Departamento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, University of São Paulo, Av. Duque de Caxias, 225-Pirassununga, SP 13630-900, Brazil.
Departamento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, University of São Paulo, Av. Duque de Caxias, 225-Pirassununga, SP 13630-900, Brazil.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jul;101(7):5890-5901. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13283. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
Feed intake assessment is a valuable tool for herd management decisions. The use of markers, either internal or external, is currently the most used technique for estimating feed intake in production animals. The experiment used 10 multiparous Holstein cows fed a corn silage-based diet, with 55:45 forage-to-concentrate ratio, the average fecal recovery (FR) of TiO was higher than FR of CrO, and both FR were more than unity. With internal markers, acetyl bromide lignin and cutin FR were lower than unity, and average FR for indigestible neutral detergent fiber (iNDF) and indigestible acid detergent fiber (iADF) was 1.5. The FR was unaffected by the fecal sampling procedure and appears to be an intrinsic property of each molecule and how it interacts with digesta. Of the 2 external markers, only CrO produced accurate fecal output (FO) estimates and the same happened to dry matter digestibility (DMD) when iNDF and iADF were used. Estimates for DMD and FO were affected by sampling procedure; 72-h bulk [sub-sample from total feces collection (TFC)] sampling consistently produced accurate results. The grab (sub-samples taken at specific times during the day) sampling procedures were accurate when using either of the indigestible fibers (iNDF or iADF) to estimate DMD. However, grab sampling procedures can only be recommended when concomitant TFC is performed on at least one animal per treatment to determine FR. Under these conditions, CrO is a suitable marker for estimating FO, and iNDF and iADF are adequate for estimating DMD. Moreover, the CrO+iADF marker pair produces accurate dry matter intake estimates and deserves further attention in ruminant nutrition studies. The method of dosing the external markers is extremely important and greatly affects and determines results. Whichever the method, it must allow the animals to display normal feeding behavior and not affect performance. The grab sampling procedures can replace TFC (once FR is established), which may open new possibilities for pasture-based or collectively housed animals.
采食量评估是牧场管理决策的重要工具。目前,在生产动物中,使用标记物(内部或外部)是估计采食量最常用的技术。本试验使用了 10 头经产荷斯坦奶牛,饲喂以玉米青贮为基础的日粮,饲粮中粗饲料与精饲料的比例为 55:45。TiO 的平均粪便回收率(FR)高于 CrO 的 FR,且两者均大于 1。对于内部标记物,乙酰溴化木质素和角蛋白 FR 小于 1,而不消化中性洗涤纤维(iNDF)和不消化酸性洗涤纤维(iADF)的平均 FR 为 1.5。FR 不受粪便采样程序的影响,似乎是每个分子的固有特性及其与食糜相互作用的方式。在 2 种外部标记物中,只有 CrO 能准确估计粪便排出量(FO),而当使用 iNDF 和 iADF 时,干物质消化率(DMD)也同样如此。DMD 和 FO 的估计值受采样程序的影响;72 h 大粪样(总粪收集(TFC)的亚样)采样始终能得到准确的结果。在使用不可消化纤维(iNDF 或 iADF)估计 DMD 时,抓取(每天特定时间采集的亚样)采样程序是准确的。然而,只有在每个处理至少有一头动物同时进行 TFC 以确定 FR 的情况下,才能推荐使用抓取采样程序。在这些条件下,CrO 是估计 FO 的合适标记物,iNDF 和 iADF 可用于估计 DMD。此外,CrO+iADF 标记物对可准确估计干物质采食量,值得在反刍动物营养研究中进一步关注。外部标记物的投药方法极为重要,极大地影响和决定了结果。无论采用哪种方法,都必须允许动物表现出正常的采食行为,且不影响其生产性能。抓取采样程序可以替代 TFC(一旦 FR 建立),这可能为放牧或集体饲养动物开辟新的可能性。