Vol. 60 October, 1990 No. 10 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1. Membership Contents AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, Report Number 5, Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals: Energy Agricultural and Food Research Council, Central Office, Wiltshire Court, Famsby Street, Swindon SN1 SAT. ‘This publication was prepared by the Interdepartmental Working Party on the Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals: Membership: R.A. Edwards, Edinburgh School of Agriculture (Chairman); M.G.S Jones, ADAS, Wolverhampton (Secretary); W.P. Barber, ADAS, Newcastle; C.A. Glasbey, AFRC Unit of Statistics, Edinburgh; J.M. Kelly, Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh; A.H. Simpson (until September 1984), UKASTA; C. ‘Thomas, AFRC Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley; R.W. Tyler, ADAS, Wye; S. Marsden (from March 1985), UKASTA. Page Preface 1. Membership ns 2. Terms of reference 70 3. Introduction BI 4. Methodology BI Models BI Computations BI Selection of data BI 4.4 Model comparisons BI 5. Growing Cattle BI 8.1 Calculation of observed dai BI 5.2 Calculation of predicted liveweight gain BI 5.3. Experimental data BI 5.4 Dry matter intake 74s 5.5 Recommendations 148 5.6 Discussion 751 6. Lactating Cows 752 61 don of observed liveweight change 752 6.2 jon of the observed milk yield 152 63 jon of the predicted liveweight change 782 64 jon of predicted milk yil 154 6.5 Calculation of the predicted metabolizable energy requirement for ‘maintenance and production 184 6.6 Experimental data 154 6.7 Dry matter intake 159 68 Recommendations 761 69 Discussion 16370 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Page 7. Pregnant Cows 164 7.1 Description of the models 764 7.2 Dry matter intake 766 7.3 Recommendations 166 8. Pregnant Ewes 767 1 Calculation of the observed daily liveweight change 167 8.2 Calculation of the predicted liveweight change 768 8.3. Experimental data 169 8.4 Dry matter intake m 8.5 Recommendation m 8.6 Discussion 74 9. Lactating Ewes 78 9.1 Description of the models 78 9.2 Dry matter intake 76 9.3 Recommendations ™ 10. Growing Sheep cud 10.1 Calculation of observed daily liveweight gain 7 10.2 Calculation of predicted liveweight gain cud 10.3 Experimental data 780 10.4 Dry matter intake 782 10.5 Recommendations 784 10.6 Discussion 785 11. General Conclusions 786 Appendix 1 Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, 786 prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for growing cattle Appendix 2 Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, 789 prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for lactating cows Appendix 3. Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, 793 prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for pregnant cows Appendix 4 Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, 796 prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for pregnant ewes Appendix 5 Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, 798 prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for lactating ewes Appendix 6 Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy, so prediction of liveweight change, and formulation of rations for growing sheep References 804 2. Terms of reference ‘The terms of reference for the Working Party were as follows: “To consider the proposals in ARC Technical Review - Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Live- stock 1980 in the light of existing advisory practice in the United Kingdom and to make recommen dations on: (@)_ whether the proposed requirements are acceptable or require modification for advisory work (b)_ the units and terminology to be adopted for advisory work (©) the interaction between nutrient allowances and dry matter intakes (@) the tolerances or safety margins to be used when calculating allowances (©) the extent to which the recommended allowances are dependent upon, or interact with, other nutrient allowances AL its first meeting the Working Party agreed that its function should be: (@) to satisty itself that the proposed system allowed animal performance to be explained acceptable accuracy (b) if considered justified, to propose a system of energy allowances for predicting the performance of ruminant animals, and which would form the basis for ration formulation.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 7a 3. Introduction ‘The energy system used as the basis for feeding ruminant animals in the UK, at the time when the Working Party was formed, was that proposed in MAFF/DAFS/DANI Technical Bulletin 33, Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. The members felt that not only should they examine whether the ARC 80 proposals were a satisfactory basis for the calculation of energy allowances for ruminant animals, but also whether the resulting estimates were so superior as to justify a change of system. To this end it was decided to evaluate the predictive ability of both systems, in parallel, when applied to data from scientifically conducted experiments. 4, Methodology 4.1 Models For the purposes of this comparison predictions of performance were made as follows: 1, as given in Technical Bulletin 33, but excluding the safety margins. This system is, hereafter, referred to as TB33, 2. based on the system described in Appendix 3.11 of ARC Technical Review, with the modifica- tion that efficiencies of utilization of dietary metabolizable energy (ME) were related to the ME concentration of the diet (M/D) rather than qa, the ratio of ME, measured at the mi tenance plane of nutrition, to gross energy in the DM. This was introduced as the Working Party considered that metabolizable rather than the gross energies would be generally available. Transformations were based on the assumption that the gross eneray of feeds was 18.4 MJ/ke, DM. This system is, hereafter, referred to as ARCB0a. 3. based on the systems described in the text ofthe energy section of ARC Technical Review 1980. This differed from that given in Appendix 3.11 in that efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME were calculated differently for different types of diets. This sytem is, hereafter, referred to as ARC80b, and incorporates efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME based on dq 4.2, Computations In order to facilitate the computations necessary for the comparison of the 3 systems they were redefined in mathematical terms. Full details of the calculations are given in the sections dealing with individual classes of animal. 4.3 Selection of data From the data available to the Working Party, those were selected which allowed valid estimates of inputs and outputs of energy to be made. An attempt was made to cover as wide a range as pos sible of feeds and types of animal. Relevant experimental details are given in individual sections. 4.4 Model comparisons The systems were compared on the basis of the difference between the performance predicted by each of the 3 systems and that observed. 5. Growing Cattle ‘The prediction models were assessed on the basis of the comparison of predicted with observed liveweight gain. 5.1 Calculation of observed daily liveweight gain (AW,) ‘The mean daily liveweight gain for each animal was calculated from the weight gain for the period. divided by the number of days in the period. 5.2 Caleulation of predicted liveweight gain (AW) Liveweight gains were calculated incrementally for each animal on a daily basis, using ME intakes calculated from daily intakes of DM and the ME of the diet. ‘The animal’s weight on Day 1 (initial weight) was used to calculate a weight gain for that day. ‘On Day 2 the initial weight plus the weight gain for Day 1 was taken as the weight on Day 2 and used to calculate a weight gain for that day. This incremental process was continued for the period of the experiment. Details of the 3 systems, TB33, ARC80a and ARC80b are given below.m2 [Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 5.2.1 Prediction of liveweight gain General ‘The daily energy balance in growing cattle may be represented as follows: Be Bs kek, MEI = metabolizable energy of daily ration (MJ/d) Ea ka E, = energy retained lost in daily weight change (MJ/d) k,_ = efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for weight change ‘energy for maintenance (MJ/d) = efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for maintenance Now E(MJ/d) = EV, x AW sd (MI/ke) EV, = the energy value of tissue lost or gai AW = liveweight change (kg/d) We may then write Ey , EV, AW MELOMI/4) = E= + SYA 2W land by rearrangement, liveweight change may be calculated as follows: ow = (wef) (a) 7833 Eq (MJ/d) = 5.67 + 0.061W w = liveweight (kg) ka =0.72 k, = 0.0435 M/D when MEL ~E,./ky is positive 1 when MEI~Eq/kq is negative M/~D = concentration of ME in the diet (MJ/kg DM) EV, (MI/kg) = 6.28 + 0.3 E, + 0.0188W when E, is positive = 6.28 + 0.0188W when E, is negative Ee ky aware = (wei 2) x (coe sasetramaw) Es 1 or aw e/a) = (tet -F2) « (cr) (b) ARC80a Eq (MJ/d) = C, x 0.53 (W/1.08)°" + 0.0043 G = I for heifers and castrates = 1.15 for bulls ke = 0.019M/D + 0.503 ky = 0.0424M/D + 0.006 Leda eng = (a whenL > 1 when <1 Ca(4.1 + 0.0332W — 0.000009?) EV, (MI/kg) aeAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 733 Type Helfer Castrate Bull Small 13 Las 1.00 Medium 1.15 1,00 os Large 1.00 os 0.70 C= lwhen b> 1 = Owhen Ll swe = (nsf Ey ky (0-2) (Garaomw= oman =6 xara) Then aw 641+ oan non) = (wet ~£3)s,0 = ex a4es am awe (MEI ~ En /kq) ky and AW = & Ga + 0.0332 — 0.000009") + Cy x 0.1475 (MEI - E/ka)K, (©) ARC80b ‘The model was as described for ARC80a except in two particulars: (i) efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME were related to dq rather than M/D, i) different equations were used for calculating efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, depending upon the type of diet being fed. Efficiencies were thus calculated according to the equations given in Table 5.1 Table 5.1. Efficiencies of utilization of ME Diet ee ky Pelieted 0.21 gy + 0.568 0.024 gy, + 0.465 Mixed 0.21 gn + 0.623, 0.38 qq + 0.282 Forage ~ Ist growth 0.21 gn + 0.558 1.32 qq ~ 0.318 “These diets were mainly pelleted roughages and included mixtures of roughages and cereals. They are more accurately defined as being finely ground and pelleted. 5.2.2 Comparison of the three prediction models Table 5.2 shows the liveweight gains predicted by the TB33 model, for animals of different liveweights and receiving different intakes of ME in the form of diets with different concentrations. of ME, Table 5.2. _Liveweight gains (g/d) predicted by the TB33 model a MEI (MJ/a) tke) MD 20 30 40 ~=«50—60S 70D ~—«100'—«sN0.-—=«s120.—=«130 1008.5 157 95 175 572 10.5 192 621 947 1.5 209 669 1010 125 226 714 1070 1340 3008.5 195448 98 217493724 10.5 238 537783989 ns 259° 579-838 1053 1234 1388 125 280 620 892 1114 1299 1456 1590 3008S 215408 9.5 238 450 634797 10.5 262 490 688 «85910101143, ns 284 $30 739 918 1075 1212 1334 1443 12.5 307 568 788 97511371277 14011511na Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Table 5.3. Differences between liveweight change predicted by ARC80a and TB33 (g/d) - ‘MEI (Mi/d) (ke) MD 20 -30«40~—«50S6 OSB] —*100:=«*N10=—=«d10'—=130 10 8513 95 39 124 10S 66 151 165 MS 95 180 205 15125 212252265 3008S =14 32 95 -50 -14 1 10.5 -B 6 2 30 1.5 429 48 «61 704 125 345476 964129140 5008S =18 -4 95 8 16 17 14 10.5 373939388 us 68 6S SSH 125 ol 93-93-96 = 102—«108—«11S_12d Values in excess of 100 g are in italics. 25 20 EVg (MJ/kg) 18 104 A+ 1899 (AW21.0 kg/d) ‘&—— ARCBO (AW=1.0 kg/d) TB33 (AW=0.5 kg/d) a arc (Aaweo.5 kg/d) 0 100 200 300 400 © ©s00 600 Liveweight (kg) jg S.1 Estimates of energy value of gainAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 73S ‘As might be expected, liveweight gain increases as intake and dietary concentration of ME, increase and decreases as liveweight alone increases. Table 5.3 shows the changes which take place when the ARC80a model for a castrated animal of the medium maturity class is used instead of| ‘TB33. The actual liveweight gains predicted by ARC80a are then the sum of the estimates in the two tables. Thus, for a 100-kg animal consuming 30 MJ of ME at a M/D of 10.5, TB33 predicts a liveweight gain of 621 g/d, ARC80a predicts 772 ¢/d (621 + 151). In general the ARC80a model predicts greater weight gains than does TB33. The greatest discrepancies are for animals of 100 kg liveweight, and particularly with diets with a high concentra- tion of ME and at high ME intakes. Ths is, in par, the result ofthe differences between estimates of the energy value of gain as shown in Fi. 5.1. Differences in minimal metabolism are unlikely to be important in this context as shown in Fig. 5.2 If the ARC80a model for early maturing (small) castrated male animals is used instead of that for animals of medium maturity, the predicted liveweight gains are reduced by about 11°. Use of the model for late maturing (large) animals raises the prediction by about 15% compared with that for animals of medium maturity. The model for late maturing heifers gives the same result as that for the male castrate of medium maturity. The models for heifers of early and medium maturity sive predicted gains some 20 and 11% lower, respectively. ‘The consequences of using the models for bulls of different maturity are more complex. For an early maturing bull, predicted liveweight gains are reduced by about 200 g/d at low intakes of ME but are unchanged at high intakes. The models for bulls of medium and late maturity give 40 30 Em (MJ/d) 20 10 wees T8393 ARcao 100 200 300 400 soo 600 Liveweight (kg) Fig. 5.2. Estimates of minimal metabolism736 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 predictions about 100 and 50 g/d, respectively, lower than that for the standard male castrate of medium maturity at low intakes of ME, whereas at higher intakes the predicted gains are about 200 and 480 g/d higher than those obtained with the standard. ‘The ARC80b model differs from ARC80a in the estimates of the efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME. In ARC8Ob, estimates are based upon qq, the ratio of ME measured at the main- tenance level of feeding, to gross energy in the diet. In ARC80a, a common gross energy of 18.4 ‘MJ/kg DM was assumed for all feeds, thus allowing efficiencies to be related to the concentration, of ME in the diet. Dietary gross energies may vary quite widely particularly with silages and failure to take this into account, as in the ARC80a model, may result in significant differences in predicted liveweight gains. Thus, a change of gross energy from 18.4 to 20 MJ/kg DM will reduce ‘gains by an average of 9%, and a change to 17.5 will bring about an increase of about 6% com- ared with those obtained with the standard ARC80a. ARC80a uses equations, for calculating efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, suggested in Appendix 3.11 of ARC Technical Review for use with “all diets”. In the text, different equations are suggested for use with different diets. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate the relations which exist between efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME calculated according to the different equations, and using q,.. If equations for pelleted diets are used instead of those for ‘all diets”, then k,, and. ky are increased at low metabolizabilities and decreased at high metabolizabilities. As a conse- quence, predicted liveweight gains increase by about 16% at a q,, of 0.45 and decrease by about 10% at a qq, of 0.68. Use of the suggested equations for first growth forages instead of those for all diets gives lower k,, values down to gy, values of 0.4, the difference being greater at high ‘metabolizabilities. Values for ky are lower at low metabolizabilities and higher at high ‘metabolizabilities than those calculated using the all diets equation. As a result, predicted liveweight gains are about 20% lower at a gy, of 0.45 and, when qa, is 0.68, change from being 10% 0.75 0.70 0.65: + Mixed diets All diets ——— Pelleted diets Forage diets 0.60: 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 M/D Fig. 53AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients BI 5.3 Experimental daia 0.60 0.50 t 0.40 0.30 : ete Mixed diets All diets “ ——— Polleted diets Forage diets 0.20 ’ 0.4 0.5 08 0.7 Fig. 54 Relation between qq, and by lower to 10% higher as the intake of ME increases, When the equations for mixed diets are used, both km and k; values increase at all levels of dq, aS compared with those obtained using the all. diets equation. Predicted liveweight gains are correspondingly increased by about 60% at low metabolizabilities but show little change at high metabolizabi ‘The data included diets based on hay and silage, pelleted mixtures of forage and concentrate, and pelleted diets consisting of concentrate only, They covered a wide range of breed types, liveweights from 72to 600 ke, and included heifers, castrates and bulls. The individual sets of data are discussed below. 5.3.1 Data of Frood, University of Reading $3.11 Data ‘The experimental animals were Friesian type cattle consisting of 13 bulls, 16castrates and 16 heifers. ‘The experimental period was of about 450 days, divided into 8 shorter periods on the basis of liveweight, as follows:738 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Period weight (ks) 90 90-140 140-200 200-260 260-320 320-380 380-440 440.500 Individual animals were removed from the experiment from period 5 onwards, and 7 animals only remained for period 8. A single diet was fed throughout the experiment. This was a pelleted mixture of barley and ‘a mineral-vitamin supplement and was arbitrarily allocated an ME value of 12.55 MJ/kg DM. DM intakes were recorded daily. Total individual DM intakes over periods were used to calculatea mean daily DM intake for each animal in each period. Animals were weighed at weekly intervals. For the purposes of calculating liveweight change they were allocated to the medium type. 5.3.1.2 Results and Discussion Consideration of the results for individual animals revealed that the time periods fell naturally and conveniently into 3 groups. Summary statistics for these are given in Table 5.4 Table $.4. Comparison of three prediction models (Data of Frood) Weight-band (ks) 90-140 140-200 200-500 Mean initial liveweight (kg) 90 140 200 Mean MEI (MJ/d) 40 50 15 Mean M/D (MJ/kg DM) 12.6 12.6 126 Mean AW, (g/d) 1020 1170 1120 Mean bias (AW, ~ AW,) TB33 = 40 (130) =80 (130) 80 (160) ARCB0a 140 (140) 40 (120) 150 (120) ARC80b 30 (130) = 80 (110) 40 (120) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. ‘The ARC80a model consistently predicts higher liveweight gains than TB33. The difference decreases with increasing liveweight being 180 g/d for animals of 90-140 kg, 120 g/d for those of 140-200 kg and 70 g/d for those of more than 200 kg. The ARC80b model predicts liveweight gains between 110 and 120 g/d less than ARC80a irrespective of liveweight. This isa direct consequence of the lower ky, and ky values for pelleted diets used in ARC80b: ky, has been reduced from 0.74 to 0.71 and k; from 0.54 to 0.48. An automatic consequence is that ARC80b predicts liveweight gains 70 g/d higher than TB33 for animals of 90-140 kg, the two models agree for those of 140 to 200 ke and ARCB0b predicts 40 g/d less than TB33 for those of more than 200 kg. ‘When predicted liveweight gains are compared with the observed, TB33 and ARC80b predict, ‘equally well for animals of 90-140 kg liveweight, underpredicting and overpredicting by about 30 respectively. ARC8Oa overpredicts by 140 g/d. For animals of 140-200 kg liveweight, TB33 and ‘ARC80b both underpredict by an average of 80 g whereas ARC8Oa overpredicts by 40 g/d. When. variability of prediction is taken into account, these predicitons may be regarded as being equally good. For the higher weight animals all 3 models overpredict. ARC80b is the best of the three, over~ predicting by 40 g/d compared with 80 and 150 g for TB33 and ARC80a respectively. Again the predictions may be regarded as being equally good. In summary, ARC8Ob is always as good as, and sometimes is better than the other two models. ARC80a, which consistently overpredicts, is the poorest of the 3. The data included entire male, castrated male, and female cattle and allowed an assessment to be made of the validity of the sex. based corrections proposed in ARC80. The predictive abilities of the 3 models, for the 3 sex group- ings of animals of different liveweights are summarised in Table 5.5. ‘The TB33 model predicts different performances for the 3 sex groupings, despite the fact that it does not incorporatea sex correction. The differences between the predictions for the groups may bbe taken as reflecting non-sex effects, such as initial liveweight and feed intake. For the animals. in the 90-140 kg weight band for example, these effects are 40 g/d (1020-980) for the bulls and —20 g/d (960-980) for the heifers. Differences between the predictions for the 3 groupings using the ‘ARC80a model reflect both sex and non-sex effects, since sex corrections are incorporated in the model. Combined sex and non-sex effects for the bulls in the 90-140 kg weight band are +130 g/d (1300 ~ 1170), and for the heifers, — 140 g/d (1030 ~ 1170). If we assume that theAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 79 Table $.5. Predictive abilities of the models for three sex groupings within liveweight categories ‘OW, @/¢) (AW, ~ Wo) (8/¢) Sex AW, B33 ARC80a_—ARC80 TRS ARC8a__ ARC80b ‘Weight band 90-140 kg B 112010201300 1180 =100(140) 180 (190) 60.170) © 10309801170 1060 50 (90) 140.