Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T18:19:45.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the statistical variation in estimating forage dry matter intake of grazing Brahman bulls using n-alkanes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

A. DE-STEFANI AGUIAR ,
T. D. A. FORBES ,
F. M. ROUQUETTE JR. ,
L. O. TEDESCHI  and
R. D. RANDEL
A. DE-STEFANI AGUIAR*
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, 1710 FM 3053 N., Overton, TX 75684, USA
T. D. A. FORBES
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, 1619 Garner Field Road, Uvalde, TX 78801, USA
F. M. ROUQUETTE JR.
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, 1710 FM 3053 N., Overton, TX 75684, USA
L. O. TEDESCHI
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, College Station, TX 77843, USA
R. D. RANDEL
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, 1710 FM 3053 N., Overton, TX 75684, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email:dforbes@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objectives of the current study were to determine the variation structure within a day and across days when determining dry matter intake (DMI) of Coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) pasture using dotriacontane (C32) as an external marker, to determine the optimal times for faecal collection for forage DMI estimation and to compare C31 and C33 as internal markers in estimating forage DMI in Brahman bulls. Sixteen Brahman bulls were allocated by weight to four pastures, and stocked at a moderate to low grazing pressure for 63 days from late June to the end of August. Three intake measurement periods (P1, P2, P3) were used; each period consisting of 10 days of twice daily C32 (400 mg/day) administration. Faecal collections were taken during the last 5 days (07.00, 11.00, 15.00 and 19.00 h). The C32 was individually hand fed using Calan gates, with maize gluten as a carrier for the alkane. Gas chromatography was used to determine n-alkanes in the forage and faecal samples. The concentration of C31 was less than C33 in the bermudagrass for all periods (P < 0·001), but the concentration of C31 and C33 in faeces was not significantly different (P > 0·05). The average concentration of C32 in the forage was 5·1, 7·6 and 9·6 mg/kg dry matter (DM), for P1, P2 and P3, respectively, with an average of 7·5 mg/kg DM for all periods. During P1 and P2, the estimation of forage DMI using C33 had a better fit (smaller –2 × log and Akaike's information criterion (AIC)) than using C31 either with or without adjustments for C32. The variation in estimated forage DMI decreased when forage C32 was not included. The variances of forage DMI were similar using C31 across days, but the Pearson correlations between days were low, which suggested that several days of collection were needed to estimate forage DMI accurately. Correlations between collection times within days were medium to high for all periods and varied from 0·65 to 0.97 for C31 and from 0·26 to 0·96 for C33. When all periods were analysed together, estimates of forage DMI either using C31 or C33 had low correlations between days of collection. Adjustment for C32 did not improve the variance and (co)variance matrix. In summary, C33/C32 had the lowest variation in estimating forage DMI, and at least 5 days of faecal collection were needed to decrease the variability of estimating forage DMI. The optimum times for faecal collection were 07.00 and 19.00 h, and it was important to adjust for C32 alkane concentration in estimating forage DMI in Brahman bulls grazing Coastal bermudagrass.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 129 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berry, N. R., Scheeder, M. R. L., Sutter, F., Krober, T. F. & Kreuzer, M. (2000). The accuracy of intake estimation based on the use of alkane controlled-release capsules and faeces grab sampling in cows. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovolenta, S., Piasentier, E. & Malossini, F. (1994). N-alkanes as markers in feeding trials. In Proceedings of the EEC Workshop on Grazing Behaviour of Goats and Sheep, 11–13 November 1991, Bella (PZ), Italy. Cahiers Option Méditerranéennes, CIHEAM, Zaragoza. Vol. 5 (Eds Gordon, I. J. & Rubino, R.), pp. 29–38. Zaragoza, Spain: CIHEAM.Google Scholar
Dove, H. & Mayes, R. W. (1996). Plant wax components: a new approach to estimating intake and diet composition in herbivores. Journal of Nutrition 126, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dove, H., Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. & Ellis, K. J. (2002). Factors influencing the release rate of alkanes from an intra-ruminal, controlled-release device, and the resultant accuracy of intake estimation in sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53, 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, H. & Mayes, R. W. (2006). Protocol for the analysis of n-alkanes and other plant–wax compounds and for their use as markers for quantifying the nutrient supply of large mammalian herbivores. Nature Protocols 1, 1680–1697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, L. M. M., Oliván, M., Rodrigues, M. A. M., Osoro, K., Dove, H. & Dias-da-Silva, A. (2004). Estimation of feed intake by cattle using controlled-release capsules containing n-alkanes or chromium sesquioxide. