias (46.4% to 49.4%) and random bias (30.4 to 41.9%). Digestibility predictions from NIRS scanning of feces were more accurate and precise than when estimated using the internal markers ADL and uNDF. In the absence of NIRS, ADL estimations appear to be more precise and accurate than uNDF for forage-based diets, with uNDF possibly of greater value for estimating the digestibility of high concentrate diets.

Journal of Animal ScienceVol. 102(Supplement_3)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA), University of Saskatchewan (CA), Trouw Nutrition (Brazil) (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Meat and Animal Product Quality
0.34
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.