(100) 30 (90) H 930-960-1030 930 30120) 100 (120) 0.10) Weight band 140-200 kg B 1260 10801290 1170 = 180130) 30,150) 90 (140) © 1160 10801220 1100 80 (90) 60100) ~50 (90) H 1130 11201140 1030 10100) 10.100) - 100 (100) Weight band 200-500 kg B 133012301400 128 -100(140) 60130) = $0130, © 1080 12001280 1180 120 (80) 210 (80) 100 (80) H 100011901170 1060 190 (90) 170 (90) 60 (100) parentheses are standard deviations :C = male castrates: H = heifers) non-sex effects for the TB33 model adequately represent those pertaining to the ARC80a model, then the sex effects in the latter are +90 g/d (130 ~ 40) for the bull group and ~ 120 g/d (~ 140 +20) for the heifers. The ARC80b model predicts liveweight gains from 100 to 120 g/d less than ARC80a. Sex effects for this model at + 80 g/d for the bulls and ~ 110 g/d for the heifers are, as might be expected, very similar to those for ARC80: Differences between the predicted and observed liveweight changes of the animals in the 90-140 kg weight band are ~ 90 g/d (1120 ~ 1030) for the bulls and ~ 100 g/d (930 ~ 1030) for the heifers. Making the same assumption concerning the non-sex effects as previously, allows the calculation of the true (observed) sex effects. These are 50 g/d (90 ~ 40) for the bulls, and 80 g/d (— 100 +20) for the heifers. Similar calculations for the animals in the other weight bands in Table 5.5, yield the data in Table 5.6. Table $.6. Effects of sex on observed and predicted liveweight gains Liveweight change (g/A) 90-140 140-200 > 200 Bulls - Observed +50 +100 +220 ~~ ARC80a +90 +70 +90 Heifers - Observed -80 -10 -70 = ARC80a =120 120 100 ‘These data support the proposition that the sex of the animal affects its requirement for energy for ‘a given performance. TB33 is wrong to ignore this! Both of the ARC80 models overcorrect for bulls. of lighter weight, undercorrect slightly for the medium weight animals but grossly undercorrect for those of heavier weights. For the heifers, the corrections suggested by the ARC80 models are from 30 to $0 g/d greater than necessary. ‘The introduction of the sex corrections into the ARC80 models is justified and on this account they are to be preferred to B33. However, the magnitude of the corrections is inappropriate, being too large for heifers and bulls of lighter weight, and too small for heavier bulls. 5.3.2 Data of Hinks, Edinburgh School of Agriculture 5.3.2.1 Data ‘The data were from a series of four experiments carried out in successive years and designated F8, F9, F10 and FIl. ‘Animals were single suckled calves by Charolais bulls out of Hereford X Friesian cows. There were 23 heifers and 39 castrated male animals in F8, 31 heifers and 32 castrated males in F9, 32 of each in F10 and 32 heifers and 30 castrated males in Fl All animals were weighed on 3 consecutive days at the beginning of the experiments, and the ‘mean taken as the initial weight for that animal. Liveweights were subsequently recorded at weekly intervals throughout the experimental periods. In all experiments, diets were based on silage offered to appetite, and fed either alone or with supplements consisting of mineralized barley or mineralized barley plus soyabean meal. Det as follows:740 determined, and a value of 12.5 MJ/kg DM was assumed for the concentrate mix. DM 5.3.2.2 Results and Discussion FB F9 (a) (b) Flo Fil (a) © Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 lage ‘ad libitum ad libitum ad libitum ad libitum aad libitum ad tibitum Mineralized Soyabean barley (kg/d) meal (kg/d) 20 0.60 18s 0 1.48 0.43 12 0.38 0 0 24 ° In F8, F9 and F11, ME of the diets were estimated from the results of metabolism trials with sheep in which dietary, faecal and urinary energies were measured. Energy voided as methane was calculated by the method of Blaxter and Clapperton (1965). In F10, the ME of the silages only were DM intakes were recorded on 4 consecutive days in each week and the mean taken as the daily fake for that week. In FIO intakes of silage and concentrate were recorded separately. ‘Table $.8._Comparison ofthe thre prediction models (Data of Hinks) Experiment Fe wm FOF ‘Mean initial liveweight (kg) 370 360 360 390 Mean MEI (M3/a) 30 a7 81 103 Mean M/D 6 = 1081022 Mean AW, (8/4) 650 00 8109580 Mean bias (AW, SW.) TBs 170 (100) $0180) $0120) 22010) ARC80a 170 (100) 60 (190) 20(130) 210 (130) ARC80b- 250 (100) 140 (180) 130 (130) 270 (130) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. predicts w ‘The ARC80a model consistently predicts lower weight gains than TB33 but the differences over the years are small at 0, 20, 30 and 10 g/d for F8, F9, F10and F11, respectively. The ARC80b model t gains between 60 and 80 g/d more than ARC8Oa. This a direct consequence of the higher ka and k, values resulting from the use of the equations for mixed instead of all diets. This effect was countered to some extent by the lowering of ky and ky resulting from the use of Gu instead of M/D. ‘When predict the predictive abil weight ns are compared with the observed, there is no difference between es of the TB33 and ARC80a models: both overpredict equally. The ARC8Ob ‘model isthe poorest predictor in all four years and overpredicts by 130 to 270 g/d. There are con- siderable differences in prediction biases between years, but the relative ranking of the models is. the same for each of the four years. ‘The data included almost equal numbers of heifers and castrated males and allowed an evalua- tion of the sex based corrections proposed in ARC8O. The predictive abilities of the 3 models for the 2 sex groupings in each of the 4 years are summarised in Table 5.9. Table 5.9. Predictive abilities of the three models for two sex groupings for each of four years Sex AW, (@/a) Bias (AW, - AW,) (@/A) ‘AW, B33 ARC80a__ ARC80b B33 ‘ARC80a___ ARC80D Fs Cc 660 (820 840 930 150 (100) 180 (100) 260 (100) H 640840 780 850 200 (90) 140 (90) 220 (90) PO C890 9901020 1100 100(170) 130180) 210 (170) H 920 «980 910 980 60190) -10(180)——70(170) Flo c 80 ~— 870 890 990, 50 (120) 70 (120) 170 (120) H 810-860 790 880 50 (130) -20(130) 80 (120) FI C970 11901240 1310 220130) 260(130)—_-330(130) H 920 11401070 1130 220 (100) 150100) __210 (100) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviationsAFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients 741 ‘The TB33 model predicts different performances for the 2 sex groupings, despite the fact that it does not incorporate a sex correction. The differences between the predictions for the groups may be taken as reflecting non-sex effects, such as inital liveweight and feed intake. They are + 20 g/d (840 — 820) for F8, — 10 g/d (980 ~ 990) for F9, ~10 g/d (860 - 870) for F10 and ~50 g/d (1140 ~ 1190) for F11. Differences between the predictions for the groups using the ARC80a model reflect both sex and non-sex effects, since it incorporates a heifer correction. Combined sex and non-sex effects are ~ 60 g/d (780 ~ 840) for F8, —110 g/d (910 ~ 1020) for F9, ~100 g/d (790 ~ 890) for F10 and ~170 g/d (1070 ~ 1240) for F11. If we assume that the non-sex effects. for the TB33 model adequately represent those pertaining to the ARC80a model, then the heifer effect in the later is ~80 g/d (~ 60 ~20) for F8, ~ 100 g/d (~ 110 +10) for F9, ~90 g/d (~ 100 +10) for F10 and ~120 g/d (~ 179 +50) for F11. The ARC8Ob model predicts weight gains of between 60 and 100 g/d more than ARC80a and, as would be expected, the heifer effects are almost identical with those for ARC80a ~ 80, ~ 110, ~ 90 and — 140g/d. Differences between the observed liveweight changes of the castrated males and the heifers were ~ 20 g/d (640 — 660) for F8, +30 g/d (920 ~ 890) for F9, ~ 10 g/d (810 ~ 820) for F10 and ~ $0 g/d (920 ~ 970) for FI1. Making the same assumptions concerning the non-sex effects as previously, allows the calculation of the true (observed) heifer effect. This is - 40 g/d (~20 ~20) for F8, + 40 g/d (+30 +10) for F9, (g/d (~ 10 +10) for F10 and 0 g/d (~ 50 + 50) for F11. The situation is summarized in Table 5.10. Table 5.10. Effects of sex on observed and predicted liveweight gains (g/d) Observed ‘ARCE0a FB =40 80 B +40 = 100 Flo 0 -90 Fil 0 = 120 ‘There is thus no evidence from these data that heifers respond differently from castrated males, this respect, the TB33 model is correct and ARC80is wrong. This conclusion isnot consistent with Frood’s results, which indicated that heifers responded less well, in terms of liveweight gain, to intakes of energy than did castrated males. However, both sets of results suggest that any heifer effect is less than that predicted by ARC80. 5.3.3 Data of Lonsdale, Grassland Research Institute 5.3.3.1 Data During a 60-day experimental period 45 Friesian castrates with a mean starting weight of 86 kg were given diets consisting of 9 combinations of silage and dried grass. Separate intakes for silage and dried grass were available on a weekly basis. Digestible energies in vivo were available for all diets and were used to calculate ME using the following equation: ME(MJ/kg DM) = DE x 0.789 + 0.46 Intakes of DM and relevant ME were used to calculate intakes of the latter. In the following calculations the animals were allocated to the medium breed type. 5.3.3.2 Results and Discussion Table 5.11. Comparison of three predictive models (Data of Lonsdale) Mean initial liveweight (kg) 30 Mean MEI (MJ/a) 29 Mean M/D 123 Mean AW, ¢/d 410 Mean Bias (AW, ~ AW) TB33 210 (120) ARC80a 350 (130) ARC8Ob 330 (110) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations ‘The ARC80a model predicts a weight gain of 140 g/d more than TB33. This is similar to the predictions from Frood’s data for animals in the 90-140 kg liveweight band. The two ARC models. sive very similar predictions. All 3 models grossly overpredict. The TB33 model is the least bad with an overprediction of 210 g/d, but there is little to choose between the ARC models which are significantly worse. Slaughter data were available which allowed estimates to be made of the energy value of liveweight gain for each of the 9 treatments. They ranged from 10.7 to 30.3 MJ/kg, the latter being792 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 for the diet consisting of silage only. Substitution of these values into the models reduced the over- predictions to 80, 100 and 90 g/d for the TB33, ARC80a and ARC80b models, respectively. From 60 t0 70% of the overprediction inthis case was thus attributable to the use of inappropriate energy values of liveweight gain in the prediction models. For animals of lighter weights, ARC80a and TB33 are in disagreement. If the Lonsdale results are considered in conjunction with those for the lighter animals in the Frood data then the TB33. model is slightly better than either of the ARC models. 5.3.4 Data of the Meat and Livestock Commission 5.3.4.1 Data ‘The data were from feeding trials, carried out at the University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, over a 4-year period. In each year, groups of cattle, @ and b, differing in birth date and therefore weight at the start of the tial, were introduced. A total of 477 animals was involved. Allwere male castrates, and fell into groups according to breed of sire. The make-up of the popula tion is given in Table 5.12. Table 5.12. Sire breed distribu over 4 years (MLC data) Year Sire breed 1 2 3 4 Group Group Group Group ab ab ab ab Total Angus na oo oo 47 2 Charolais 48 7 8 59 5 10 56 North Devon os 0 0 ar) a) 3 South Devon, 3 6 20 3 10 10 25 Hereford nu 9 oun gu gu 78 Lincoin Red 2 0 38 su 77 3 Simmental 10 6 35 8 6 oo 40 Sussex nu o3 40 79 0 0 34 Friesian 58 513 47 59 56 Limousin 0 0 3 58 43 34 Holstein 110 au 59 78 C Total 9 99 46 67 5080 455 477 DM intakes were recorded daily for individual animals, Digestible organic matter in DM. (DOMD) in vitro was determined monthly on batches ofthe diet, which wasa pelleted mixture of dried grass, barley and a mineral vitamin supplement. ME was calculated according to the following. equation: ME(MJ/kgDM) = 1.05 + 0.0133 DOMD in vitro ‘This was derived from the fact that the mixture contained 85% dried grass and 15% barley ona DM basis, ME of the barley was assumed to be a constant 12.9 MJ/kgDM and that of dried grass varied according to the following equation: ME(MJ/kgDM) = 0.944 + 0.0133 DOMD in vitro All animals were weighed on entry to the trial and at monthly intervals thereafter. 5.3.4.2 Results and Discussion For the purposes of calculating liveweight gain, the animals were allocated to the medium maturity, class. Summary statistics are presented in Table 5.13. Table 5.13. Predictive abilities of three models (MLC data) Mean initial liveweight (kB) 410 Mean MEI (M1/d) 105 Mean M/D 102 Mean AW, ¢/d 910 Mean Bias (AW, — AW.) B33 140 @10) ‘ARCB0a 170 @20) ARC806 230 (200) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients 3 On average ARC80a predicts a liveweight gain of 30 g/d more than TB33 and 60 g/d less than ARC8Ob. All three models overpredict, with TB33 giving the best prediction and ARC8Ob the worst. Variability of prediction is similar for all models. There are considerable between and within year differences in the magnitude of the prediction biases as shown in Table 5.14. Table 5.14. Comp: n of three prediction models over 4 years (MLC data) Year 1 2 3 4 a 6 ab a 6 ab Mean initial liveweight (kg) 420 -340«= S10. 380, S00 350490, 340 Mean MEI (MJ/a) 29 98 = S91 23 908 Mean M/D 10 11.2 106 10.1 = 9.3: 1039.3. 9.4 Mean AW, (g/d) 1040 930 © 780 740««1180 970 890710 Mean bias (AW, ~ AW,) ‘TB33 310 220 © 250 180-100 40 30 160 (150) (140) 210) (170) (190) (160) (160) (170) ARC80a 350 260 290 210-110 60 40° 170 (150) (140) 210) (170) (200) (170)_—(150) (170) ARCROb 370 250 320 260 60 110 160 260 (450) (140) (210) (180) (180) (170) (160) (180) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. ‘The general application of the medium maturity classification to all the breeds inthe investiga- tion should have resulted in overprediction of performance for early maturing (small) breeds, under- prediction for the late maturing (large) breeds, and good prediction for those breeds of medium maturity. Liveweight gains were calculated for sire breed groups using the 3 prediction models, and. the prediction biases were corrected for the overall biases shown in Table 5.13. The residual breed effects are presented in Table 5.15. Table 5.15. Breed effects on liveweight gains predicted by three models (g/d) (MLC data) Bias (AW, — AW,) after removal of overall bias Sire breed TB33 ARC80a ‘ARCEOb Aberdeen Angus 70 0 80 Friesian 40 40 50 Holstein 10 20 20 Sussex 0 10 0 Lincoln Red 10 0 20 Charolais -20 -20 -10 ‘Simmental -70 -70 -60 Limousin 80 80 80 North Devon 80 80 80 South Devon 90 -90 -90 On average, and after taking overall bias into account, all 3 models are in close agreement. ‘The performance of Charolais, Hereford, Lincoln Red, Sussex and Holstein cattle i relatively accurately predicted. This indicates that they are of medium maturity. The performance of South. Devon, North Devon, Simmental and Limousin cattle is underpredicted inferring that these are late ‘maturing types. The performance of Aberdeen Angus and Friesian, is overpredicted and they could be considered to be early maturing. On this basis the breeds in the investigation could be classified as shown in Table 5.16. Table $.16. Classification of sire breeds into maturity groups (MLC data) Maturity type Early Medium Late Aberdeen Angus Charolais South Devon, Friesian Hereford North Devon Lincoln Red ‘Simmental Sussex Limousin Holstein744 5.3.5 Data of Drayton EHF 5.3.5.1 Data ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ARC80 gives only one item of guidance on the classification of breeds on the basis of maturity, and that is that Friesian cattle are of the medium type. This is not supported by the present data, On the other hand, most workers would consider the Friesian to be a breed of medium to late maturity. Table 5.17 presents a possible classification based upon slaughter data and mature bull weights. Table 5.17. Classification of sire breed groups into maturity groups Early Medium Late North Devon Lincoln Red Charolais Aberdeen Angus Sussex ‘Simmental Hereford Limousin Friesian South Devon The classification of the sire breeds, based upon the MLC data and given in Table 5.16, appears therefore to classify Charolais, Holstein, Friesian and North Devon wrongly, but is correct for 7 out of the 11 breeds. Nevertheless the failure to represent satisfactorily the performance of such predominant breeds as the Charolais and Friesian is a very considerable drawback. The magnitude of the maturity corrections suggested in ARC8O are ~ 100 and +140 g/d for carly and late maturing types compared to the medium. Inthe present data, the Angus and Limousin which may be regarded as being representative of early and late maturing types respectively show effects of -80 and +70 g/d. These data consisted of the records for ten groups of castrated male cattle out of Friesian dams and sired by Hereford bulls. The mean length of experimental period was 115 days. The animals were group fed on hay only diets, Each batch of hay was evaluated in digestibility trials with wether sheep fed at the maintenance level of energy input. ME was calculated from DOMD as follows: ME(M3/kg DM) = 0.016 x DOMD DM intakes were recorded daily and the animals were weighed weekly. 5.3.5.2 Results and Discussion For the purposes of predicting liveweight gains using the ARC models, the animals were allocated to the medium maturity class. Summary statistics are presented in Table 5.18 Table 5.18. Comparison of three prediction models (Drayton data) Mean initial liveweight (kg) 290 Mean MEI (MJ/d) 6 Mean M/D 9.2 Mean AW, #/d 730 Mean Bias (AW, - AW.) ‘TB33 0 (120) ARC80a 10 (120) ARC80b = 90 (110) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations On average ARC80a predicts a weight gain of 10 g/d less than TB33 and 80 g/d more than ARCROD. All three models have acceptably small biases particularly TB33 and ARC8Oa In terms of variability, between-trial in this case rather than between-animal as in the other data sets, there is nothing to choose between models in predictive ability. All 3 models do well: none has a prediction error significantly different from zero. 5.3.6 Comparison of three prediction models for castrated male animals of 200 kg and more In practice, the application of any system of energy allowances for beef cattle will be mainly con- cerned with castrated male animals of 200 kg or more. It was of interest therefore to consider the relative accuracy with which the 3 models under consideration predicted weight gains in such cattle. Summary statistics are presented in Table 5.19.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 745 5.4 Dry matter intake (DMI) 5.4.1 Prediction of DMI Table 5.19. Comparison of the three prediction models when applied to castrated male animals of 200 kg liveweight and more Bias (AW, — AW, (®/@) Source TB33 ARC8!a ARCBOb Frood 120 (80) 210 (80) 100 (80) Hinks Fi 150 (100) 180 (100) 260 (100) PP 100 (170) 130 (180) 210 (170) Fi0 50 (120) 70 (120) 170 (120) Fu 220 (130) 260 (130) 330 (130) Drayton 0.(120) = 10 (120) = 90 (110) MLC 140 @10) 170 (220) 230 (200) Average 10 140 170 NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. On average, ARC80a predicts liveweight gain 30 g/d greaterthan that of TB33, and 30 g/d less than does ARC8Ob. Differences between gains predicted by ARC80a and TB33 vary from — 10 to +90 g/d for the different sets of data. Once only out of 7 comparisons is the prediction greater for ‘TB33, and the difference inthis one case is 10 g. Differences between the predictions of the ARC80 ‘models are more variable, ~ 100to + 110 g/d, because they depend upon the effects of factors which are different for different experiments. Twice only isthe predicted gain greater with ARC80a. On average, all 3 models overpredict, TB33 by 110 g/d, ARC80a by 140 g/d and ARC8Ob by 170 g/d. Variability of prediction is almost identical for all 3 models. For castrated male animals, therefore, TB33 is best, followed by ARC80a and ARC8Ob in that order. ‘The reason for having a system of dietary energy allowances for animals, is to allow ration formu- lation and prediction of animal performance. Inthe first cas, the intake of DM within which a nutrient allowance has to be concentrated, ‘must be known. In the second, the dietary input of energy must be known if performance is to be predicted accurately. Two pieces of information are therefore essential First i the energy concen- tration in the DM, and second the DMI. An ability to predict an animal’s intake is of paramount importance to the nutritionist and the feeder of animals. Both TB33 and ARCEO suggest methods of predicting intakes of DM. The data, previously used for comparing the ability of the TB33 and ARC80 models to predict the performance of srowing animals, included a large number of measured intakes for individual animals. These have been used to test the ability ofthe TB33 and ARCB0 models to predict intake of DM. They were compared on the basis ofthe difference between the observed intake (I) and those predicted by the models (I). (a) 7833 ‘The authors of TB33 suggested that for growing cattle, “Roy's (1958) values for DMI may bbe used’. Roy proposed intakes of DM for cattle of 100 to 1000 Ib. Translated to the metric system the figures may be expressed as follows: DMI (kg/d) = (31.4 ~ 0.02 W) W/1000 W = liveweight (kg) (b) ARC80 ARC Technical Review proposes two relationships for predicting DMI of growing cattle. For coarse diets the relationship is: DMI (g/W°"*) = 24.1 + 106.5 aq + 37CDMI and this may be transformed into: DMIGg/W"5) = 24.1 + 106.5 x (M/D)/18.4 + 37 CDMI if the gross energy is assumed to be 18.4 MJ/kg DM. DMI may then be calculated as follows: DMI(kg/d) = X + V(X + 37 CDMI x W°7*/1000) X = 24.1 + 106.5 X qa W/2000 CDMI = concentrate intake (kg DM/d)146 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Coarse diets are defined as those consisting of long or chopped roughages (including grazed herbage) with or without concentrates. For fine diets the proposed relationship is: DMI (¢/W") = 116.8 ~ 46.6 dn which may be transformed into: DMI (@/W"") = 116.8 ~ 46.6 (M/DY/18.4 and DMI may be calculated as follows: DMI (kg/d) = (116.8 ~ 46.6 gq)W°"!/1000 Fine diets are defined as those consisting of concentrates and milled and/or pelletted or wafered roughages, alone or in combination. 13. 12 a4 10 DMI (kg/d) diet = am 208 Coarse cio an 20.8 sa Fine diets - aq = 0-5 + Fine diets - am" 0.8 o—~+ 7833 a a or © 100 200 300 400 500 600 Liveweight (kg) Fig. 55 Dry matter intakes — growing cattleAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 747 5.4.2 Comparison of the models 5.4.3 Experimental Data $43.1 Data Fig 5.5 shows predicted intakes plotted against body weight, for the TB33 model and for the ARC80 ‘models for coarse and fine diets. The lines for the fine diets are for dietary metabolizabilities of 0.5 and 0.6. Those for the coarse diets are for the same ME concentrations but the diets are assumed to consist of hay (qq, = 0.468) and concentrate (qq, = 0.679) and thus hay to concentrate proportions of 0.15 at qq = 0-5 and 0.63 at qq = 0.6. It can be seen that the TB33 model predicts higher intakes than the others, except that for coarse diets of high metabolizability, and at low liveweights. ‘When using the equation for coarse diets, predicted intakes are higher at high ME concentra tions, each increase of 0.05 resulting in an increase of about 17%. With the equation for fine diets on. the other hand, predicted intakes are lower at high dietary ME concentrations, each increase of 1 MJ/kg DM resulting in a decrease of about 2.5% The data consisted of the results of the eight trials, already discussed in the previous sections con- cerned with the prediction of liveweight change. Both coarse and fine diets were included, dietary ME concentrations ranged from 9.2 to 12.6 MJ/kg DM, and liveweights from less than 100 kg to more than 450 kg, 5.4.3.2 Results and Discussion Mean daily intakes of DM were available for individual weeks throughout the feeding periods. Daily DMI were predicted using the TB33 model and the appropriate ARC80 model, using the initial liveweight for day 1. Subsequently intakes were calculated on liveweights adjusted to take account, of the mean observed daily liveweight gain over the period. Differences, (I, ~ 1,) were calculated for oth models on a daily basis and these meaned over the experimental period. The results are summarized in Table 5.20. Table $.20. Summary statistics for data on DMI Source Diet Live. M/D_ Concen- miles) pitference Cpls) weight trate ma on B33 ARC80 B33 ARC80 Lonsdale Coarse 100 123 20 24 29 32 060.2) 091022 Drayon Coarse 340 9.2 90 7.2 83 G1 1.10.43) -1.1 (0.46) Hinks F8 Coarse 420 10.6 17 7.59.7 8S 2.20.56) 1.0(0.48) Hinks F9 Coarse 420 108 21 8.0 9.6 -87—*1.6 (0.85) 0.7 (0.88) Hinks F10 Coarse 410 102 19 79 9.5 831.7066) 0.4 (0.64) Hinks FI Coarse 450 11.2 23 9.2 10.0 9.5 0.90.62) 0.3 0.67) Frood Fine 230«'126 «100 S162 $.1.—«1.10.39) 0.1 (0.32) MLC Fine 470 10.2 S103. 1029.20.04) 1.11.4) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. ‘Onaverage, the ARC80 model predicts an intakeabout I kg/d less than TB33. Thisis consistent with the comparison of the models made previously. Two of the data sets differ from the others. For the Drayton data, the difference between the predictions of the two models is more than 2 kg and in. the case of the Lonsdale data, the ARC prediction is higher than that using the TB33 model. In the former data set, the diets were coarse and of low ME: in the later the diets were of high ME concen- ‘ration and the animals were of low liveweight. Examination of Fig. 5.5 confirms that the predictive models have, in fact, performed as was to be expected for these two data sets. Neither of the two models is consistently a better predictor than the other, but ARC80 has the lower biasin $ out of the & data sets. In one case there is nothing to choose between the models, and in two cases TB33 gives the better prediction. Variability of prediction i similar for both models, so that, when bias and variability are used jointly to assess the methods, the situation remains the same as when bias alone in used. Table 5.21 illustrates the relative merits of the two models. ‘When the data are considered as a whole, predictions based on ARC80 show a bias of 0.1 kg/d, and the model may be considered to be superior to TB33 which, on the same basis, overpredicts by 1.1 kg/d.748 5.5 Recommendations 5.5.1 Choice of a system Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Table 5.21. Root mean square prediction error (RMSPE)* as a percentage of the mean observed dry matter intake 100 x RMSPE/, Data Set B33 ARCBO Lonsdale 28 39 Drayton 16 ” Hinks F8 30 1s Hinks F9 2B 4 Hinks F10 B 10 Hinks FLL 2 8 Frood 2B 1 MLC “4 ” * RMSPE = VBias™ + SD? In a recent study by a Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients (TCORN) Working Party on “The Prediction of Intake by Ruminants under Farm Conditions" three methods of predicting the intake of DM by growing cattle were evaluated against two databases. The three ‘methods we (a) ARC8O (b) The French Fill System, Jartige et af (1979) (©) Lewis (1981) ‘They concluded that the ARC system was the best of the three. Figures for the root mean square prediction error (RMSPE), stated as a percentage of the observed intake of DM, for this system 100 x RMSPE/I, Data Set Large cattle ‘Small cattle 1 84 185 2 25.2 32 ‘The Working Party concluded that such errors were too large to allow the model to be used with any confidence. The prediction errors are somewhat lower in our work than thase quoted by the TCORN Working Party. Nevertheless they confirm the general conclusions of the Working Panty. ‘The average RMSPE, stated as a percentage of the mean observed intake, is about 15 for the ‘ARC80 model and 21 for TB33. This means that 19 out of 20 estimates of DM intake made by the ARC model willlie within + 30% ofthe true figure. For TB33 the figure would be + 40% In practice it would be desirable for estimates of DMI to lie within 10% of the true figure. Usingthe ARC model this would be achieved in the case of only 50% of estimates. The figure for TB33 would be 40% Despite the fact that there was litle to choose between ARC80a and TB33 in their ability to predict the performance of castrated male cattle of medium maturity, itis recommended that the former should be adopted as the basis for calculating energy allowances for ruminants. The major reasons for this are: (a) The data examined by the Working Party and a number of other published works confirm that sex does affect the response of growing animals to inputs of energy. The ARC80 model incorporates a sex correction whereas TB33 does not, (b) These data, and a number of other studies at a more fundamental level, indicate that breed affects the response of growing cattle to inputs of energy. Corrections for maturity class are included in the ARC model but not in TB33. (©) There is abundant evidence that, as the level of input of dietary energy increases, the overall efficiency of its utilization falls. TB33 takes no account of this: the ARC model does. (@) The scientific basis of the ARC models more up-to-date and comprehensive than that of TB33. The fact that our studies have been unable to demonstrate a superior power of prediction for ARC80 does not detract from this. The efficacy of a prediction model is a reflection of the balance of errors in the assumptions made in its onstruction. Only bya continuing updating of the scientific base can it be improved in the long if not the short run.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 709 $.5.2 The System (©) TB33 over simplified the model proposed in ARC Technical Review No. 2 - The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock: Ruminants 1965. The aim in its production was to provide simple methods of formulating rations and predicting animal performance without the need for sophisticated computational facilities. In achieving this end, the original became very inflexible and many of its checks and balances were written out. The proposed ARC80 model restores sophistication and flexibility and updates the basic assumptions. () With the advent of readily available, highly sophisticated calculators, together with general access to a range of micro, mini and mainframe computers, the need for simplifying and minimizing computations has largely been eliminated. (2) The sophisticated highty flexible ARC80 model provides a much better platform for a develop- ing system than does TB33. ‘The errors of a system for predicting animal performance may be defined in terms of the bias (predicted — observed performance) and the standard deviation. The latter, which is a measure of the variability of prediction, is an instrinsic characteristic of the model and cannot be reduced sig icantly without increasing the number and/or the relevance of the parameters upon which the ‘model is based. This function was not considered to be part of the remit of this Working Party but rather of groups such as those set up under the aegis of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, (AFRO), and working at a more fundamental level. ‘The bias may be reduced by changing the magnitude of certain assumptionsin the model. Thus, the degree of overprediction is reducedin the present case if the maintenance component is increased, bby increasing the fasting metabolism, and/or reducing the efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for ‘maintenance. Overprediction may be reduced also by adopting a lower efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for growth, or by increasing the assumed energy value of gain. There isa great danger, in such an approach, that values may be adopted because they change the model in the right direction, and not because oftheir scientific validity. In such cases the resulting model does not forma satisfac- tory base for a developing model, Furthermore, bias may be corrected by the use of empirically derived correction factors which may be changed as updated information is fed into the basic model. ‘The models described below are for housed cattle and are based on the following assumptions: (@) Energy required for maintenance (E,,) E,, (MI/d) = Cy x 0.53 (W/1.08)°* + 0.0071W C 1 for heifers and male castrates = 1.15 for bulls, ‘The activity increment has been increased from 0,0043W to 0.0071 W, since the former was con- sidered to be unrealistically low. The estimates of the energy required for different activities given in ARC Technical Review 1980, were not questioned, but the subjective estimates of the times spent in these activities were. In our case the following assumptions have been made: Time spent standing 12h Number of positional changes = 6 Distance walked = 0.2 km (©) Energy value of deposited oF motilized body tissue (EV,) Ca (4.1 + 0.0332W — 0.000009? EV, (MJ/kg) = 1-C,@.14754W) Cais Maturity Type Castrate Heifer Bull Early Las 130 1.00 Medium 1,00 Las os Late os 1.00 0.70 and C 1 when L > 1 = OwhenL <1 MEL x k, and L. = E,750 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 (©) Efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME (@ Maintenance k, Gi) Growth at twice maintenance ky 0.35 qq + 0.503 78 an + 0.006 i) Growth bg ok [Le ket! TTL 1 kk = IwhenL <1 a= ME/GE Despite the view, expressed originally by the Working Party, that ME concentrations rather than the metabolizabiitis of feeds would be generally available, it was finally concluded that the lattershould be used for calculating efficiencies of utilization dietary ME. This decision was taken because it was felt that the assumption of a common gross energy of 18.4 MJ/kg DM forall foods ‘was not justified. Ibis suggested that, whenever possible, measured gross energies should be taken for calculating metabolizabilty. If this is not possible, eross energies calculated from the proximate composition would be an acceptable alternative: GE (MI/kg) = 0.0226 CP + 0.0407 EE + 0.0192 CF + 0.0177 NFE where CP = crude protein (g/kg) EE = ether extract (g/k8) |ieon> NFE = nitrogen free extractives (g/kg) ‘When neither is available a “book” value could be used, and failing this a value of 18.4MJ/kg DM assumed for all feds except silages. For the latter a value of 19.2 MJ/kg DM should be used. This is the mean of the gross energies of 111 silages analysed by the Edinburgh School of Agricul- ture, the Rowett Research Institute and the Hannah Research Institute. (@)_ Dry matter intakes () Coarse diets: defined as those consisting of long or chopped roughages with or without ‘concentrates. 06.5 7 ws (@, % RDMI + q, x CDM + 5557 x eDMt| 1 TDMI (kg/d) = | 24.1 + TDMI = total dry matter intake CDMI = intake of concentrate dry matter (ke/d) RDMI = intake of roughage dry matter (ke/d) 4, = metabolizability of roughage 4 = metabolzability of concentrate W = liveweight (ks) i Fine diets: defined as concentrates and milled and/or pelleted or wafered roughages, alone or in combination. 1168 - 285 ¢@, x RDMI + a, x CDM) TDMI (kg/d) ona = (©) Incorporation of bias corrections and safety margins. ‘The recommended ARC model was evaluated on the available data for castrated male cattle. The results are given in Table 5.22. Table 5.22. Predictive ability of the recommended model Data Bias SD Source (percent of AW.) (percent of AW.) Frood 90-140 kg. 2 10 140-200 kg. 4 9 200-500 ke 18 1 Hinks F8 19 15 Fo 10 20 Fi0 5 1 Fl 24 B Lonsdale 56 32 MLC 17 24 Drayton, 5 i) NB The final standard deviation is bracketed since itis between experiments and not between animals,AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 751 $.6 Discussion ‘The mean bias is about 15% of the observed weight change, with a standard deviation between experiments of about 10%. When this variability is added to the between animal ‘ability it yields an overall standard deviation of about 20%. ‘There is very litle evidence on which to base a bias for bulls, separate from that for the male ccastrates. The evidence from Frood’s data suggests that the bull correction factors in ARC80 are of the right magnitude, and so the same bias of 15%, as for the castrates, has been adopted. ‘The evidence, from the data of Frood and of Hinks, suggests that the downward correction, of 119% for heifers in the ARC model is too great and that a figure half this is more appropriate, When this is combined with the bias for the castrates it yields a 10%o bias for heifers. These biases can be used to adjust the predictions by the recommended model in order to achieve the right per- formance on average. If a margin of safety is required to be used then standard deviations between. animals must be taken into account. Table 5.23 presents estimates of the corrections which would have to be used to ensure that a designated proportion only of animals would be underfed. Table 5.23. Factors for correcting calculated allowances of metabolizable energy Proportion underfed Correction (%) = Bias + X (SD) % Bulls & Castrates Heifers 50 1s 10 00 40 20 15 02s 30 2s 20 0.82 20 32 2 084 10 41 36 1.28 5 48 43 1.64 25 54 49 1.96 1.0 a 31 233 Examples of the use of the recommended system for calculating allowances of ME, for pre- dicting performance and for ration formulation are given in Appendix 1. When the system is being used full cognizance must be taken of the large variability of prediction in relation to the degree of precision required In practice any system for calculating energy allowances or formulating rations for beef cattle will be concerned mainly with castrated male animals weighing in excess of 200 kg liveweight. It is evident from this review that in these circumstances the ARC and TB33 models predict perfor- mance with a similar degree of accuracy. All 3 models show a similar bias in that they overpredict performance, and the variability of prediction is almost identical for each. Despite this similarity, ‘a modification of the ARC80a model has been proposed for use in rationing energy for growing cattle for reasons already discussed. ‘The proposed model is viewed as another stage in the development of a future system which will more accurately describe the energy needs of the growing animal and how they may be satis- fied. I is possible to reduce the bias of the model by changing certain of the assumptions on which. it is based. For example, the magnitude of the overprediction could be reduced by using a lower, efficiency of utilization of ME for gain, or by increasing the assumed energy value of that gain. In the short term such changes might be considered to be acceptable but, in the longer term could, if made arbitrarily and without hard supporting evidence, be inimical to further development of the model. The use of correction factors applied to the final estimates of allowances ot perfor ‘mance has been preferred. More serious than the bias of the model is the high degree of variability of prediction necessitating the use of very large safety margins to guard against underfeeding. This arises in part from the incomplete nature of the model since it does not incorporate all the factors. needed to describe animal response adequately. In addition, those factors which are taken into ‘account are inaccurately quantified. It has been suggested that a major source of uncertainty is the failure to predict the energy value of liveweight gain accurately. This receives some support from the improved predictive ability of the model when energy values derived from slaughter experiments were used in the analysis of the data of Lonsdale. The employment of correction factors, based on sex and maturity type, in calculating energy allowances, predicting liveweight ‘gain and formulating rations, is commendable but, in neither case have the factors proved satisfac~ tory. The inadequacy of the model in dealing with different breed types was particularly disap- pointing. A more satisfactory method of classifying animals on the basis of maturity type, and of. predicting the energy values of gains for the classes must be forthcoming if the model is to be improved significantly. It is a major weakness of the original ARC proposals that they give no ‘Buidance on a classification of animals on the basis of maturity type.182 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ‘Two further points may merit consideration when attempting to improve the model. Firstly, it assumes a constant allowance of net energy for maintenance, whereas there is evidence that it varies with level of production. Adoption of a variable net energy requirement for maintenance would probably mean that a constant k; value would be used at all levels of production. In any system for predicting performance or formulating rations, the ability to predict DMI accurately is a prerequisite. Of the equations examined by the Working Party, that proposed in ARC Technical Review 1980 was the best predictor. However, the prediction errors were too large for the figures to be used with any confidence. Thus, only $0% of predictions could be expected to be within 10% of the true DMI. More accurate methods of estimating DMI are needed and this. ‘may involve the incorporation of further predictive parameters. In addition accurate estimates of the nutritive values of feeds must be available in order that nutrient intake may be calculated. Lactating Cows Three methods of comparing the predictive ability of the models were used: (@) the intake of ME was calculated, and the requirement for ME for maintenance (M,) plus that. for liveweight change (M,), subtracted. The residual was then stated in terms of kilograms of milk and this was compared with the observed milk yiel (©) the intake of ME was calculated, and the requirement for ME for maintenance and milk pro- duction (M,) subtracted. The residual was then stated in terms of liveweight change and this compared with the observed valu (©) the intake of ME was calculated. The requirement for ME for maintenance, plus milk pro- duction, plus liveweight change (Maj) was then compared with the observed intake. 6.1 Calculation of the observed liveweight change (AW,) ‘The mean daily liveweight change for each ani divided by the number of days in the period. al was calculated from the change for the period. 6.2 Calculation of the observed milk yield (Yq) ‘The mean daily yield of milk for each animal was calculated from the total yield for the period divided by the number of days in the period. 6.3 Calculation of the predicted liveweight change (AW,) 6.3.1 General ‘The daily energy balance in the lactating cow may be represented as follows: Ey YXEV, | AWXEY, =¢,| 22+ eR AWIXIENG MEI = C, [E ee MEI = ME of ration (MJ/d) E, = energy for maintenance (MJ/d) k. =e 7 jency of utilization of dietary ME for maintenance EV, = energy value of deposited or mobilized body tissue (MJ/ks) =el iency of utilization of dietary ME for liveweight change = liveweight change (ke/d) EV, = energy value of milk (MJ/kg) k, = efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for mil production Y= yield of milk (kg/d) nn factor for level of feedingAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 753 (a) 7833 E,(MJ/d) = $.7 + 0.0624 w = liveweight (ke) kn = 0.72 EV\(MI/kg) = 0.0386F + 0.02058 — 0.236 F = fat content of milk (g/kg) s = solids-not-fat content of milk (g/ke) ky = 0.62 EV\(MI/kg) = 20 k, = ky if AW is positive By rearrangement of the balance equation, liveweight change may be calculated as follows: ay [wer Es 2E) (ance E,(MJ/d) = 0.53 (W/1.08)"" + 0.0043 W accents me MUD’ = conctrton of dey ME (44g DN EV\(MJ/kg) = 1.509 + 0.0406 F eee otto EV (MJ/kg) = 27.36 k, = ky if AW is positive hy i = pyif AWisnegative YX EV, , AW x EV) ki ca a ao The ble equnton may be witen a meron = [2 +224] [pa rx] where ¥X EV, X ky P= 140. + 0.018 x k, P, = 00018 x EV, x M XEV XE YX EV, K P.=EV, This is a quadratic equation in AW, for which the solution is: #) Pare) (096-3)154 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 6.4 Calculation of predicted milk yield (¥,) (@) 7833 Milk yield may be calculated by rearranging the energy balance equation as follows: vase (i (&) ARc80 ‘The energy balance equation may be written as: MEL(MI/€) = (a +Qx xt) (a +x AW X EV, k, where Q, = 1 + 0.018 x SEN: Sa = 1 + 0018 x SEES x Fe Q = 0.018 x EV, x AW x EV, x, Q=EV, This is a quadratic equation in Y, for which the solution is: vase -[(028( +8) - Cara) O9(8 6.5 Calculation of the predicted ME requirement for maintenance and production (Mayoy)) 6.6 Experimental data Gener The predicted ME required to support sven level of production may be clued as follows: Eq VEY) AWXEY, Mayoi03/8) = G, (E+ LEN: , 24x EM) i (a) 7833 En Mapoi(M/d) = 8, YxEV, | Wx20 0.62 Ky where E,, EV, and k, are as defined in 6.3(a) (&) ARC8O _ (Em, YX EV, | WEY, Mapip(MI/A) = @ ta where Eqs Km» EVs, ky» EV,, Cy, and ky are as defined in 6.3.(b) ‘The data consisted of 3 large bodies of results from different centres. They included a wide range of diets: silage plus a variety of supplements offered separately, silage plus a variety of supple- ments given as mixed complete diets, and mixed diets of hay plus different proportions of concen- trate supplements offered separately. 6.6.1 Data from the Animal and Grassland Research Institute 6.6.1.1 Data ‘The data were collected from 6 experiments, conducted between 1974 and 1982, on animals selected from a herd of autumn calving British Friesian dairy cows. A total of 186 animals were involved, of which 122 were adult cows and 64 were heifers. Details of the animals and the diets are given in Table 6.1AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 155 Table 6.1 Details of animals and diets (AGRI data) Weeks of Number of animals Trial Forage ‘Supplements lactation Cows Heifers 1 Grass silage Milled and pelleted grass 4:20 Ey 2 2 Grass silage Grass + rolled barley pellets 418 Bo 3 Grass silage Pellets of maize + 422 ory 16 (@) soyabean meal (b) urea 4 Maize silage Soyabean meal + rolled 12 18 2 barley + flaked maize + molassine meal mix Rolled barley-soyabean 418 “w= meal mix 6 — Cloverand Rolled barley + soyabean 329 - 2 grass silage meal ‘The liveweights of the cows remained relatively constant over the years with a mean of 579 kg. The mean liveweight of the heifers increased from $00 to 534 kg. Intakes of forage and supplement DM were recorded daily for individual animals and mean ‘weekly intakes calculated. The digestible energy (MJ/kg DM), or the digestible organic matter (g/kg DM) of all but 2 of the individual forages were measured in vivo using animals selected from those on trial ‘The ME of the diets was calculated, using whichever of the following equations was appropriate: ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.789 DE + 0.46 ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.01554 DOMD + 0.899 In the case of the 2 materials for which in vivo data were not available, ME was calculated from digestible organic matter in DM measured in vitro, using whichever of the 2 following equa- tions was appropriate: Grass silage: ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.0151 DOMD + 0.54 Legume silage: ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.017 DOMD ‘The ME of the supplements was calculated from the diges vitro, using the following equation: le organic matter measured in ME(MI/kg DM) = 0.0149 DOMD + 1.14 Liveweights were recorded at weekly intervals throughout the experimental period, Milk yield was recorded daily and a mean daily yield calculated for each week. Samples of ‘milk were taken on 2 consecutive days each week and bulked to give a weekly composite. Samples were analysed for fat, protein, lactose and ash content. The yield of solids corrected milk (SCM) was calculated according to the equation of Tyrrell and Reid (1965): SCM (kg) = 12.3F + 6.56SNF ~ 0.0752M in which F, SNF and M are kilograms of fat, solids-not-fat and milk, respectively. 6.6.1.2 Results and Discussion Predictions of liveweight change, milk yield and the ME required for maintenance and pro- duction were made for individual treatment groups on a weekly basis. These are compared with values calculated from recorded data, in Fig. 6.1, and the overall posit Table 6.2.156 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ive abil ‘Table 6.2. Comparison of the pre: y of the TB33 and ARC80 models ME for maintenance Liveweight change ‘and production (ke/ay (sya) Yy ~ Yo AW, ~ AW, Maser’ Mapior Y. 733" ARC8O AW, TB33" ARCSO B33" ARC8O ws 25 23 004 0.44 0.32 1690.93 0.94 1.02) 1.09) (0.20) @.14) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations between weeks and treatment groups. Both models overpredict milk yield by about 12% and both show a similar variability of predic- jon. In terms of energy retained in milk, the overprediciton is 7.83 MJ/d by TB33 and 7.25 MJ/d by ARCBO. As with milk yield, liveweight gain is overpredicted, and liveweight loss underpredicted, by both models. However, the differences between observed and predicted values are, relatively, much. greater, being 11 and 8 times the observed values for TB33 and ARC80, respectively. ‘When predicted and observed metabolizable energy requirements are used for comparing the models they are found to overpredict performance by about 6 and 7% 6.6.2 Data from The Edinburgh School of Agriculture (ESA) 6.6.2.1 Data ‘The data consisted of 3 years’ observations on cows from the “Elite Herd” of British Friesian cattle at Langhill Farm near Edinburgh. Results were available for 39 adult cows in 1980 and 40 in each of 1981 and 1982, and represented the first 30 weeks of lactation in each case. Mean liveweights of the cows were 650, 665 and 640 kg in 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively, and mean daily yields of milk were 26.8, 27.7 and 27.2 kg. The animals were offered complete diets consisting of grass lage, brewers’ grains and aconcentrate mix, inthe first year. In years 2and 3, 1.6kg of concentrate were fed in the parlour, and the remainder inthe complete mix, offered a libitum as inthe first year. Intakes of DM were measured for individual animals, 4 days in each week, and the mean recorded asthe daily intake forthe week. Samplesof the det were taken each week and the digestible organic matter measured in vitro. ME content of the diet (MJ/kg DM) was calculated as DOMD X 0.016. Mean weekly ME energy content was combined with mean daily intake for that week, to give a mean daily intake of ME for the week. Liveweights were recorded at weekly intervals throughout the experimental period lk yields were recorded for individual animals on one day in each week. Samples ofthe milk of individual cows were analysed for fat, protein, lactose and ash, on one day per month in the first year, and fortnightly in the sezond and third years. 6.6.2.2 Results and Discussion Predictions of liveweight change, milk yield, and the ME required for maintenance and production, were made for individual animals on @ daily basis and compared with the observed values. The data are summarized in Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Comparison of the predictive ability of the two models over the three years ME for maintenance Milk yield Liveweight change and production ee/d) e/a) (re) ¥, - ¥. aw, - AW, Mav>/Mayeo 7B33 ARC8O AW, TB33_ ARC8O Masi _TB33. ARC8O 72019 13 0.08 0.28 0.15 216 0.96097 @) G2) (0.55) (0.40) (0.09) (0.09) Ni igures in parentheses are average standard deviations between animals within years Both models overpredict milk yield to a similar extent, although ARC80 is the better of the 2, with an overprediction of less than 5% compared with almost 7% for TB33. Variability of predic- tion is practically identical for the 2 models. In terms of energy retained in milk, the overpre is 6.2 MJ/d for TB33 and 4.2 MJ/d for ARC8O. ‘As with milk yield, liveweight gainis overpredicted by both models, but the differences between the observed and predicted values are, relatively, much greater: the predicted values bi 1,9 times the observed, for TB33 and ARC8O, respectivelyAFRC Technical Committee on Responses o Nutrients 137 ‘When predicted and observed ME requirements are used to compare the models, the over predictions of performance are 4 and 3% for TB33 and ARCO, respectively. ‘The overprediction in these data confirms the results from AGRI, discussed in the previous section. In the present case, the degree of overprediction is smaller, but the variability of predic- tion is considerably higher. The latter is not unexpected in view of the fact that it represents between animal, rather than between group, differences. When examined on a year by year basis the data showed differences between years as illustrated in Table 6.4. Table 6.4. Comparison of the predictive ability of the TB33 and ARC80 models on a year by year bass ME for maintenance Milk yield Liveweight change and production (kg/d) kg/d) (MJ/d) ¥, ~ Yo AW, - AW, Magoy/M Year Y, _TB33_ ARC80 ‘AW, TB33_ ARC8O May TB33 ARCEO 180 ~«6BSCSCO 0190.60 0.37 m5 052 093 @)_ 60 (0.66) (0.48) (0.19) @.1) a ee 219-098 0.95 GB.) GB.) 0.53) (0.38) (0.08) (0.09) i ~~. 02-08 0.06 -0.10 -0.13 303 101-102 7) @7) 0.46) (0.35) (0.07) (0.07) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. ‘Thus, year 1 and 2 show the typical overprediction of performance whereas, in the predicted and observed performance are in remarkably good agreement. ‘A more detailed examination of the data was undertaken, with each experimental period being divided into 6 sub-periods of $ weeks. Prediction biases together with their standard de tions (in parentheses) are given for ARC80 in Table 6.5. year, Table 6.5. Effect of stage of lactation on the accuracy of predic jon of the ARC80 model Weeks in Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Mean lactation Y,-Y. AW,-AW, Yo-Y, AWyrAWy Yo-Yo AW,-AW, Yo-Yo AW,-AW, 0-5 1S 025-17 021-53. -0.79 1.8 -0.25 6D 074 — 4.8) 0.6) (5.1)_—(0.79) 6-10 =0.5 =0.08 17 023-34 -040 0.6 = 0.08 5.8) 0.66) 5.8) 0.76) (5.0) (0.67) 1s 42 0.49 1S 0.20 23 0.28 27 032 73) 084) = 56) 0.72), 4.8) 0.56) 16-20 S062 28 0.38 29 0.37 36 0.46 1) O77) 4.5) 57) 5.2) 0.67) 21-25 4.7 059 27° 036-09 =0.13 22 0.27 55) 0.69) 4.1) 0.52) 44) (0.56) 26-30 35 0.44 47° 059-02 ~0.03 27 0.33 48) 06) 68) 0.4) 49) 0.63). Figures in parentheses are standard de It can be seen that the mean data over the 30-week period conceal important effects of stage of lactation. The mean figures for the 3 years show that performance is underpredicted in the first 'S weeks and that, during weeks 6 to 10, agreement between predicted and observed performance is very good. Subsequently performance is overpredicted. During the first 2 years there is good agreement between observed and predicted performance in the first 10 weeks and there is then an increasing overprediction for the remainder of the lacta tion. The good overall agreement between predicted and observed performance in the third year conceals considerable underprediction in early lactation. This is followed by overpredietion during the middle 10 weeks and good agreement in the final period. Similar effects were observed with the TB33 model. Variability of prediction for the 5-week sub-periods was markedly greater than for the full 30 weeks.758 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 6.6.3 Data from the National Institute for Research in Dairying (NIRD) 6.6.3.1. Data The data consisted of a total of 6 years’ observations on cows from the Institute herd of Friesian cattle. Results were available for 136 animals and covered the first 30 weeks of lactation in each case. Mean liveweight of the cows was 554 kg and mean yield of milk over the 30-week period was 20.2 kg, The animals were offered diets consisting of hay plus a concentrate supplement offered separately, in the proportions of 40: 60, 25:75 and 10:90 on a DM basis. The diets were offered ‘ad libitum, ot at a “high” or “‘medium’” level of feeding. Intakes of DM were measured on 3 days ineach week, for each animal, and the mean recorded as the daily intake for that week. The digesti- ble energy of each diet was measured in vivo, using animals selected from those on trial. ‘The ME of the diets was calculated using the following equation: ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.789 DE + 0.46. ‘These were used, in conjunction with the weekly mean daily DM intakes, to calculate a mean daily intake of ME for the week. Liveweights were recorded for each animal, on 3 days in each week throughout the experimental period. Milk yield was recorded daily anda mean daily yield calculated for each week. Samples of milk were taken from each milking on 2 days per week and bulked for analysis. 6.6.3.2 Results and Discussion Predictions of liveweight change, milk yield, and ME requirement for maintenance and production, were made for individual animals on a daily basis and compared with the observed values. The data are summarised in Table 6.6. Table 6.6. Comparison of the predictive ability of the models Milk yield Liveweight change ME for maintenance and kg/d) kg/d) production (MI/A) Yo-Yo AW oy-A Wo) Mooi Mago) Yq __TB33" ARC AW _TB33.” ARC80_— May) TB33._ ARCO ya 18-28 00808200 Ga) (2.8) (0.47) (0.31) (0.09) (0.09) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations. Both models underpredict milk yield to a similar extent. TB33 is slightly the better of the 2, With a bias of almost 9% compared with more than 12% for ARC80. Variability of prediction is. similar for both models but ARCBOis slightly the better. As with milk yield, liveweight gain is under- predicted by both models, but the differences between observed and predicted values are, relatively, ‘much greater, being up to 4 times the observed change. ‘When predicted and observed ME requirements are used to compare the models, the under- predictions of performance are 6 and 10% for TB33 and ARC8O, respectively. ‘A more detailed examination of the data was undertaken, each experimental period being divided into 6 sub-periods of 5 weeks. Prediction biases and standard deviations (in parentheses) are given for the ARC80 model in Table 6.7. Table 6.7. Effect of stage of lactation on the accuracy of prediction of the ARC80 model ‘Weeks in lactation Yo ‘AW,-AW, 0-5 =44 0.58 43) (0.60) 6-10 -54 0.62 2) 0.49) nis -25 -0.27 a9) 0.33) 16-20 -2.0 -0.20 4.2) 0.45) 21-25 0.4 0.03 43) 0.50) 26-30 -01 0.00 an (0.48) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.AFRC Technical Commitiee on Responses 10 Nutrients 139 The trends are similar to those obtained using the Edinburgh data, discussed in the previous section. The average prediction bias for milk yield, of ~2.5kg, conceals considerable under- prediction in early lactation, coupled with diminishing differences between predicted and observed values as lactation progresses. The bias for liveweight change shows the same trend. The standard deviations are again larger than those for the 30-week period. The figures for the TB33 model show similar effects to those for ARC80. The data were used to investigate the effect of the 9 feeding treatments on the accuracy of prediction of the 2 models. The results are given in Table 68. When the diets were offered ad libitum, at intakes of ME between 160 and 166 MJ/d, there was slight overprediction. All 3. methods of comparison showed good agreement between predicted and observed performance, in the case of both models. As the intake of dietary ME fell to about 120 MJ/d, and particularly when the proportion of concentrate in the diet was high, both ‘models showed an increasing degree of underprediction. Table 6.8. Effect of feeding treatments on accuracy of prediction Milk yield Liveweight change ME for maintenance and Proportion tke/d) (kg/d) production (MJ/d) of Yo-Yo ‘AW,-AW, Main Meg Treatment concentrate, B33.’ ARC80 AW, —_—TB33." ARC80 — Mrpo) TB33, ARC8O Ad libitum 0.60 99 13 03 006° «0.14 O14 0.97.0 0.75 28 08 05 0.26 © 0.03 -0.08 «= 160 0.991.083 0.90 B4 OL -12 045-003 -O11 166 = 1.00 1.08 High enersy 0.60 2-03-12 0.10 -016 142 LOL 1.05 0.15 28 -18 -24 0.04 -030 1431.06 1.10 0.90 24-34-4008 -039° 1360 L104 Medium energy 0.60 1666-28-31 -0.1 -040 1200 2S 0.75 1840-37-38 -0.16 -045 100 LIS 16 0.90 206 -SS -56 — -0.06 6.7 Dry matter intake 6.7.1, Introduction 6.1.2. Prediction equations -059 17120 The importance of being able to predict an animal's intake has been discussed previously (Section 5.4). Both TB33 and ARC8O suggest methods of predicting DMI by lactating cows. Work on. testing these equations on the dairy cow data from AGRI was carried out for this Working Party by Neal, Thomas and Cobby. Their results, which include an examination of 5 other equations, hhave been published (Neal ef al. 1984). The TCORN Working Party on the Prediction of Intake by Ruminants under Farm conditions incorporated these data in an interim report, but eliminated the equation proposed by Bines t al. (1977) and included instead, the French Fill system. In adi tion they analysed the results from the Langhill data included in our analysis of the predictive ability of the TB33 and ARC80 models. Data from AGRI comprised intakes of cows given forage and supplements separately, whereas at Langhill they were offered mixed complete diets. (a) 7833 ‘The equation, for predicting DMI by lactating cows, suggested by the authors of TB33 was: TDMI (kg/d) = 0.025 W +0.1Y TDMI = total DML Y silk yield (kg/d) w liveweight (ke) (b) ARC8O ARC Technical Review No. 2 proposed that estimates of DMI should be based on an average daily intake of 135 g/kgW*”* over the whole lactation, for a cow with a lactation yield of $000 kg of fat, corrected milk. Adjustments were introduced for the effect of yield and month of lactation. The equation was then as follows: ‘TDMI (kg/d) = (0.135W"" + 0.2(¥ — Yeoea(t))] F160 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ‘week n when total lactation yield = $000 kg © = 0.08 Y = yield (kg/d) in lactation week F adjustment for month of lactation ).81 for month 1: 0,98 for 2: 1.07 for 3: 1.08 for 4: 1.09 for $: 1.08 for 6: 1.01 for 7: 0.99 for 8: 0.97 for 9: 0,93 for 10. (©) Vadiveloo and Holmes (1979) @ ven TDMI (kg/d) = 0.076 + 0.404 CDMI + 0.013 W ~ 0.129n + 4.12Iogn + 0.14 (iy vB ‘TDMI (kg/d) = 0.43 CDMI + 0.015 W ~ 0.095n + 4.04 logn + 0.208 ¥ ~ 4.14 TDMI = total DMI CDMI = intake of concentrate (kg DM/d) a week of lactation (@) Lewis (1981) 1(g/kgw""4) intake of silage DM when fed alone DM content of silage (g/kg) digestible organic matter content of silage (g/kg DM) trogen content of silage (g/kg TN) 0.103 DM + 0.0516 DOMD ~ 0.05 N + 45 TN = total nitrogen content of silage (g/kg DM) SDMI (kg/d) = (1.068 1 — 0.00247 1C — 0.00337 C? — 10.9) W°"/1000 + 0.00178 ¥? SDMI = intake of silage DM c intake of concentrate DM (g/kgW°") Y yield of fat corrected milk (kg/d) 6.7.3 Assessment of equations ‘Theindividual equations were evaluated on the basis ofthe calculated Mean Square Prediction Error (MSPE). This is the sum of the square of the bias plus the square of the deviation from unity of the slope of the regression of the observed on the predicted values plus the random variation about the regression line. In this case they are the errors of prediction of the intake of individual cows. ‘The results of the statistical assessment are summarised in Table 6.9 in which errors are stated in terms of the RMSPE. Table 6.9. Statistical assessment of equations for predicting dry matter intake Observed Data intake (ke/a) AGRI ESA Equation AGRI ESA RMSPE Bias RMSPE _Bias VAI 153 19.2 1.46 =0.32 (1) 198 —0.35 2) vE3 140 188 167 +0.92 3) 196 -0.01 4) Lewis 15.4 18.4 1.38 =0.40 (2) 2.53 0.10.3) TB33 15.8 18.8 182 = 0.86 (4) 2.79 -0.29(4) ARCRO 15.8 193 2.00 = 0.83 (5) 2.98 0.805) NB_ Figures in parentheses are rankings. ‘The RMSPE of the intakes of individual cows in the AGRI data were about 1.7 kg/d (11% of the mean). Errors were lower for heifers and for those equations which took account of stage of lactation, level of concentrate feeding or characteristics of the forage. This was particularly so jn early lactation when errors tended to be highest. Intakes in the ESA data were higher than in those from AGRI and so were the errors. The ranking of the equations was different with the VHI and VH3 being equally good and that of L slipping from second to third place and having a greatly increased error. In both sets of data variability accounted for a greater part of the error than bias and there was evidence for a between, years effect. ‘AS might have been expected, the best equations were those derived from data obtained with diets similar to those on which they were tested. They were also those which took cognizance of dietary factors and physiological state.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 761 6.8 Recommendations 6.8.1 Choice of a system 6.8.2. The System ‘The best equation over both sets of data was VE] and itis proposed that it should be adopted in preference to the basically similar VH3 and to the TB33 and ARC80 equations. It does not, however, take account of either the nutritional or the fermentation quality of the forage and this was considered to be, potentially, a major disadvantage in practice. The data from which the equa- tion was derived covered a wide range of nutritional quality but only in one sub-set was it shown ificant effect on intake. Preservation quality was not considered as a factor affecting intake, in this analysis. In the test data, nutritional quality was uniformly high and the equation, ‘was not seriously challenged. A more serious criticism was that neither the original, nor the test data, included a range of fermentation quality and, in particular, there were no silages with very poor fermentations. The Lewis equation was derived from data which covered a wide range of both, nutritional and fermentation quality and includes parameters which take account of both. From this point of view it would be preferable to VH1. However, although it performs equally well on the AGRI dataitissignificantly poorer than V1 when applied to that from Langhll. Furthermore, ‘because of its origin, itis strictly applicable to silage based diets only. It is proposed that equation, VEL be used for diets in which forages and concentrates are given together and for diets based on hays, straws and well preserved silages in which concentrates are given separately. For mixed diets based on silage, the Lewis equation also may be used. (a) Judged on the basis of the 3 criteria used in our comparisons i.e. ability to predict milk yield, liveweight change and ME requirement, the ARC model is superior to that of TB33. (b) As discussed in Section 5.6.1 the need for simplification to ease the burden of calculation no longer exists and the refinements of the ARC80 model are not a bar to its adoption. () The assumptions on which the ARCB0 model is based are the products of updated research com- pared with those of ARC6S, from which the TB33 model was developed. As a result, it is more soundly based. In addition it is extremely flexible and it thus provides a sound platform for a developing system of energy allowances. (@) The ARC80 equation for predicting intake was the poorest of those tested. ‘The general philosophy of the Working Party in producing a system of energy allowances, has been ‘outlined in Section $.6.2. ‘The models described below are for cows kept under normal loose housing conditions. The basic assumptions are as follows (a) Energy required for maintenance (Eq) E,(MJ/d) = 0.53 (W/1.08)"*" + 0.0001 W The activity increment has been increased from 0.0043 W to 0.0091 W, since the former estimate was considered to be unrealistically low. The estimates of the energy required for different activities given in ARC80 are not questioned, but the subjective estimates of the times spent in these activities. are. Our proposed figure of 0.0091 W is based on the following assumptions: Time spent standing Mh Number of positional changes = 9 Distance walked 0.Skm (b) Energy value of milk (EV) ARC80 proposes the following equation for calculating the energy value of milk: EV,(MJ/kg) = 1.509 + 0.0406 F where F = fat content of milk(g/ks), The equation, which was derived by Tyrrell and Reid (1965), had a standard error of estimate of 0.089 MJ/kg. More accurate assessments may be obtained using the following equations, also given by these authors: EV\(MI/kg) = 0.0384 F + 0.0223 P + 0.0199L ~ 0.108 Standard error of estimate = 0.035 EV\(MJ/kg) = 0.0376F + 0.0209 P + 0.948 Standard error of estimate = 0.066 EV\(MJ/kg) = 0.0386 F + 0.0206 SNF ~ 0.2353, Standard error estimate = 0.037762 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 where P = protein content of milk (g/kg) ‘SNF = solids-not-fat content of milk (g/kg) L = lactose content of milk (g/kg). ‘Nowadays milk producers are provided with, or may obtain, information on the detailed composi tion of their product. The equation which has the lowest standard error of estimate, and for which the relevant information is available, should be used for calculating the energy value of milk. ‘When the composition of the milk is not available the energy values given in Table 6.10 may be used, but with considerable reservations. ‘Table 6.10. Energy values (MJ/kg) of milks of different breeds Breed EY, Ayrshire 3.07 Friesian 3.00 Guernsey 3.34 Jersey 3.50 Fat corrected 3.13 Average 297 (6) Energy value of deposited or mobilized body tissue EV, ‘The value of 26 MI/kg proposed in ARCO is accepted, but for convenience in calculation is taken a5 27.36, see EY, in (¢) below. (2) Efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME for various functions () Maintenance (ka) 35quq + 0.503 (i) Milk production ¢k,) ky = 0.38, + 0.42 (Gi Liveweight gain (k) ky = 0.95k, (iv) The efficiency of utilization of the energy of mobilized body tissue for milk production is assumed to be 0.84. NB qq = ME/GE. Suggestions for estimating GE are given in Section 5.5.2.¢.( (©) Correction for level of feeding (C.) ¥ c= toons (E 0 = 0.7 when E, <0 EMI/d) = EV, x AW The equation ina) and (2) above may be rearranged o allow prediction of lvewight change at {(c) Ewes carrying one lamb (1.2 + 0.05) ky ‘AWw(ke/d) = MEI — a x3 (4) Ewes carrying more than one lamb 0.8 + 0.08W)e° ‘AW(kg/d) = MEI ~ is xzAERC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 169 8.23 ARC8O0 E,(MJ/A) = 0.226(W/1.08)"" + 0.0106W ke 0.019M/D + 0.503 E.(MJ/d) = 0.25W, [0.07372 exp( — 0.006431)] [1029224 972+s9¢-2.006830) W, = birthweight of the lamb/lambs (ks) t= day of gestation k, = 0.133 AWke/d) = EV,(MJ/kg) = 26 _& k/ka) ren ‘ - ~ kik Shen? | = ke when L <1 ky = 0.0824M/D + 0.006 L 824 ARCBO ‘The model used was as described for ARC80a except in 2 particulars: (a) efficiencies of ulization of dietary ME were related to metabolizability ofthe ration rather than, its ME concentration, (b) different equations were used for calculating efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, depend- ing upon the type of diet being fed. Efficiencies were thus calculated according to the equations given below: ‘Type of diet ke ky Mixed diets O.21qq + 0.623 0.38q,, + 0.282 Pelleted diets O.21qq, + 0.568 0.024g,, + 0.465 8.3 Experimental data ‘The data consisted of the results of 3 experiments. In the first the diet was based on hay, in the second on silage, and in the third the diet was pelleted. A wide range of ewe weights and litter size was covered. Details of the individual sets of data are given below. 8.3.1 Data of Orr and Treacher—GRI 83.11 Data ‘The animals consisted of 72 Masham (Teeswater x Dalesbred) ewes, of which 31 were carrying 2 Jambs, 35 were carrying 3 lambs and 6 were carrying 4 lambs. The mean initial liveweight of the ewes, after allowance had been made for the concepta, was 71 kg. The experiment covered the period from day 106 of gestation to immediately after lambing. ‘The diets were based on one of 3 hays, with organic matter digestibilities in vitro of 0.52, 0.69 and 0.84. These were offered ad libitum together with a concentrate atthe rate of 0, 450 or 900 g/d. ‘The concentrate was a mixture of barley, soyabean meal and fish meal, formulated to give a crude protein content of 160 g/kg DM, with 30 g CP/kg DM derived from the fish meal. The ME of the hhays was calculated from the content of digestible organic matter in DM measured in vitro, using the following equation: ME(MJ/kg DM) = 0.017 DOMD in vitro ~ 1.1 ‘The ME value of the concentrate was estimated from its formulation and tabulated values for the individual constituent feeds. A value of 12.5 MJ/kg DM was adopted. Ewes were weighed at 2 weekly intervals from the start of the experiment until after they had lambed. Refusals of feed were collected, for each animal, daily. Those for each ewe were bulked weekly, and dried and weighed to provide estimates of weekly DMI. Daily intakes of ME were calculated from the ME of the hays and the concentrates, and the calculated mean daily DMI for a given week70 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 8.3.1.2 Results and Discussion 83.2 83.24 Table 8.1. Comparison of three prediction models Mean initial liveweight (kg) mM Mean MEI (MI/@) 48 Mean M/D 106 ‘Mean litter weight (kg) 86 Mean AW, (@/d) 3 Mean bias (AW, ~ AW,) ‘TB33 85(82) ARC80a 29(90) ARC80b- 36(89) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations A113 models overpredict liveweight gain. The2 ARC models have smaller biases and marginally greater variability of prediction than TB33. When judged on both criteria the ARC models are superior. Neither of the ARC models could be regarded as being better than the other. The data allowed a comparison between the predictive abilities of the models when applied to different hays and levels of concentrate feeding, Table 8.2. Effect of hay quality and level of concentrate feeding on the predictive abilities of the models, Bias (g/d) Treatment (aw, - AW.) Hay quality Concentrate (@/6) B33 ‘ARC80a ARCH Low 0 132(75) 146(83) 152(80) Low 450 2205) - 9478) 4) Low 900 60(87) 6(85) 1382) Medium 0 123(79) 7283) 83(82) Medium 450 351100) 2185) 10486) Medium 900, 748) 8(63) 18(63) High ° 10363) 23166) 269) High 450 94079) 20086) 26186) High 900 86(119) 1116) 12(116) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations It would appear that biases tend to be smaller for high quality hay and at higher levels of con- centrate input. When variability is taken into account as well (RMSPE) these tendencies are not evident, Data of Newton and Orr—GRI ‘The animals consisted of 32 Masham (Teeswater x Dalesbred) ewes, of which 8 were carrying one lamb, 9 were carrying 2 lambs and 13 were carrying 3. The mean initial liveweight of the ewes, after allowance had been made for the concepta, was 84 kg. The experiment covered the period from day 99 of gestation to immediately after lambing ‘The diets were made up of silage offered ad libitum together with increasing amounts of con- centrate up to 650 g/d. The ME of the silage was calculated from the organic matter digest in vitro, using the following equation. ME(MI/kg OM) = 2.97 + 13.7 OMD in vitro. ‘The concentrate was barley based, and had an organic matter digestibility (OMD) in vitro of 0.847. ME was calculated using the following equation. ME(MI/kg OM) = 2.95 + 12.6 OMD in vitro ‘Consumption of silage was measured by drying and weighing daily refusals of feed, for indi- ‘vidual animals. The concentrate ration was at all imes consumed initsentirety. Intakes of ME were calculated by summing the products of the daily DMI and ME concentration, for the silage and the concentrate. Liveweights were recorded weekly from the start of the experiment until after lambing.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients ™ 8.3.2.2. Results and Discussion Table 8.3. Comparison of three prediction models reweight (kg) 84 ‘Mean MEI (M3/d) 17 ‘Mean M/D_ 23 Mean litter weight 10.7 ‘Mean AW, (g/d) -51 Mean bias (AW, ~ AW.) ‘TB33 36 (63) ARC80a ~ 56 (63) ARC80b = 3263) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations ‘The ARC80 models underpredict performance and TB33 overpredicts and is slightly superior tothe other 2, The 2 ARC models give virtually identical predictions, which indicates that changes, in ky, and ky, resulting from the use of the ‘mixed diets”” equation, along with metabolizabilty, for calculating efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, have balanced each other. 8.3.3 Data of Russel, Foot and White - HFRO 83.3.1 Data ‘The animals consisted of 47 Scottish Blackface ewes of 18 months of age. All were carrying single lambs. The mean initial liveweight of the ewes, after allowing for the estimated weight of the con- cepta, was 43 kg. The experiment covered the period from day 37 of gestation to immediately after lambing. The diet was pelleted and contained 30% of chopped straw. It contained 142 g/kg DM. of crude protein and 10 MJ/kg DM of ME. Ewes were weighed weekly from the start of the experi- ‘ment until after they had lambed. Intakes of feed were restricted and recorded daily for the indi- vidual animals. 8.3.3.2 Resulis and Discussion Table 8.4. Comparison of three prediction models, ‘Mean initial liveweight (ka) a Mean MEI (MJ/a) 17 Mean M/D 10.0 Mean litter weight (kg) 4 Mean AW, (g/d) 2» Mean bias (AW, ~ AW.) TBS -13. 40) ARCB0a 36 (36) ARC80b -35.67 NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations All 3 models underpredict performance but B33 is superior to the ARC models. The latter behave almost identically owing to the fact that the changes in the efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, consequent upon using the "pelleted diets” equation, appear to have cancelled each other out. Within the data there were the results of 2 experiments in each of which a high and low level of feeding was imposed. The predictive abilities of the 3 models assessed on a group basis are summarised in Table 8.5 Table 8.5. Effect of level of feeding on the predictive abilities of the models Level of AW, Bias (AW, - AW.) Experiment feeding (w/a) B33 ‘ARC80a ARCB0b 1 High’ 26(21) 6.51) = 142) = 1302) Low 29(20) = 42045) ~ 68(21) 69021) 2 High 35(20) 26(23) = 621) = 402) Low 24023) = 3923) ~ 68(23) — 69023) Figures in parentheses are standard deviations Predictions are, on the whole, good at high feeding levels but there is very considerable under- prediction at the lower levels.m 8.4 Dry matter intake 8.5. Recommendations 85.1 Choice of system Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Table 8.6. Comparison of three prediction models over three experiments (g/d) Experiment TB33 ARC80a ARCEOb 1 85(82) 29(90) 36(89) 2 36(63) ~ $6(63) = 52(63) 3 = 13(40) -36(36) = 3567) Mean 36 -2 -17 NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations ‘ARC80 makes no recommendation concerning the prediction of DMI by pregnant ewes. ‘Orr and Treacher (1984) proposed the following relationship for predicting the intake of hay in mixed diets: HOMI(g/a) COMI + 5.96 COMI? + 2058 HOMD — 1.875(COMI x HOMD) — 140.5 LS + 0.184(COMI x LS) - 14.6T — 0.047(COMI x W,) + 16.8, ~ 846 Neal et al. (1985) produced an alternative linear equation from the same data: HOMI = COMI(1.9 ~ 0.0767 - 1.87 HOMD) + 2069 HOMD ~ 88 LS + 17.4 W, HOMI = intake of hay organic matter (g/d) COMI = intake of concentrate organic matter (g/d) HOMD = organic matter digestibility of hay (g DOM/g OM) = 1325 % iveweight of ewe 8 weeks before lambing (ke) Ls itter size T eek of pregnancy ‘This has been transformed to the following recommended equation HDMI (kg/d) = CDMI(1.9 ~ 0.076 T - 0,002033 DOMD) + 0.002444 DOMD — 0.09565 LS + 0.01891 Wy ~ 1.44 HDMI = intake of hay DM (kg/d) CDMI_ = intake of concentrate DM (kg/d) DOMD = digestible organic matter in DM (e/ke) For ewes on diets of silage and concentrates, and in which the silage is offered ad libiturn, Treacher and Orr (1985) have proposed the following equation for predicting the intake of silage organic matter. SOMI(g/d) = 1.39 COMI + 2971 SOMD ~ 3.547SOMD x COMI ~ 67T + 0.036T x COMI + 2171 DM ~ 63.8LS + 8.79 W, ~ 782 COMI = intake of concentrate organic matter (g/d) SOMD = digestibility of silage organic matter (g DOM/g OM) T = week of pregnancy DM = dry matter (&/8) LS = litter size W, = liveweight of ewe 8 weeks before lambing, This highly complex equation had a coefficient of multiple regression of 0.66 and it is doubtful whether the complexity is justified. Lewis (unpublished) after a study of various sources of data hhas proposed the following equation for predicting the intake of silage by pregnant ewes Iig/kgW) = 0.0202 DOMD — 0.0905W ~ 0.0273 N + 11.62 SDMI(kg/d) = 0.001W (0.9461 = 0.0204 CI + 0.569) w -weight (ke) DOMD ~ sfgenibe organic mater in DM (a/ka) ammonia nitrogen (g/kg total nitrogen) intake of concentrate DM (g/kgW) ‘There was little to choose between the 2 ARC80 models, both of which performed slightly better than TB33. The ARC80b model used efficiencies of utilization of ME based upon metabolizabilty, and used different equations for calculating the efficiencies for mixed and pelleted diets. Itisrecom- ‘mended that a system of dietary ME allowances based on the ARC80a model should be adopted.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 2 8.5.2 The system The general philosophy of the Working Party in producing a system of energy allowances, has been outlined in Section 5.5.2. ‘The models described below are for housed ewes. The basic assumptions are as follows: (@) Energy required for maintenance (E, E,(MI/a) = 0.226(W/1.08)"* + 0.0055W ‘The activity increment has been changed from that recommended in ARC80. The estimate of 0.0055 is based on the following assumptions: Time spent standing on Number of positional changes 6 Distance walked = 50m (b) Energy deposited in the concepta (E,) E(MJ/d) = 0.25W, [(0.07372exp( — 0.006431) (10°-422-4-979er(-0.006430 (©) Birthweight of lambs (WW) ‘The equations of Donald and Russell (1970) may be used to calculate lamb birthweights. (Single lamb Gi) Twin lambs Triplet lambs liveweight of ewe (kg) Alternatively, the following weights, calculated using the equations may be used: Table 8.7. Suggested lamb weights for ewes of different liveweights Ewe weight ‘Total lamb weight (ke) (ke) Single Twin Triplet 40 33 34 63 50 39 64 1s 00 45 13 a7 10 5.0 82 97 80 5.5 9.0 10.8 90 6.0 9.8 1s (4) Energy value of mobilized/deposited tissue (EV,) EV (MI/kg) = 26 (€) Efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME (i) Maintenance (ky) = 0.38qq, + 0.503 Gi) Growth of concepta (k,) k, = 0.133 Gi) Growth (ka ky = 0.78qq, + 0.006 (f) Efficiency of utilization of mobilized body tissue for growth of concepta (kK...) Keay = 0.20 (@) Correction for level of feeding (C1) Cy = 1 +.0.018 (E/k, + Ek) (ky/Ex) k when E, is positive = 0.665 when B, is negative ARC80 makes no recommendation concerning a correction for level of feeding. A correction derived similarly to that for lactating cows has been used.14 8.6 Discussion ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 (b) DMI For diets based on hay: HDMI(kg/d) = CDMI(1.9 ~ 0.0767 ~ 0.002033 DOMD) + 0.002444 DOMD ~ 0.09565 LS. + O.01891W, ~ 1.44 For diets based on silage SDMI(kg/d) = 0.001 (0.9461 ~ 0.0204CI + 0.569) 1(g/kgW) = 0.0202 DOMD — 0.0905W — 0.0273 N + 11.62 DOMD digestible organic matter in DM (g/kg) N ammonia nitrogen (g/kg total nitrogen) DMI imtake of concentrate DM (kg/d) c intake of concentrate DM (g/kgW) w jeweight (kg) T ‘week of pregnancy Ls size of litter (@ Incorporation of corrections and safety margins ‘The recommended model was evaluated on the available data for pregnant ewes, and in terms of its ability to predict the ME requirements of individual animals. This was expressed as the predicted ME requirement (M,.) as a proportion of the observed ME intake (MEI). The results are given in Table 8.8 Table 8.8. Predictive ability of the recommended model Data source My,/MEI Russel 1.21 0.31) GRI-sitage 1.08 (0.16) GRI-hay 0.79 (0.41) NB_ Figures in parentheses are standard deviations ‘The ratio of predicted ME requirement to observed ME intake averaged over the 3 experiments is 1,027 which shows a small underprediction of performance. For practical purposes the ratio may be regarded as being unity, and the prediction bias as zero. There is a substantial between animal variability represented by a mean standard deviation of about 25%. ‘Table 8.9 presents estimates of the corrections which would have to be applied to ensure that 1 designated proportion only of animals would be underfed. Table 8.9. Factors for correcting calculated allowances of ME Correction (%) Proportion underfed (%) (x(sd)) x 50 0 0 40 6 0.25 30 B 0.53 20 2 184 10 32 1.28 $ 41 164 25 49 1.96 1 58 2.33 Examples ofthe calculation of allowances of ME, prediction of performance and ration formu- lation are given in Appendix 4. When the system is being used, full cognizance must be taken of the large variability of prediction in association with the degree of precision required (Table 8.9). (On average, for the 3 sets of data examined, the proposed system slightly underpredicts perfor- mance, Of greater significance is the large variability of prediction. This is not unexpected in view Of the uncertainties inherent in assuming a constant energy value of 26 MJ/kg for liveweight change in the pregnant ewe. Values quoted in ARC80 vary from 20.3 to 33 MJ/kg and several workers (Robinson, 1978; Foot, 1969; Lodge and Heaney, 1973) have drawn attention to the large changes in hydration of the tissues which occur during pregnancy. When such increases in water content are associated with mobilization of fat, unrealistically high estimates of the energy value of liveweight change may result, since small changes in weight are associated with large changes in energy. They also introduce an unacceptably high degree of uncertainty into energy balances basedAFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients 75 9 Lactating Ewes in part on liveweight change. There is little that can be done to ameliorate this situation unless a more accurate method for predicting the energy value of liveweight change is devised. ‘The proposed system uses a constant efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for growth of the concepta, whereas there is some evidence for a variable value related to the energy concentration, of the diet (Robinson, 1983). This may be of some importance, since even comparatively small changes in efficiency from the low figure of 0.133 can result in significant shifts in energy allowances. ble data on lactating ewes were not available to the Working Party for testing the predictive abilities of the models proposed in TB33 and ARC80, for calculating dietary allowances of ME for lactating ewes. 9.1 Description of the models 9.1.1 General 9.1.2 7B33 9.1.3 ARC8O The models were basically very similar, differing in that TB33 used constant efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME, a constant energy value of milk, an energy value of 20 MJ/kg for mobilized or deposited body tissue and did not apply a correction for the effect of level of feeding. (2) Requirements for ME for maintenance (M,) () Eq(M3/d) = 0.23 for animals kept indoors = 0.265W°” for animals kept outdoors (i) kp = 0.70 Estimates of ME are by linearized relationships and include a 5% safety margin, With this latter removed the equations are: M,(MJ/d) = 0.085SW + 1.33 for animals kept indoors Mq(MJ/d) = 0.09SW + 1.71 for animals kept outdoors (©) Requirements for ME for milk production (M,) Energy value of milk (EV) EV\(MI/kg) = 4.6 Yield of milk (¥) Breed Lambs Month 1 Month 2. Month 3 Hill Single 1.34 1.29 0.95 Twin 224 185 1.26 Lowland Single 1.60 155 1.14 Twin 254 9 2.10 1.43 (ii) Energy secreted in milk (E) E\MI/d) = ¥ x EV, Go) ky = 0.62 M, = Ey0.62 (©) ME for maintenance and production (Mz) Mag(MJ/d) = My, + M, (@) Requirement for ME for maintenance (M,.) ( E,(MI/d) = 0.226 (W/1.08)° + 0.0106W Gi) kw = 0.35qq + 0.503 0.226¢W/1.08)°"5 + 0.0106W 0.35qq, + 0.508 Ma(MI/a) =116 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 (b) Requirement for ME for milk production (Mi) (@ Energy value of milk (EV) EV\(MJ/kg) = 0.0328 F + 0.0025 D + 2.203 F = fat content (g/kg) D = day of lactation (Gi) Energy secreted in milk E(MI/d) = EV, x ¥ Y = yield of milk (kg/¢) «i ky = 0.35qq, + 0.42 4 (Gv) Energy value of liveweight change (EV,) EV (MI/kg) = 26 (Energy mobilized from tissue (E,) EyMs/a) = AW x 26 ‘metabolizability of diet at maintenance AW = weight loss (ka/d) (vi) Efficiency of utilization of mobilized tissue energy for milk production yay = 0.84 MMu/a) = E- Me x 0.84) (©) Requirement for ME for gain (M,) (©) Energy value of body gain (EV,) EY(MS/k,) = 26 (i) Energy regained in tissue gain (E,) E(MI/d) = AW x 26 ity ky = 0.95k; Myosya) = S28 095k (4) Correction for level of feeding (C.) C= 1+ 0.018(M,/My) M,(MJ/a) = M, + M, (©) ME for maintenance and production (Myy) Mag(MJ/d) = 1 + 0.018(M,/M,) (My + M,) 9.1.4 Comparison of the two models Table 9.1. ME allowances for lactating ewes (MJ/d) calculated by the TB33 and ARC80 models. Milk yield (kg/d) 10 20 3.0 Wks) AW¢ke/d) dm B33. ARC8O_— B33 ARC8O—TB33_— ARC80 35 -005 OS 2 32 186 214 260 300 07 12 119 186 = 19.2 26.0 26.9 1s -010 0S 10.7 13.2 B35 29.7 07 107 «1919S 266 9.2. Dry matter intake ARC8O, suggests a mean DMI over the lactation of 80 g/kgW®, for ewes suckling single lambs and consuming diets of hay and concentrates. For ewes suckling twin lambs, the figure given is 85 g/kgW°”’ and tripletsareconsidered to consume about 10% morethan this. DMI varies with stage of lactation and figures are given which define intake in a given week (w) relative to the lactation ‘mean. The proposals may be consolidated into equations of the following type for predicting DMI.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients ™ 9.3, Recommendations 9.3.1 Choice of a system 9.3.2 The system (@) Ewes suckling single lambs DMI(ke/d) .001W""S (57.43 + 8.92w ~ 0.6730") ‘The equation suffers from the disadvantages that it makes no allowance for the effects of concen- trate supplementation or the digestibility of the hay. For this reason, the following equation for predicting the mean daily DMI over the lactation, of a ewe suckling twin lambs, may be preferred. TDMI(kg/d) = (I~ 0.0691 x C + 2.027 C) x 0.001 and HDMI(ke/d) = (I ~ 0.0691 x C + 1.027 C) x 0.001 I(g/keW) = 0.0481 DOMD ~ 5.25 C = intake of concentrate dry matter (g/keW) Intakes for ewes suckling one lamb could be expected 0 be about 6% less, and those for ewes suckl- ing 3 lambs, 10% more. With silage based diets, intakes for growing and pregnant sheep are about 754% of those con- ‘suming diets based upon hay. Making the same assumptions concerning the effects of litter size and stage of lactation as for hay based diets gives the following equations for predicting DMI of a ewe suckling 2 lambs: DMI(kg/d) = 0.001W"5(45.8 + 7.1W — 0.53602) 18 which takes account of silage characteristics and the effect of concen- The following is an equa trate supplementation: TDMI(kg/d) = (0.9461 ~ 0.0204 IC + 0.65 + C)0.001W SDMI(ke/d) = (0.9461 — 0.0204 IC + 0.65) 0.001W Mg/keW) = 0.0232 DOMD ~ 0.1041W - 0.0314N + 13.36 liveweight (ke) DOMD = digestible organic matter (g/kg DM) N ammonia nitrogen (g/kg total nitrogen) c intake of concentrate DM (g/keW) It is recommended that the equations taking account of the characteristics of the roughage should be adopted. It should be noted that they predict mean daily intakes for the lactation and are for ewes suckling 2 lambs. Both the TB33 and ARC80 models use the basically similar factorial approach to estimating the requirements of lactating ewes for ME. The ARC80 model is recommended for adoption for the following reasons: (@) it is based on a greater accumulated body of data, (b) it uses variable efficiencies of utilization of energy for various purposes, (©) it uses a correction for the effect of level of feeding, (@) it has been adopted as the basis of the system for lactating cows and itis logical that it should. be preferred for lactating ewes. ‘The models described below are for ewes kept indoors. The basic assumptions are as follows: (a) Energy required for maintenance (E.,) Eg(MJ/d) = 0.226 (W/1.08)""5 + 0.0096W ‘The activity allowance has been changed from that recommended in ARC Technical Review (1980). ‘The estimate of 0.0096W is based on the following assumptions: Time spent standing = 14h ‘Number of positional changes = 14 Distance walked 50m178 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 (©) Energy secreted in milk (E) E(MI/d) = 4.6Y Y = yield of milk (kg/d) ARC80 proposes the following equation for calculating the energy value of milk (EV): EV\(MI/kg) = 0.0328F + 0.0025D + 2.2033, F milk fat content (g/ks) D lay of lactation ‘The value of 4.6 MJ/kg used here is that obtained when a value of 70 g/kgis assumed for fat content and 21 for day of lactation. (© Milk yield Measured yields of milk will rarely be available. Estimates may be made if the expected growth rates. of the lambs are known. For ewes suckling one lamb, milk yield is about $ times the growth rate of the lamb and for those suckling 2 lambs milk yield is about 10 times the mean growth rate of the 2. In most practical situations milk yields will have to be assumed. Those suggested by MLC. (1981) are appropriate and are given in Table 9.2. Table 9.2. Milk yields of ewes (kg/d) Month of lactation Litter size Type 1 2 3 One lamb Hill 1.25 1.05 0.70 Lowland 2.10 1.70 1.05 Two lambs Hill 1.90 1.0 110 Lowland 3.00 2.25 1.50 (d) Energy value of mobilized or deposited body tissue (EV,) EV,(MI/kg) = 26 (@) Efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME (@) Maintenance (kg) ky = 0.35qq, + 0.503 Gi) Milk production (k) ky = 0.35qq + 0.42 Gil) Growth (kp) ke = 0.95 ky (f) Efficiency of utilization of mobilized tissue for milk production is assumed to be 0.84 NB a = ME/GE. Suggestions for estimating GE are given in Section 5.6.2.c (g) Correction for level of feeding (C,) ; te c= 1 ont (EH. SHEE) he SUBD che 8 Sate assumptions in (a), (eXGii), and (H) above. (hy DMI (i) Hay based diets, TDMI(kg/d) = [(1 ~ 0.069 IC + 1.524C) x 0.001] x 1.6 HDMI(kg/d) = [(1 — 0.069 IC + 0.524C) x 0.001} x 1.6 (g/keW) = 0.0362 DOMD ~ 3.95 TDMI = total DMI HDMI = intake of hay DM DOMD tible organic matter (g/kg DM) c intake of concentrate DM (g/keW) w liveweight (ke)AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 79 (i Silage based diets TDMI(kg/d) = [(0.946 I ~ 0.0204 IC + 0.569 + C) x 0.001W] x 1.6 SDMI(kg/d) = [(0.946 I ~ 0.0204 1C + 0.569) x 0.001W] x 1.6 Kig/kgW) = 0.0202DOMD - 0.0905W ~ 0.0273N + 11.62 SDMI intake of silage dry matter N ammonia nitrogen content of silage (g/kg total nitrogen) c intake of concentrate dry matter (g/kg W) Examples of the use of the system for calculating allowances of ME for ration formulation and prediction of liveweight change are given in Appendix 5. 10. Growing Sheep ‘The prediction models were assessed on the basis of the comparison of predicted with observed liveweight gain. 10.1 Calculation of observed daily liveweight gain (AW, The mean daily liveweight gain for each animal was calculated from the weight gain for the period divided by the number of days in the period, 10.2 Calculation of predicted liveweight gain (AW,) Liveweight gains were calculated incrementally for each animal on a daily basi, using ME intakes calculated from daily DMI and the ME of the diet. ‘The animal’s weight on day | (initial weight) was used to calculate a weight gain for that day. On day 2, the initial weight plus the weight gain for day 1 was used for calculating a weight gain. This incremental process was continued for the period of the experiment. Details of the 3 systems, ‘B33, ARCB0a and ARC80b are given below. 10.2.1 Prediction of liveweight gain General ‘The daily energy balance in growing sheep may be represented as follows: E, MEL = a in which MEI = ME intake (MJ/d) E, = energy for maintenance (MJ/d) kg = efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for maintenance E, = energy retained/lost in daily weight change (MJ/d) k,_ = efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for weight change. Now E,(MJ/d) = EV, x AW in which EV, = energy value of tissue lost or gained (MJ/kg) ‘AW = liveweight change (kg/d) ‘We may then write MEI(MJ/d) and by arrangement, liveweight change may be calculated as follows: aN = (wes) oor» (si -2) (a) 7833 AW(kg/é) = 109-9 g-0.0036W+1.91 in which, w = liveweight (ke) (MEI = (En/K)) ky EM/¢)780 10.3 Experimental data ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 in which E,(MJ/d) = 0.80 + 0.0867W ke 0.70 k = 0,0435M/D in which M/D = ME concentration in the diet (MJ/kg DM) (b) ARC80q aware = (Met — in which E,(MI/d) = C(0.251(W/1.08)°"5 + 0.0106) ¢ 1 for female and castrated male lambs = 1.15 for entice male lambs P = 019M/D + 0.503 Ky (1 loka) eg ‘ as Sak) meme = when L <1 L (evel of feeding) = MEI x En ky = 0.0424M/D + 0.006 EV,(MJ/kg) = 2.1 + 0.4SW for female lambs 4.4 + 0.32W for castrated male lambs 2.5 + 0.3SW for emtire male lambs (©) ARC80b ‘The model was as described for ARC80a except in 2 particulars: G) efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME were related to metabolizability (qq) rather than. ME concentration (M/D) of the diet. (i) different equations were used for calculating efficiencies of utilization, depending upon thetype of diet being fed. Efficiencies were thus calculated according to the equations given in Table 10.1 Table 10.1. Efficiencies of utilization of ME Diet ke i Mixed 0.21qq + 0.623 0.38q,, + 0.282 Forage O.21qn + 0.558 1.324q + 0.318 ‘The data included diets of silage alone, silage plus concentrate supplements and mixed diets of cereal plus protein supplements. All the animals were Suffolk lambs and varied in initial liveweight from 11 t0 47 kg. The individual sets of data are discussed below. The sample size is small owing to the failure of research workers to provide data despite repeated requests, which is regrettable 10.3.1 Data of Vipond—North of Scotland College of Agriculture 103.11 Data ‘The data were from two experiments, A and B. In A the experimental animals consisted of 75 lambs by Suffolk rams out of Finnish Landrace x Dorset Horn ewes. There were 37 male castrates and 38 females. One group was fed from arrival to slaughter on a diet consisting of 18 parts of barley plus 2 parts of a mix of 80% fish meal, 14% limestone, 4% molasses and 1% trace mineral/vitamin supplement. The second group was fed from. arrival to 35 kg on the above diet, and from 35 kg to slaughter on.a mixture of 50% of the diet plus 50% of malt distillers grains. Calculated ME for the 2 diets was 12.4MJ/kg DM for the first and 11.5 MJ/kg DM for the second. The diets were offered ad libitum. Animals were penned individually and the dietary intakes recorded daily. The animals were weighed at the beginning of the trial and at weekly intervals thereafter.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 781 In experiment B the animals consisted of 63 castrated male lambs by Suffolk rams out of Finnish Landrace x Dorset Horn ewes. They were fed one of 3 diets, details of which are given below. Diet 1 2 3 Bruised barley (ke) 300 220140 ‘Whole barley (ke) 680680680 Soyabean meal (kg) - 9 160 ‘Min/vit supplement (kg) 2 = =20 20 Metabolizable energy (MI/kgDM) 126-126 12.6 ‘The diets were offered ad libitum. Animals were penned individually and intakes of feed recorded daily. Animals were weighed at the beginning of the experiment and at weekly intervals thereafter. 10.3.1.2 Results and Discussion Table 10.2. Predictive ability of three models Experiment A B ‘Mean intial liveweight (ke) 2 26 Mean ME (MJ/4) 17 142 Mean M/D 122 126 Mean AW, (¢/d) 249 351 Mean bias (AW, - AW.) 1833 ~ 5448) 8507) ARC80a 3909) = $6(14) ARCB00 =35(40) =58(15) In both experiments ARC80a predicts higher weight g: 15 and 29 g/d for experiments A and B, respectively. Predi ARC80 models are practically identical. ‘When predicted liveweight gains are compared with the observed, the 2 ARC models superior to TB33 since they show considerably less underprediction. Variability of predict the same order for all 3 models but both variability and prediction bias are higher for experiment B than experiment A. In experiment A there were almost equal numbers (37 male castrates and 38 females) of male castrate and female lambs. The predictive abilities of the 3 models for the 2 sex groupings are sum- ‘marised in Table 10.3. than TB33, the differences being ions of liveweight gain using the two Table 10.3. Predictive abilities of the three models for castrated male, and female lambs AW, ‘AW, (6/4) Aw, - AW, (g/d) TB33_ ARC80a_ARC80b —TB33_——ARC80a”_ARC8Ob Male Castrates 270199221 2S = 711) 49041) 45041) Females 29 193 199 203-3742) 3037) -26(36) NB jes in parentheses are standard deviations. Differences between the liveweight gains predicted by the TB33 model for the 2 sex groupings are the result of differences in initial liveweight and feed intake. With the castrated males asthe standard there is an apparent effect for the females of —69 g/d. Differences between the liveweight ge predicted for the 2 groups using the ARC model are the result of the effect of differences in iit liveweight and feed intake together with a female correction included in the model. When the effect, of the non-sex factors is removed the sex effect remains and is — 16 g/d. The ARC80 models predict, very similar liveweight gains and the calculated sex effects are identical. Table 10.3 shows that the female lambs respond less well to intakes of energy than do male castrates, the difference being —41 g/d. When the effects of factors other than sex are removed the sex effect remains at ~35 g/d. The ARC80 models are thus correct in including a sex correction and B33 is wrong in not doing so. The correction appears to be about half only of what it should be. 10.3.2 Data of Henderson—East of Scotland College of Agriculture ‘The data were from a series of experiments which have been designated 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.782 103.24 Data ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 The animals consisted of castrated male lambs by Suffolk rams out of Greyface ewes. There were 24 animals in experiment 1 and 31, 46, 32 and 41 in experiments 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. All animals were weighed at the beginning of the experiment and weekly thereafter. ‘The experimental diets were silages (17 in all) offered ad libitum, either alone ot with various supplements of barley, soyabean meal, sucrose or urea. One group of lambs in each of 2experiments were offered a complete ruminant diet ad libitum. ‘The ME contents of the silages and the complete ruminant diet were determined in balance trials in which dietary, faecal and urinary energy were measured. Energy voided as methane was calculated using the equation of Blaxter and Clapperton (1965). ME for barley, soyabean meal and. sucrose was taken as 12.9, 12.7 and 12.0MJ/kg DM, respectively. Allowances of the supplements ‘were consumed in their entirety on all occasions. Intakes of silage and the complete ruminant diet were recorded daily. 10.3.2.2 Results and Discussion 10.4 Dry matter intake 10.4.1 Prediction equations Table 10.4. Comparison of the three prediction models Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 Mean initial liveweight (kg) 41 2 7 37 32 Mean MEI (MJ/d) 88 98 89 11.0 Mean M/D (MJ/kgDM) a 10 108 10.7 10.4 Mean AW, (@/d) 30 a na 82 48 Mean bias (AW, ~ AW.) ‘TB33 1529) $3632) 40(40) 34(40) — —28(28) ARC8Oa —25(29) 60038). = 32038) 4147) = 3707) ARC8Ob —14(30) 4933) 2234) 203) -32G1) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations ‘The ARC80a model predicts higher weight gains than TB33 but the differences are small, being 10, 7,8, 7and ~9 g/d for experiments 1-5, respectively. The ARC80b model predicts lower liveweight gains than ARC80a. This isa direct consequence of the lower kj and ky values resulting from the use of the equations for forage diets, instead of those for all diets, to calculate these factors. The effect is accentuated by the use of Gq instead of M/D in these calculations. When predicted liveweight gains are compared with the observed the models are almost identical in predictiveat ‘TB33 does not suggest any method for predicting the DMI of growing sheep. ARC80 suggests the following equations: (@) Coarse diets: defined as consisting of long or chopped roughages other than silages, ether with oF without concentrates DMIGg/kgW°") = 104.79, + 0.307 ~ 15.0 in which gq = metabolizability of the diet (ME/GE) W = liveweight of animal (ke) (b) Fine diets: consis or in combination. ing of concentrates and milled and/or pelleted or wafered roughages, alone DMI(g/kgW°”) = 150.3 — 784, ~ 0.408W (©) Diets consi 8 of silage alone. DMI(g/kgW°”) = 46 10.4.2 Assessment of equations ‘The data of Vipond and Henderson provided the recorded daily DMI of several hundred sheep receiving a variety of diets. These data were used to test the predictive ability of the equations pro- posed in ARC8O. Mean daily DMI was predicted for the experimental periods using the appropriateAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 783 Data of Henderson 10.4.2.2 Data of Vipond equations and based upon the median liveweight for the period. The equations were evaluated in terms of the mean bias, and the variability of prediction as characterised by the standard deviation. of the biases. These consisted of $ experiments in which growing sheep were fed on silage alone, on silage plus concentrates, or ground pelleted mixture of straw and concentrate. Comparison of the observed DMI with that predicted using a mean figure of 46 g/kgW°”S gave the figures in Table 10.5. Table 10.5. Comparison of observed (I) and predicted (I,) DMI on allsilage diets Experiment 1 Bias RMSPE* RMSPE x 100 ia) (y= 3d) I 7 792 330167) 170 021 2 863 ~ 109(109) 154 0.18 3 385 11493) 148 0.25 4 242 1441187) 213 0.25 3 474 16401) 188 0.40 Mean mu +56 176 027 NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations (SD) *RMSPE = VBias™ + SD? ‘The errors are large and do not allow the prediction of the intake of silage DM with any confidence. ‘Thus the mean RMSPE of 27% of the mean observed DMI means that 19 out of 20 estimates of DMI will lie within + 55% of the true figure. In practice it would be desirable for estimates of DMI to lie within 10% of the true figure. This would be achieved in the case of 37% only of estimates. Closer examination of the data revealed a significant difference between the mean DMI (g/kgW°”) for silages which had been treated with an additive containing formaldehyde, and those which had not been so treated. The intakes are given in Table 10.6. Table 10.6. Mean DMI (g/kgW°5 for silages made with and without formaldehyde ‘Treatment Number Dry matter intake ‘A. Formaldehyde 8 522.0) B. No formaldehyde 15 461.3) A+B 48 NB Figures in parentheses are standard errors of means. Henderson’s data included mixed diets of silage plus concentrate fed to 65 lambs. Comparison of the observed DMI with that predicted using the equation for coarse diets in (a) above gave a mean bias of ~ 193 g/d and standard deviation of the individual estimates of 88. The RMSPE was 212, which as a percentage of the mean observed intake was 32%. Also recorded in this series of experiments were data for 13 lambs fed a pelleted complete ruminant diet. Comparison of the observed DMI with that predicted using the equation for fine diets in (b) above gave a mean bias of ~55 g/d with a standard deviation of individual estimates of 162. The RMSPE was 171, which as a percentage of the mean observed DMI was 10%. ‘The diets in the 2 experiments consisted of mixtures of concentrates and should be classed as fine diets. A comparison of the observed DMI with that predicted using the equation for fine diets in (b) above is presented in Table 10.7, Table 10.7. Comparison of observed (I,) and predicted (1,) DMI of fine diets ‘i Ie /RMSPE x 100 Experiment wa Gk RMSPE ——— 1 961 213 269 28 2 128 18 189 17784 10.5 Recommendations 10.5.1 Choice of a system 10.5.2 The System ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 If we consider the data on intake of fine diets from Henderson's data then we have an average RMSPE of about 214 which stated as a percentage of mean observed DMI is about 19%. This means that 19 out of every 20 estimates will lie within 38% of the true figure and that 42% of estimates will be within + 10% of the true value There was little to choose between the 3 models in their ability to predict the performance of castrated male lambs receiving silage based diets. For lambs receiving diets of high energy density, the ARC80 models had a slight advantage. It is recommended that a system based on the proposals. in ARC80, should be used for calculating dietary allowances of ME for growing lambs. The major reasons for this have been discussed in Section $.5.1. They are equally applicable in this case. ‘The general philosophy of the Working Party in producing a system of energy allowances has been ‘outlined in Section $.5.2. ‘The models described below are for housed sheep and are based upon the following assumptions: (@) Energy required for maintenance (E,) E,(MI/d) = C, x 0.251(W/1.08)°" + 0.0077 C, = 1 for female and castrated male lambs = 1.15 for entire male lambs ‘The activity increment has been decreased from 0.0106W to 0.007W, since the former was con- sidered to be 100 high for housed sheep. The estimates of the energy expended in different activities ‘not questioned, but the subjective estimates of the magnitude of these activities were. In our case the following assumptions have been made: Time spent standing = 12h Number of positional changes = 6 Distance walked = 50m (©) Energy value of deposited body tissue (EV) () female lambs, 21+ 0.45W. EV,(MI/ko) (Gi) castrated male lambs, EV,(MI/kg) = 4.4 + 0.32W (Gi) entire male lambs, EV,(MI/kg) = 2.5 + 0.35W (©) Efficiencies of utilization of dietary ME G) maintenance, 0.35qq + 0.503 (ii) growth at twice maintenance (ky) ky = 0.78qq, ~ 0.006 (i growth (k,) ky 1 = e/g) D=1* T= tik MEI x rE 4a = ME/GE. Suggestion for es k ating GE are made in Section 5.5.2.c (© DMI (© Coarse diets: defined as those consisting of long or chopped roughages with or without concentrates TDMI(kg/€) = [104.74q + 0.307 — 15.0]W°5/1000 total DMI metabolizability of the diet W = liveweight (kg)AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 785 10.6 Discussion (Gi) Fine diets: consisting of concentrates and milled and/or pelleted or wafered roughages, alone or in combination. TDMI(ke/d) = (150.3 ~ 784q ~ 0.408W]W°"*/1000 (Gi) Diets consisting of silage alone TDMI¢ke/d) = 46W°*/1000 for silages made without a formaldehyde containing additive, TDMI(kg/d) = 52W*7*/1000 for silages made with a formaldehyde containing additive (€) Incorporation of bias corrections and safety ma The recommended ARC model was evaluated on the available data for lambs. The results are given in Table 10.8 Table 10.8. Predictive ability of the recommended model Data Mean Mean Bias (&/d) Source Wo (e/a) OW, ~ Wo Henderson 0 10(50) Vipond 300 50(60) NB Figures in parentheses are standard deviations With regard to prediction bias the 2 sets of data are greement. Thus, because of lack of evidence it is proposed that the bias is taken to be zero. This leads to a between animal standard deviation of about 60 g/d in the variability of prediction. On the evidence of the data examined bby us the variability does not appear to be proportional to weight change. Thus, although the mean weight change of Henderson's lambs was only about one fifth of that of Vipond's the variability, jn absolute terms is almost as great. If'a margin of safety is required to be used this standard deviation may be used as the b: Table 10.9 presents estimates of the corrections which would have to be applied to ensure that 1 designated proportion only of animals would be underfed. Table 10.9. Factors for correcting calculated allowances of ME Correction Proportion underfed (Xa) co) wa x 50 0 0.0 40 1s 0.25 30 31 0.82 20 50 0.84 10 n 1.28 5 98 164 28 120 1.96 1 140 2.33 Thus, to achieve a gain of 250 g/d, a target gain of 370 g/d would have to be adopted, if 2.5% only of animals were to be underfed. Examples of the use of the system for calculating allowances of ME, for predicting liveweight change and for ration formulation are given in Appendix 6, It is unfortunate that 2 sets of data only were available to the Working Party. From the point of view of the prediction bias shown by the proposed model, the 2 sets of data are in conflict and no definitive conclusion concerning a bias correction factor is possible. tis on this somewhat negative basis that it was decided not to use a factor. ‘The most significant fact to emerge from this study was the high degree of variability of predi tion, and the need for large margins of safety if underfeeding of a significant proportion of animals. isto be avoided ‘The work confirms the need for a sex correction as part of the prediction model but, on the limited evidence available, the correction suggested in ARC80 for female sheep appears to be ‘inadequate.786 11, General Conclusions Appendix ta ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ‘The proposals in ARC80 ake no account of differences between breeds of sheep. There is some evidence (Theriez er al, 1981) of a relationship between mature size and body composition at fixed ‘weight and it would appear reasonable to include stage of maturity as a factor in order to try and improve the predicted ability of the system. ‘The equations adopted by the Working Party for the prediction of DMI are not satisfactory and work to produce better methods of predicting this most important parameter should be given a very high priority. None of the 3 systems of deriving energy allowances was satisfactory, owing to their large variability, of prediction. Models which better describe animal response to inputs of nutrients are required. This will involve more accurate quantification of the factors incorporated in prediction equations and the introduction of further relevant parameters. Methods of predicting DMI examined by the Working Party, were not satisfactory despite the very complex nature of some of the equations employed. In practice, prediction of performance and ration formulation are based on such predicted DMI. This introduces an additional source of variabilityintothesystems and makes them evenless acceptable. The improvement of methods of pre- dicting DMI must begiven equal priority with improvement of the models for predictingperformance. Two factors seem to be of dominating importance as potential sources of improvement of the prediction models: (a) more accurate methods of estimating the energy value and composition of liveweight gains are required. In particular, the effect of stage of maturity in growing animals must be better defined. ‘The problem in pregnant and lactating animals is rather more difficult, owing to the unpredictable changes in the degree of hydration of the tissues which take place at these times. (b) in pregnant and lactating animals, dietary energy remaining after allowance has been made for the demands for maintenance, is partitioned between 2 functions, lactation and tissue growth, or arowth of the concepta and the tissues. Accurate quantification of this partitioning is essential if performance is to be predicted or rations formulated with credibility. In the present climate of opinion even more detailed information on the partitioning between the various constituents of milk and body tissues is required, Majorimprovementsintheability to predict DMI will require better description of thecharacter~ istics of the basal roughageand theability torelatethesecharacteristicstoitspotential intake. Coupled. with tis will betheneedto predict theeffect of supplementary concentrates ontheintake of roughages of different intake characteristics. The purely descriptive equations so far produced have rarely proved to be satisfactory despite the highly complex nature of some of them. Future progress in this, field may well depend upon more fundamental studies of changes at gut or perhaps tissue level. Models have been suggested for calculating energy allowances, for predicting performance and for formulating rations for different classes of animal. The lack of precision in these models is. disturbing and they should be regarded as interim systems only. Inthe short and medium term they should be subject to constant improvement. In the longer term, the aim should be to produce a system of allowances based upon the supply of individual nutrients made available to the animal as the result of digestion, the potential of these nutrients as sources of the ATP required by the ‘animal, as raw materials for syntheses within the animal, and as determinants of the partitioning. of nutrients between the various tissues and products Any system of deriving energy allowances requires validation in a way similar to that which this group has attempted. One of our major difficulties has been in identifying, obtaining and handling suitable data to act as a test bed. The establishment and maintenance of a body of dat suitable for the purposes of validation should be given a high priority. Calculation of allowances of metabolizable energy for growing cattle ‘The ME required for maintenance and production (Mj.,) by a growing animal may be calculated as follows: Ex j,__3B__ P"B-R-I ey In (y/) Ka/ (kn ~ kd) @ x aN) a Mag(MJ/d) E, Cy = 1.15 for bulls and castrated males 1.10 for heifersAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 787 Appendix 1b Example Calculation of the allowance of dietary ME for a growing animal. Animal 350k, 0.7 kg Male castrate of medium maturity Ration Hay plus concentrate Gn = 0.6 E,(MI/d) = 0.53(350/1.08)° + 0.0071 x 350 = 27.98 ky = 0.35 x 0.6 + 0.503 = 0.713 4.1 + 0.0332 x 350 ~ 0.000009 x 350? EV (MI/kg) = a 18.30 78d, + 0.006 = 0.474 713° In (0.713/0.474) = 0.2911 .713/(0.713 — 0.474) = 2.9833 (20% 2) nae R 27.98 vai» (22 wl 2M) x nares Prediction of daily liveweight change in growing cattle Liveweight change may be calculated using the following equation: (MEI ~ Eq/ka) X k, W8/) = 6 T+ O.0RRRW — 010000091) + C, x 0.1575(MEI — E,7kq) % Calculated values of liveweight gain should be reduced by multiplying by the following factors to allow for the overprediction inherent in the model: (a) Male castrates: 1/1.15 (b) Heifers: VL10 (©) Bulls: was Example Animal Liveweight: 350 kg, Male castrate of medium maturity Ration Hay 7.0kg (ME = 8.8 MI/kg DM: qq, = 0.478: DM = 860 g/kg) Concentrate 2 kg (ME = 13 MJ/kg DM: qq = 0.70: DM = 860./ke) ME of ration = 75.3MJ/d a of ration = 0.527 E,, (MI/d) = 27.98 ky = 0.35 x 0.527 + 0.503 = 0.688 Ky = 0.78 x 0.527 + 0.006 = 0.417 75.3 x 0.688 Sap 7 BsI6 ot? (75.3 ~27,98/0.688) x 0.432 000009 x 350°) + 0.1475(75.3 (0.417/0,688)851" "| avava-(788 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Appendix te Formulation of rations for growing cattle ‘The ME system described in ARC80 provides a suitable method for predicting performance in ‘growing cattle but does not allow easy convenient formulation of rations. £0 formulate a ration it is necessary to know the ME requirements for maintenance and growth. Since these are dependent upon the efficiencies of utilization of ME for these processes, the metabolizability of the diet mst ‘be known. This cannot be known until the ration has been formulated, which was the initial problem. The difficulty may be overcome by using a variety of iterative procedures. These a perfectly acceptable if computing facilities are adequate. A simpler approximate method is to elimi nate the dependence of the requirements upon metabolizability, by stating them in terms of net, rather than metabolizable, energy. The net energies of feeds then have to be known, in order that rations may be formulated. These net energies will depend upon the metabolizability of the feed, which is known, and the level of production, which is stipulated. In the NRC system (1984) the values of the feeds are stated in terms of separate values for maintenance (NE) and growth (NE,). It is more convenient to use a single value for the combined functions of maintenance and pro- duction (NEw) as proposed in the Edinburgh Variable Net Energy System. This is the basis of the method of ration formulation described below. Net energy requirements of growing catile The net energy requirements have been discussed previously. They may be calculated as follows: E,(MJ/d) = C,{0.53(W/1.08)°*" + 0.0071W] Cx(8.1 + 0.0332W + 0.000009") x AW Sees 1 — C1875 x AW) Eqg(MI/d) = Be + By Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production The net energy ofa feed for maintenance and production may be calculated a5 ME Kage where kg is the efficiency of utilization of ME for the combined functions of maintenance and pro- duction. It may be calculated as Eqy/Myp for given metabolizabilities and levels of production Example Calculation of net energies for maintenance and production Feeds Hay (ME = 8.5 MJ/kg DM: qq, = 0.462: DOMD = $45 g/kg DM: DM = 860 g/kg) Concentrate (ME = 13 MJ/kg DM: ag = 0.70: DM = 860 g/kg) Animal Liveweight: 400 kg Liveweight gain: 0.65 ke/d Male castrate of medium maturity Eg(MJ/d) = 0.53(400/1.08)°*" + 0.0071 x 400 = 30.7 (4.1 + 0.0832 x 400 ~ 400? x 0.000009) x 0.65 T= (0.147 x 0.65) E,(MI/¢) 1s Egg(MI/d) = 30.7 + 11.5 = 42.2 For hay (R): ky, = 0.35 x 0.462 + 0.503 = 0.665 ky = 0.78 X 0.462 + 0.006 = 0.366 P = 0.665 In (0.665/0.366) = 0.3971 B = 0.665/(0.665 — 0.366) = 2.2241 R= 11,5/30.7 = 03746 30.7 22261 May(Mi/é) 3071" | 2aar— 1 0.3746 44 2.2/14.4 = 0.567 8.5 x 0.567 = 4.82AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 789 For the concentrate (C) ey = 0.748, ky = 0.552 P= 0.2273 B= 3.8163 R = 0.3746 Mys(MJ/A) = 60.3 gp = 0.700 NE npc) = 9.09 Formulation of the ration ‘The net energy of the ration (NEI may be calculated using the following equation: NEM(MJ/d) = RDMI'x NEqg(R) + CDMI x NEgg(C) ‘The total DMI of the animal may be calculated as follows: TDMI(kg/é) = RDMI + CDMI For an animal receiving a mixed ration of hay and concentrate, total DMI may be calculated as. follows: 106.5 37 x CDMI] wor TDMI(kg/d) = [m1 + pay (eX RDMI + a, x CDMI) + woul ooo These 3 equi ions may be solved to define total DMI by the following equation: TDMI = X + VOTH ¥) in which X = 0,0005W°7(24.1 + 106.5 dy ~ Z X NEgo(R)) Y = 0.001W"" x NEI x Z Z = [106.5(a, — dx) + 37I/(NEqp(C) ~ NEgg(R)) From equations 1 and 2 intake of roughage DM may be defined as: RDMI(kg/a) = NEag(©) x TDMI = NEI NE gg(C) = NEqg(R) and concentrate DM as: CDMI(kg/4) = TDMI - RDMI In the example Z = [106.5(0.700 ~ 0.462) + 371/9.09 ~ 4.82 = 14.6 X = 0.0005 x 400°%(24.1 + 106.5 x 0.462 ~ 14.6 x 4.82) = 0.1311 Y¥ = 0.001 x 400" x 48.5 x 14.6 = 63.3 TDMIkg/4) = 0.27 + VOI + 3 = 8.09 9.09 x 8.09 ~ 48.5 9.09 - 482 CDMI(kg/d) = 8.09 ~ 5.86 ‘Thus, the daily ration required is: Hay = 5,86/0.86 = 6.81 kg Concentrate = 2.23/0.86 = 2.59 kg RDMI(kg/d) 5.26 23 Appendix 2a Dietary allowances of metabolizable energy for lactating cows (Mg) Dietary allowances of ME for lactating cows may be calculated using the following equations: Mgy(MI/A) = C(Eq/kq + YX EVi/k, + AW x EV,/k,) x CS .00 when a safety margin is not being used 00 plus a safety margin. cs Example Calculation of the allowance of dietary ME for a lactating dairy cow.790 Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 ‘Appendix 2b Animal Liveweight: 600 kg Liveweight change: ~0.25 ke/d Milk yield 20kg/d Milk fat content: 40 ¢/kg Lactose content: 48 g/kg Protein content: 34 g/kg Ration Metabolizability: 0.6 E,(MJ/d) = 0.53(600/1.08)"*" + 0.0091 x 600 = 42.04 E\(MI/d) = 20(0.0384 x 40 + 0.0223 x 34 + 0.0199 x 48 ~ 0.108) = 62.8 EV,’ = 27.36 0.503 + 0.35 x 0.6 7 13 ky = 0.42 + 0.35 x 0.6 = 0.630 , = 0.630/0.80 c 788 1 + 0.018{(62.8/0.630) + (~ 0.25 x 27.36/0.788)] (0.713/42.04] 1.0278 Mag(MJ/d) = 1.0278(42.04/0.713 + 62.8/0.630 + 27.36 x (~0.25)/0.788) 154 Prediction of liveweight change in lactating cows (AW) Liveweight change may be predicted if liveweight, milk yield, milk composition, ME intake, and metabolizability of the r n are known. The equation for the calculation is as follows: Cnty -of GBs wae = {025 ( P= 1+ oon (“TEU % ts) x Em py = 0018 EV, % En Py = EY, Example Prediction of liveweight change in a lactating cow. Ration Intake of ME = 154MJ/d Metabolizability of ration = 0.6 Animal Liveweight: 600 ke ‘Milk yield: 20kg Milk fat content: 40 ¢/ke Lactosecontent: 48 g/kg. Protein content: 34 g/kg Eq(MJ/d) = 0.53(600/ 1.08)" + 0.0091 x 600 = 42.08 EV(MJ/kg) = 0.0384 x 40 + 0.0223 x 34 + 0.0199 x 48 — 0.108 = 3.14 0.503 + 0.38 x 0.6 = 0.713 0.42 + 0.35 x 0.6 = 0.630 Py = 1 + 0,018((20 x 3.14 x 0.713)/0,630 x 42.08) = 0.018 x 27.36 x 0.713/42.04 = 0.0084 42.04/0.713 + 20 x 3.14/0.630 = 158.6 0304AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 791 E .6\? E x 158.6 = 153.9]°* aver = {[a( 2 « 88) (LE 158.6 - 153.9 o.0088 * 27:36 0.0084 x 77.36 1.0304 | 158.6 ~ [osGGabr*35e)]} + 02x ke ‘Since AW is negative then k, = 0.63/0.80 = 0.788 Then AW(kg/d) = ~0.32 x 0.788 = ~0.25 It is important to appreciate that the prediction has validity only when the milk yield is known. The method cannot be used to calculate the weight change likely to result from a change in ME intake. In such a case, the resulting deficit or surplus of energy would be partitioned between liveweight change and milk production. In order to make a valid prediction of liveweight change, therefore, the actual extent of the partitioning must be known in quantitative terms. Appendix 2e Formulation of rations for lactating cows ‘The difficulties of using a ME system for formulating rations, when the efficiencies of utilization of ME are dependent upon the metabolizability of the ration, have been discussed previously (Appendix 1c). The reasons for the decision to use a variable net energy system in formulating rations for beef cattle are equally valid in the case of the lactating cow. The proposed method is described below. Net energy requirements of lactating cows ‘The net energy requirements have been discussed earlier. They may be calculated as follows: Eg(MJ/d) = 0.53 (W/1.08)°% + 0.0091 E(MI/d) = ¥ x (0.0384 x F + 0.0223 x P + 0.0199 x L ~ 0.108 EMI/d) = AW x 27.36 Eqg(MI/d) = (Eq + E, + ECS Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production (NEq,) ‘The net energy of a feed for maintenance and production may be calculated as ME X kp: Kp is the efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for the combined functions of maintenance and pro- duction. It may be calculated as Eq,/My, for designated metabolizabilities and levels of production. Example Calculation of the net energy values of feeds for maintenance and production. Feeds Silage (ME = 10.0MJ/kgDM: dq, = 0.521: DOMD Concentrate (ME = 13 MJ/kg DM: dy, = 25 g/kg: DM = 250./kg: N = 85) 70: DM = 860 ¢/ke) 600 kg 0.25 ke/d Milk yield: 20ke/d Milk fat content: 40 g/kg Lactose content: 48 g/kg Protein content: 34/kg Eq(MI/d = 0.53(600/1.08)°" + 0.0091 x 600 = 42.0 E\(MJ/d) = 20 x (0.0384 x 40 + 0.0223 x 34 + 0.0199 x 48 ~ 0.108) EYMI/a) = 27.36 x 0.25 6.84 Eqy(MI/A) = 42.04 + 62.83 + 6.84 = 111792 Formulation of the ration ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 For the silage: ep = 0.35 x 0.521 + 0.503 = 0.685 0.35 x 0.521 + 0.42 = 0.602 0.685) [ 42.04 | 62.83 | 6.84 0.685 * 0.602 * 0.602, 034 x 177.1 83.1 Then kgp = HI.71/183.1 = 0.610 and NE@» = 10 x 0.610 = 6.10MJ/kg DM For the concentrate: km = 0.35 x 0.70 + 0.503 = 0.748 kj = 0.35 x 0.70 + 0.42 = 0.665 k, = 0.665 ass, 604) or] 204 sors ~ [1010 ( 288 £88) 828 .0336 x 160.97 66.4 Then kp = 111.71/166.4 = 0.671 and NEn, = 13 x 0.671 = 8.72 ‘The net energy intake (NEI) of the cow is defined by the following equation: NEI/MJ/4) = NEqs(S) X SDMI + NE,(C) x CDMI o [NEgp(S) = net energy of silage for maintenance and production (MJ/kg DM) NE, g(C) = net energy of concentrate for maintenance and production (MJ/kg DM) SDMI = intake of silage DM (kg/d) CDMI = intake of concentrate DM (ke/d) NEI is synonymous with Eqp and is known, and so are NEgq(S) and NEyy(C). Neither SDMI nor CDM are known but the Lewis equation (1981) defines SDMI as follows: SDMI(kg/d) = (1.068 I — 0.00247 IC - 0.00337C? — 10.9)W*"*/1000 + 0.00175Y? and this may be redefined in terms of CDMI as follows: SDMI(kg/d) = {1.068 1 ~ 0,00247(CDMI x 1000/W""*) x 1 ~ 0.0037(CDMI x 1000/W°75)? = 10.9] x W100 + 0.00175Y* @ ‘Substituting for SDMI in (1) gives a quadratic in CDMI as follows: comig/ay = b= VEE 0.0037NEmp(S) x 1000/W°”* 0.00247NE,,(S) x I - NEgg(C) NEI ~ NEpp(S)[(1.068 x I~ 10.9)W®"S/1000] ~ [NEgg(S) X 0.00175Y7] In the example T(g/kgW°”*) = (0.103 x 250) + (0.0516 x 625) ~ (0.05 x 85) + 45 = 98.75 (0.00337 x 6.1 x 1000/6007 = 0.170 0.00247 x 6.1 x 98.75 - 8.72 = ~7.23 111.7 ~ 6.10 [(1.068 x 98.75 — 10.9)600°7*/1000] ~ [6.10 x 0.00175 x 20°) = 37.5 ‘Then 1.23 ~ VT28 = 4x O1T x 375 CDMItke/é ea = 6.04AFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients 793 and NEI ~ NEp,(C) x CDML NE wy(S) N17 - 8.72 x 6.04 10 SDMIke/a) =97 The daily ration is then 9.7/0.25 = 38.8 kg silage plus 6.04/0.86 = 6.99 kg concentrate Appendix 3a Dietary allowances of metabolizable energy for pregnant cows (Ms) Dietary allowances of ME for pregnant cows may be calculated Mas(MI/A) = Cy(Eq/km + E./0.133 + B,/k,) equation: Example Calculation of the allowance of dietary ME for a pregnant cow. Animal Liveweight: 550kg Stage of pregnancy: 2604 Birthweight of calf: 35kg Liveweight change: ~0.1 kg/d Ration Gn =06 Eq(MJ/A) = 0.53(550/1.08)° + 0.0071 x $50 = 38.4 EMI/d) = 0.025 x 35(0,02016-0 90575124 9}51.65 ~ 18, 4at-0.000596126y oa (MI/) = 01 x26= -26 e035 06+ 0508 078 ou = 06s c= tron 22% 228) 92 or Mrp(MJ/d) = 1.007(38.4/0.713 + 3.29/0.133 — 2.6/0.665) 75.2 Appendix 3b Prediction of liveweight change in pregnant cows (AW) Liveweight change may be predicted if liveweight, birthweight of the calf, intake of ME and ‘metabolizability of the ration are known. The equation for the calculation is as follows: Py Pa)? _ (Pix Pa ~ MENS [4 (Pi: svovn le(@B) (tga) [-ofh E Pi =1+0.018 033 kn Py = 0468 x Be Example Calculation of liveweight change in the pregnant cow. Birthweight of calf: 35kg Stage of pregnancy: 2604794 ‘Appendix 3¢ ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Ration Hay 6 (kg/d (ME = 8.8M1/kg DM: gq, = 0.478: DM = 860 ¢/kg) Concentrate 2.5 kg/d (ME = 12MJ/kg DM: dq, = 0.638: DM = 860 g/kg) ME intake (MEI) = 71.2MJ/d M/D of ration = 9.74 Qn of ration = 0.525 Eq(M3/d) = 38.4 E(M/d) = 3.29 ky, = 0.35 x 0.525 + 0.503 = 0.687 K. = 0.133 3.29 0.687 0.133 * 38.4 ~ oe 0.687 0.468 x SE = 0.0084 P, = 1+ 0.018 x 384 | 3.29 oer * o.133 = 8% P= 25 8 80.6? 