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 142, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. S., Mayland, H. F. & Burns, J. C. (1999). Variation in ruminants’ preference for tall fescue hays cut either at sundown or at sunup. Journal of Animal Science 77, 762–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, F., Thompson, P., Xiong, C. & Miller, J. P. (2006). Analyzing multivariate longitudinal data using SAS(r). In Proceedings of the 31st Annual SAS Users Group International (SUGI) Conference, San Francisco, CA pp. 1–9, paper 187. Cary, USA: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Grace, N. D. & Body, D. R. (1981). The possible use of long chain (C19–C32) fatty acids in herbage as an indigestible faecal marker. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 743–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameleers, A. & Mayes, R. W. (1998). The use of n-alkanes to estimate supplementary grass silage intake in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendricksen, R. E., Reich, M. M., Roberton, R. F., Reid, D. J., Gazzola, C., Rideout, J. A. & Hill, R. A. (2002). Estimating the voluntary intake and digestibility of buffel-grass and Lucerne hays offered to Brahman-cross cattle using n-alkanes. Animal Science 74, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, R. M., Richardson, E. C., Hegarty, R. S., Woodgate, R., Archer, J. A. & Arthur, P. F. (1998). Pasture intake by high versus low net feed efficient Angus cows. Animal Production in Australia 22, 137–140.Google Scholar
Keli, A., Andueza, D., de Vega, A. & Guada, J. A. (2008). Validation of the n-alkane and NIRS techniques to estimate intake, digestibility and diet composition in sheep fed mixed lucerne: ryegrass diets. Livestock Science 119, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laredo, M. A., Simpson, G. D., Minson, D. J. & Orpin, C. G. (1991). The potential for using n-alkanes in tropical forages as a marker for the determination of dry matter by grazing ruminants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, L. C., Mayland, H. F. & MacKay, W. P. (2003). Horse preference for alfalfa-grass hay harvest in the afternoon or morning. In Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science Vol. 54. Published on CD-ROM. Champaign, IL, USA: ASAS. Available online at: http://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/979/ (verified 15 Feb 2012).Google Scholar
Malossini, F., Bovolenta, S., Piasentier, E. & Valentinotti, M. (1994). Variability of n-alkane content in a natural pasture and in faeces of grazing dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 50, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallossini, F., Bovolenta, S., Piasentier, E., Piras, C. & Martilloti, F. (1996). Comparison of n-alkanes and chromium oxide methods for estimating herbage intake by grazing dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, J. & Stewart, P. G. (2003). Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) intake determined by alkanes administered in a xanthan gum suspension. South African Journal of Animal Science 33, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayes, R. W. & Lamb, C. S. (1984). The possible use of n-alkanes in herbage as indigestible faecal markers (abstract). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 39A.Google Scholar
Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. & Colgrove, P. M. (1986). The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayland, H. F. & Shewmaker, G. E. (1999). Optimize Forage Quality by Afternoon Harvesting. USDA-ARS-NWISRL- Note 99–01. Washington, D. C.: USDA.Google Scholar
NRC (1984). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Oliván, M., Ferreira, L. M. M., Celaya, R. & Osoro, K. (2007). Accuracy of the n-alkane technique for intake estimates in beef cattle using different sampling procedures and feeding levels. Livestock Science 106, 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, A. F. M. & Salatino, A. (2000). Major constituents of foliar epicuticular waxes of species from caatinga and cerrado. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung C: A Journal of Biosciences 55, 688–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeves, M., Fulkerson, W. J., Kellaway, R. C. & Dove, H. (1996). A comparison of three techniques to determine the herbage intake of dairy cows grazing kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) pasture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 36, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (2002). JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide (Version 5)., Cary, North Carolina, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture & Resource Management (SCA) (1990). Feeding Standards for Australian Livestock Ruminants. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Smit, H. J., Taweel, H. Z., Tas, B. M., Tamminga, S. & Elgersma, A. (2005). Comparison of techniques for estimating herbage intake of grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1827–1836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, A. E., Blevins, S. R., Green, E., Mayes, R. W. & Lewis, R. M. (2010). Characterization of plant cuticular wax markers in native grazing pastures of southwest Virginia (abstract). Journal of Animal Science 88 (E-Supplement 2), 56.Google Scholar
Valiente, O. L., Delgado, P., De Vega, A. & Guada, J. A. (2003). Validation of the n-alkane technique to estimate intake, digestibility, and diet composition in sheep consuming mixed grain: roughage diets. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 693–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vulich, S. A., Hanrahan, J. P. & Crowley, B. A. (1995). Modification of the analytical procedures for the determination of herbage and faecal n-alkanes used in the estimation of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar