National Animal Nutrition Program (NANP), Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546; Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24060.
Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706.
J Dairy Sci. 2022 Oct;105(10):8016-8035. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-21777. Epub 2022 Aug 31.
Few models have attempted to predict total milk fat because of its high variation among and within herds. The objective of this meta-analysis was to develop models to predict milk fat concentration and yield of lactating dairy cows. Data from 158 studies consisting of 658 treatments from 2,843 animals were used. Data from several feed databases were used to calculate dietary nutrients when dietary nutrient composition was not reported. Digested intake (DI, g/d) of each fatty acid (FA; C12:0, C14:0, C16:0, C16:1, C18:0, C18:1 cis, C18:1 trans C18:2, C18:3) and absorbed amounts (g/d) of each AA (Arg, His, Ile, Leu, Lys, Met, Phe, Thr, Trp, Val) were calculated and used as candidate variables in the models. A multi-model inference method was used to fit a large set of mixed models with study as the random effect, and the best models were selected based on Akaike's information criterion corrected for sample size and evaluated further. Observed milk fat concentration (MFC) ranged from 2.26 to 4.78%, and milk fat yield (MFY) ranged from 0.488 to 1.787 kg/d among studies. Dietary levels of forage, starch, and total FA (dry matter basis) averaged 50.8 ± 10.3% (mean ± standard deviation), 27.5 ± 7.0%, and 3.4 ± 1.3%, respectively. The MFC was positively correlated with dietary forage (0.294) and negatively associated with dietary starch (-0.286). The DI of C18:2 (g/d) was more negatively correlated with MFC (-0.313) than that of the other FA. The best variables for predicting MFC were days in milk, FA-free dry matter intake, forage, starch, DI of C18:2, DI of C18:3, and absorbed Met, His, and Trp. The best predictor variables for MFY were FA-free dry matter intake, days in milk, absorbed Met and Ile, and intakes of digested C16:0 and C18:3. This model had a root mean square error of 14.1% and concordance correlation coefficient of 0.81. Surprisingly, DI of C18:3 was positively related to milk fat, and this relationship was consistently observed among models. The models developed can be used as a practical tool for predicting milk fat of dairy cows, while recognizing that additional factors are likely to also affect fat yield.
由于乳脂在牛群间和牛群内变化较大,因此很少有模型尝试预测总乳脂。本荟萃分析的目的是建立预测泌乳奶牛乳脂浓度和乳脂产量的模型。使用了来自 158 项研究的数据,这些研究共有 2843 头动物的 658 个处理,当未报告饲粮养分组成时,使用了一些饲粮数据库的数据来计算饲粮养分。计算了每种脂肪酸(C12:0、C14:0、C16:0、C16:1、C18:0、C18:1cis、C18:1trans、C18:2、C18:3)的消化(DI,g/d)摄入量和每种 AA(Arg、His、Ile、Leu、Lys、Met、Phe、Thr、Trp、Val)的吸收量(g/d),并将这些量用作模型中的候选变量。使用多模型推理方法来拟合一组具有研究作为随机效应的混合模型,并根据校正样本量的赤池信息量准则选择最佳模型,并进一步评估。观察到的乳脂浓度(MFC)范围为 2.26%至 4.78%,乳脂产量(MFY)范围为 0.488kg/d 至 1.787kg/d。饲粮中粗饲料、淀粉和总 FA(干物质基础)的平均水平分别为 50.8%±10.3%、27.5%±7.0%和 3.4%±1.3%。MFC 与饲粮粗饲料呈正相关(0.294),与饲粮淀粉呈负相关(-0.286)。C18:2 的 DI(g/d)与 MFC 的相关性强于其他 FA(-0.313)。预测 MFC 的最佳变量是泌乳天数、无脂干物质采食量、粗饲料、淀粉、C18:2 的 DI、C18:3 的 DI 和吸收的 Met、His 和 Trp。预测 MFY 的最佳预测变量是无脂干物质采食量、泌乳天数、吸收的 Met 和 Ile 以及消化的 C16:0 和 C18:3 的采食量。该模型的均方根误差为 14.1%,一致性相关系数为 0.81。令人惊讶的是,C18:3 的 DI 与乳脂呈正相关,这种关系在模型中始终一致。所开发的模型可作为预测奶牛乳脂的实用工具,但需认识到可能还有其他因素也会影响乳脂产量。