1.008 x 80.6 - 71.2\]°> 1.008 _ 80.6 Awks/e) = {[oas(q *) - ¢ 0.0086 x 26 2)| - [s(t Ss 0.3748 x 0.665 =028 PS It isimportant to appreciate that the prediction has validity only when energy deposited in the con- cepta is known. Foetal growth has a very high if not absolute priority and, under normal circum- stances, itis probable that tissue will be mobilized to ensure normal foetal development, and that tissue deposition will ake place only when the requirements for foetal growth have been satisfied, Unless there is an abnormal deficit or surplus of dietary ME, predictions of liveweight change in the pregnant animal should therefore have considerable val Ration formulation for pregnant cows ‘The difficulties of using a ME system for formulating rations, when the efficiencies of utilization of ME are dependent upon the metabolizability of the ration, have been discussed previously (Section 5.5.2.3). The reasons for the decision to use a variable net energy system in formulating. rations for growing and lactating cattle are equally valid in the case of the pregnant cow. The pro- posed method is described below. [Net energy requirements of pregnant cows (Eyp) ‘The net energy requirements have been discussed. They may be calculated as follows: Eq(MI/d) = 0.53(W ~ 1.08) + 0.0071W E,(MI/d) = 0.025We(0.0201¢°° 57H) 9151.48 181 ern -0 08760) E\(MI/d) = AW x 26 Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production (NEy,) ‘The net energy of a feed for maintenance and production may be calculated as ME x Kp when. gp is the efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for the combined functions of maintenance and. production. It may be calculated as Enp/My, for designated metabolizabilites and levels of production. Example Calculation of the net energies of feeds for maintenance and production, Feeds Hay (ME = 8.8MJ/kg DM: gq = 0.474: DM = 860 g/kg: DOMD = $68(¢/kg DM) Concentrate (ME = 12 MJ/kg DM: gq, = 0.638: DM = 860 g/kg) Animal Liveweight: 550 kg. Liveweight change: —0.2 kg/d Calf birthweight: 35kg Stage of pregnancy: 260dAERC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 795 Formulation of the ration E,(MJ/A) = 0.53(550/1.08)°" + 0.0071 x $50 = 38.4 E{(MI/d) = 0.025 x 35(0.0201¢-P 10057 26)(19}51 465-15 eno. 24) = 3,99 E\(MI/d) = ~26 x 0.20= ~5.2 Egp(MI/A) = 38.4 + 3.29 - 5.2 x 0.2 = 40.65 For the hay (R) 0.35 x 0.474 + 0.503 = 0.133 0.78 x 0.474 + 0.006 = 0.376 669 1 soni (2228202) 28 gu Myup(MJ/d) = 1.0053 [38.4/0,669 + ((3.29 - 5.2 x 0.2)/0.133)] = 74.71 pares eee cat +001 (222582*92) 228 «eo Myy(MJ/d) = 1.0058 [38.4/0.726 + (3.29 — 5.2 x 0.2/0.133)} = 70.21 and NEj,(€) = 12 x 0.579 = 6.95MJ/kgDM The net energy intake of the cow is defined by the follo NEI(M1/d) = NEpy(R) x RDMI + NB,(C) x CDMI oO RDMI = intake of roughage DM (kg/d) CDMI = intake of concentrate DM (kg/d) 18 equation: NEL is synonymous with Eno, when the net energy requirement is fully met, and is known: NEju(R) and NEj,(C) are known also. Neither RDMI nor CDMI are known, but the former is defined terms of the latter in the intake equation: RDMI(kg/d) = (0.000311 DOMD ~ 0.00475 CDMI — 0.1102)W°7 Substituting in equation C and transforming gives: : x W°%0,0003 = 0.1102) cot (ke/a) = NEL= NEa(R) (0.000311 DOMD ) NE qg(C) = 0.00475W° x NE, (R) 0.1102) 4.79 x_113,57(0.0003111 x 568 6.95 — 0.00475 x 113.57 x 4.79 Equation C may be rearranged to give: IEI ~ NE gg(C) x CDMI NI RDMI(kg/A) = NE 40.65 ~ 6.95 x 1.02 479 00 ‘The required ration is 1.02/0.86 = 1.19 kg concentrate plus 7.00/0.86 0.665 when E, is negative 14 kg hay ARC80 makes no recommendation concerning a correction for level of feeding. It seems logical that a correction, derived similarly to that for lactating cows, should be used, and this has been done. (h) DMI of roughage RDMI = (0.000311 DOMD ~ 0.00478C ~ 0.1102)w®"* Examples of the use of the recommended system for calculating allowances of ME, for predicting performance and for ration formulation are given in Appendix 3.196 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Appendix 4a Dietary allowances of metabolizable energy for pregnant ewes (Muy) Dietary allowances of ME for pregnant ewes may be calculated using the following equation: Ms(MI/A) = Cy (Eq/ky + E./0.133 + E,/k,) Example Calculation of the allowance of dietary ME for a pregnant ewe. Animal Liveweight: 15ke Stage of pregnancy: 135d Birthweight of lambs: 9 kg Liveweight change: —0.07kg/d Ration Qn = 0.6 Eqg(MJ/d) = 0.226(75/1.08)°7 + 0.0055 x 75 = 5.85 E\(MI/d) = 0.25 x 9[0.07372exp( —0.00683 x 135) 10222 49791-00060 195) 1.19 E\(MI/d) = 0.07 x 26 = — 1.82 kg = 0.35 x 0.6 + 0.503 = 0.713 K = 0.133 k, = 0.668 Cy = 1 + 0.018(1.19/0.133 + ~ 1.82/0.665) x (0.713/5.85) = 1.0136 Mag(MJ/8) = 1.0136(5.85/0.713 + 1.19/0.133 ~ 1.82/0.665) = 14.61 Appendix 4b Prediction of liveweight change in pregnant ewes (AW) Liveweight change may be predicted if ewe liveweight, birthweight of the lambs, intake of ME and ‘metabolizability of the ration are known. ‘The equation for the calculation is: Py | Ps\?_ (Py x Ps - MET) ]°* P,P swine = foas(et pt) ~ (ES I [ose rl a pyar eons Ess ie P, = 0.468 x Ke En Py = En/ky + E,/0.133 P, = 26 Example Calculation of liveweight change in the pregnant ewe Animal Liveweight 75kg Lamb birthweight) 9 kg Stage of pregnancy: 1354 Ration Hay 0.65 kg/d (ME = 8.8 MJ/kg DM: gq = 0.478: DM = 860 ¢/kg) Concentrate 0.90 kg/d (ME = 12.5MJ/kg DM: dq = 0.679: DM = 860 ¢/ks) ME of ration (MED) = 14.6MJ/d Gn of ration = 0.597 E_(MI/d) = 5.85 E(MJ/a) = 1.19 kp = 0.35 x 0.597 + 0.503 = 0.712 133 o.n2 P, = 0.468 x 9712 - Sas = 0.057 $85 1.19 o7i2 * 0.133 ~ BRSAFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 97 waar ~ {faa = [os(.2e te = = 0.106 * ky P, = 26 1.0196 x 17.16 ~ 14. 0.057 x 26 1665 when E, negative AW(kg/d) = -0.106 x 0.665 = 007 It is important to appreciate that the prediction has validity only when the energy deposited in the conceptais known. Foetal growth hasa very high if not absolute priority and, under normal circum stances, itis probable that tissue will be mobilized to ensure normal foetal development, and that tissue deposition will take place in the mature ewe, only when the requirements for foetal growth ‘have been satisfied. For immature animals this isles likely to be so. A further source of uncertainty is the difficulty of predicting energy value of gain in pregnant ewes with accuracy. The difficulty ‘may be obviated by dealing in terms of energy deficits or surpluses rather than weight changes. ‘Appendix 4e Ration formulation for pregnant ewes ‘The difficulties of using a ME system for formulating rations, when the efficiencies of utilization of ME are dependent upon the metabolizability of the ration, have been discussed previously (ection 5.5.2.3). The reasons for the decision to use a variable net energy system in formulating. rations for growing and lactating cattle are still valid, even if quantitatively les important, in the case of the pregnant ewe. The proposed method is described below. Net energy requirements of pregnant ewes ‘The net energy requirements have been discussed. They may be calculated as follows: 0.226(W/1.08)°7* + 0.0055W E,(MI/d) E,(MJ/d) = 0.25W,,[0.07372exp\ — 0.006431)] [10° 222~+979e#9¢-9.006430) E\(MI/d) = 26 x AW Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production (NE, ‘The net energy of a feed for maintenance and production may be calculated as ME X Kgs in which kp i the efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for the combined functions of maintenance and production. It may be calculated as Emp/Mp for designated metabolizabilities and levels of production. Example Calculation of the net energies of feeds for maintenance and production. Foods Hay (ME = 8.8MJ/kg DM: gq = 0.478: DM = 860 g/kg: DOMD = 68 g/kg DM) Concentrate (ME = 12.5 MJ/kg DM: aq = 0.679: DM = 860 6/kg) Animal Liveweight: 75kg Liveweight change: —0.07 kg/d Lamb birthweight: 9kg Stage of pregnancy: 135d E,(MJ/d) = 0.226(75/1.08)""* + 0.0085 x 75 85 E(MJ/d) = 0.25 x 9[0.07372exp( — 0.00643 x 135)] [10°-92#- 4-978 -0.00648 « 138) 2119 E\(MI/a) = -0.07 x 26 = -1.82 Eng (MI/d) = 5.85 + 1.19 ~ 1.82 x 0.2 = 6.68798 Formulation of the ration ‘Appendix Sa ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 For the hay 35 x 0.478 + 0.503 ~ 0.670 133 = 0.665 Lig, =1.82) 0.670 = 1+ ois( 29 + 282) 5 988 = Lone ™, 1,0126(1.19/0.133 ~ 1.82/0.665 + 5.85/0.670) 5.13 Then kep = 6.68/15.13 = 0.442 and NEq(R) 8 x 0.442 = 3,89 MI/kg DM For the concentrate 0.35 x 0.679 + 0.503 = 0.741 0.133 0.665 = 1.0142 19 | - 1.82 3.85 Ma(MS/d) = 1.0142(1.19/0.133 ~ 1.82/0.665 + $.85/0.741) = 14.31 ‘np 6.68/14.31 = 0.467 NEgg(C) = 12.5 x 0.467 = 5.84 The net energy of the ration (NEI) is defined by the following equation: NEI(MS/4) = NEgp(R) x RDMI + NEq,(C) x CDMI o RDMI = intake of roughage DM (kg/d) CDMI = intake of concentrate DM (kg/d) NET is synonymous with E,.,, when the ME requirement is fully met, and is known: NE,,(R) and NEqj(C) also are known. Neither RDMI nor CDMI are known, but the former is defined in terms. of the latter in the equation for calculating the DMI of the roughage, in this case hay. RDMI(kg/d) = CDMI(1.9 — 0.076W ~ 0.002033 DOMD) + 0.002444 DOMD 0.09565 LS + 0.01891W ~ 1.44 Substituting in equation 1 above and rearranging gives the following for calculating CDMI: NEI ~ NEqs(R) x (0.002444 DOMD — 0.09565 LS + 0.01891W ~ 1.44) NEq9(R) x (1.9 = 0.076W ~ 0.002033 DOMD) + NE,,(C) __ 6.68 ~ 3.89(0,002444 x 568 ~ 0.0956 x 2 + 0.01891 x 75 ~ 1.44) - 3.89(1.9 — 0.076 x 20 = 0.002033 x 568) + 5.84 CDMI(kg/d) = = 0.746 Equation 1 may be rearranged to give: NEI - New(C) x CDMI = NEL=NealC) x COMI RDMI(ke/d) Ne 68 ~ 5.84 x 0.746 89 597 ‘The required ration is 0.746/0.860 = 0.867 kg of concentrate plus 0.597/0.860 = 0.694 kg of hay. Dietary allowances of metabolizable energy for lactating ewes (Mp) Dietary allowances of ME for lactating ewes may be calculated using the following equation: o(+B aw x =) Mag(MI/d) par iBAFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients Example Ration Qn = 0.60 Animal Lowland ewe W = 1Skg AW = -0.08 kg/d Stage of lactation = week 4 99 E,(MJ/d) = 0.226(75/1.08)°* + 0.0096W = 6.16 =1 sao (2zt8, 08h Ma ane to Mas(MI/A) = 1.042 = 30 Appendix Sb Prediction of liveweight change in lactating ewes (AW) Liveweight change may be predicted if liveweigh the ration are known, The equation for the cal °, Atks/) = {le as(F pars oo (% 0.018 x EV, x k, py = 2:08 x EV, * km En Ration Intake of ME = 30MI/d Metabolizability of ration = 0.6 Animal Lowland ewe w 75kg = 3.0ke Litter size E,(MJ/d) 0.713 0.630 10x 46 x 0.713 Pym ors (22788 * 0718) « sos yw 0018 X 27.36 x ost0 616 3x46 Peon * 06 P, = 27.36 +8) - Ce] -[mGe bt, milk yield, ME intake and metabolizability of misoe ta aloee oh800 ‘Appendix Se ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60.No. 10 (0.0570 * 27.36 1.0456 | 30.544 - [os(cosn 3) Jom 0.05 1.0456 , 30.544? 1.0456 x 30.544 ~ 30]! Weke/d) = 8 = (L458 x 30.544 = 30) marae {le ( ) ( 0.0570 x 27.36 )] I is important to appreciate that the prediction has validity only when the milk yield is known. The ‘method cannot be used to calculate the weight change likely to result from a change in ME intake. In such a case, the resulting deficit or surplus of energy would be partitioned between liveweight change and milk production. In order to make a valid prediction of liveweight change, therefore, the actual extent of the partitioning must be known in quantitative terms. Formulation of rations for lactating ewes ‘The difficulties of using a ME system for formulating rations, when the efficiencies of utilization of ME are dependent upon the metabolizability of the ration, have been discussed previously (Section §.$.2.3). The reasons for using a variable net energy system in formulating rations for ‘growing cattle are equally valid in the case of the lactating ewe. The proposed method is described below: [Net energy requirements of lactating ewes (Eny) ‘The net energy requirements have been discussed earlier. ‘They may be calculated as follows: EM(MI/d) = 0.226(W/1.08)" + 0.0096W BUMI/d) = ¥ x 4.6 E\(MI/d) = AW x 27.36 Eap(MI/d) = En + Ei + By Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production (NE qm) ‘The net energy of a feed for maintenance and production may be calculated as ME X kp in which kp is the efficiency of utilization of dietary ME for the combined functions of maintenance and production. It may be calculated a5 Egy/Myg, for designated metabolizabilities and levels of production. Example Calculation of the net energy values of feeds for maintenance and production. Feeds Hay (ME = 8.8MJ/kg DM: qq, = 0.478: DOMD = 568 g/kg DM: DM = 850 g/kg) 13.0: qq = 0.700: DM = 860 g/kg) Animal Lowland ewe Liveweight: 15ke Litter size: 2 Liveweight change: ~0.0Ske/d Milk yield 3ke/d Energy value of milk: 4.6MJ/kg EQ(MI/a). = 0.226(75/1.08)" + 0,0096 x 75 = 6.16 E(MJ/é) = 346 = 13.8 E(MI/d) = =27.36 x 0.05 = -1.37 Eg(MI/d) = 6.16 + 13.8 ~ (1.37 X 0.84) = 18.8 For the hay: kp = 0.35 x 0.478 + 0,503 = 0.670 ky = 0.35 x 0.478 + 0.42 = 0.587 k, = 0.587/0.80 = 0.734 ve = [1 s001( 28 aizoa] 6.16 | 13.8 =137 507 * 0.734 )6.16| | or * 0.587 a = 32.14AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients 801 Formulation of the ration Appendix 6a Then np = 18.8/32.14 = 0,585 and NEqgg(MS/kgDM) = 8.8 x 0.585 = 5. For the concentrate: ky = 0.35 x 0.70 + 0.503 ky = 0.35 x 0.70 + 0.42 748 0.665 i = 0.665/0.80 = 0.831, 138 | -1.37)0.748) [ 616 13.8 | 1.37 mnra [1 00n(es + Geir ene] [aaa as * Gar | = 28.48 Then gp = 18.8/28.48 = 0.66 and NE gy(MJ/kg DM) = 13 x 0.66 = 8.58, ‘The net energy intake of the ewe is defined by the following equation: NEI(MJ/4) = NEq)(H) x HDMI + NEgg(C) X CDMI o NEqg(H) = net energy of hay for maintenance and production (MI/kg DM) NE,,(C) = net energy of concentrate for maintenance and production (MJ/kg DM) HDMI = intake of hay (kg DM/d) DMI = intake of concentrate (kg DM/d) NEL is synonymous with En and is known, and so are NEq,(H) and NEgp(C). Neither CDMI nor HDMI are known but HDMI is defined in terms of CDMI in the intake equation: HDMI(ke/d) = [(1 = 0.069 x 1 xC + 0.524C)0.001W] x 1.6 which may be rewritten as DMI x 1000 4, CDML x 100) Substituting for HDMI in (1) and transforming gives: NEI ~ (NEqs(H) x 1x 1.6 x 0.001W) NEgp(H) x 0.524 + NEgg(C) — 0.069 x 1x NE,,,(H) _ 188 ~ (6.15 x 16.5 «1.6 x 0.001 x 75) = 515 0.524 + 8.58 — 0.069 x 16.5 x 5.15 CDMI(kg/d) = =159 Then 18.8 ~ 1.59 x 8.58 HDMI(kg/d) = 5 = 1.00 The daily ration is then 1.59/0.860 = 1.85 kg concentrate plus 0.93/0.850 = 1.16 kg hay. Calculation of dietary allowances of metabolizable energy for growing sheep ‘The ME required for maintenance and production (Myg) by a growing animal may be calculated as follows: E B Myg(M/a) = 52 in =P in which P = ky In (kg/ky) B= ky/(ky ~ ki) Ev, x AW fae aw802 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 Example Calculation of the allowance of dietary metabolizable energy for a growing animal Animal Liveweight: 30kg Liveweight gain: 100 g/d Female lamb Ration Hay + concentrate Oe = 06 Eq(M3/d)_ = 0.251(30/1.08)°" + 30 x 0.007 = 3.25 k 0.35 x gu + 0.503 = 0.713 EV,(MI/kg) = 2.1 + 0.45 x 30 = 15.6 ky 0.78 x 0.6 +. 0.006 = 0.474 P 0.713 In (0.713/0.474) = 0.2911 B = 0.713/0,713 ~ 0.474) = 2.9833 15.6 x 0.10 R = EEX 010 _ og 325 3.25 2.9833, Mao(M3/¢) oaart "2.9833 - 1 — 0.88 165 Appendix 6b Prediction of daily liveweight change in growing sheep Liveweight change may be calculated using the following equation any (1 £2) EV, Example Prediction of liveweight gain in the growing lamb. Animal Liveweight: 30 kg. Female lamb Ration Hay 0.60 kg (ME = 8.8MJ/kg DM: dq = 0.478: DM = 860 ¢/ke) Concentrate 0.24 kg (ME = 13 MJ/kg DM: qq = 0.70: DM = 860 ¢/ka) ME intake = 7.2MJ/d Eg(MJ/d) 3.25 ke = 0.35 x 0.54 + 0.503 = 0.692 kr 0.78 X 0.54 + 0,006 = 0.427 EV (MI/ka) = 18.6 1.2.x 0.692 -2S 1s - ste ee ad 1 = (0.427/0.692) (12 ~ 234) «228 00m ‘Appendix 6¢ Formulation of rations for growing sheep ‘The difficulties of using a ME system for formulating rations, when the efficiencies of utilization of ME are dependent upon the metabolizability of the ration, have been discussed previously (Gection 5.5.2.3). The reasons for the decision to use a variable net energy system for formulating rations for beef cattle are equally valid in the case of the growing sheep. The proposed method is described below.AFRC Technical Committee on Responses 10 Nutrients 803 Net energy requirements of growing sheep ‘These have been discussed and may be calculated as follo. E,(MI/d) = C,[0.251¢W/1.08)""5} + 0.0070 E,(MJ/d) = EV, x AW Eqg(MI/d) = Eq +E, Net energies of feeds for maintenance and production (ME mp) ‘The net energy of a feed for maintenance and production may be calculated as ME X Kp, when. Kap is the efficiency of utilization of ME for the combined functions of maintenance and pro- duction. It may be calculated a Eqp/Muy, for given metabolizabilities and levels of production. Example Calculation of net energies for maintenance and production Feeds Hay (ME = 8.5 MJ/kg DM: aa, 545 g/kg DM: DM. Concentrate (ME = 13 MJ/kg DM: gq, = 0.70: DM = 860 g/kg) 462: DOMD 860 g/kg) Animal Liveweight: 30kg Liveweight gain: 100 g/d Female lamb Eq(MJ/d) = 0.251(30/1,08)° + 0.007 x 30 = 3.25 E\(MJ/d) = (2.1 + 0.45 x 30) x 0.1 = 1.56 EA ,(MJ/d) = 3.25 + 1.56 = 4.81 For hay (R) = 0.35 x 0.462 + 0.503 = 0.665 ky = 0.78 x 0.462 + 0.006 = 0.366 = 0.665 in (0.665/0,366) = 0.3971 B= 0.665/(0.665 ~ 0.366) = 2.2241 R = 1,56/3.25 = 0.48, 3.25 2.2241 Mag(MI/8) = So In a5 gg = 8.96 Kgp = 4.81/8.96 = 0.537 NE, (R) = 0.537 x 8.5 = 4.56 MJ/kg DM For the concentrate (C) ky, = 0.35 x 0.7 + 0.503 = 0.748 ky = 0.78 x 0.7 + 0.006 = 0.552 0.748 in (0.748/0.852) = 0.2273 0.748/0.748 ~ 0.552) = 3.8163 1,56/3.25 = 0.48 Mag(MI/d) = = 4.81/7.02 = 0.685 NEgg(C) = 0.685 X 13 = 8.91 MJ/kg DM Formulation of the ration ‘The net energy of the ration NEI may be calculated using the following equs NEK(MJ/d) = RDMI x NE,,(R) + CDMI x NEqg(C) a ‘The total DMI of the animal may be calculated as follows: TDMI(kg/d) = RDMI + CDMI @ Foran animal receiving amined dit of hay and concentrates, total DMI may be calculated as folows rowag = [82 ga) x ROM + 46 x coMD + o3rw —15]352 oy ‘These 3 equations may be solved to define total DMI by the following equation: TDMI = X + V4)804 ‘Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 1990 Vol. 60 No. 10 in which X = 0,000SW"7(0,307W ~ 15 + 108.7q(R) ~ Z x NEqg(R)) 0.00125 x NEL x Zy Z = (104.7(4(C) ~ a(R))V/NEpp(C) ~ NEnp(R)) From equations 1 and 2, intake of roughage DM may be defined as: NEqg(C) x TDM ~ NEI Negg(©) ~ NEmg(R) RDMI(ke/d) and concentrate DM as: CDMI(kg/d) = TDMI - RDMI Inthe example: Z = 108.7(0.7 ~ 0,462)/(6.91 ~ 4.56) = 5.73 X = 0.0005 x 30 7%0,307 x 30 ~ 15 + 104.7 x 0.462 ~ 5.73 x 4.56) 0.105 Y = 0.001 x 30° x 4.81 x 5.73 = 0.353, TDMI(kg/€) = 0.105 + VO-105" + 0.353 = 8.91 x 0.708 ~ 4.81 RDMICke/a) = = 0st CDMIKkg/a) = 0.708 ~ 0.344 = 0.364 Ration required = 0.344/0.86 = 0.40 kg hay + 0.364/0.86 = 0.423 kg concentrate. 708 References Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No, 2, Ruminants. London: HMSO. ‘Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livesiack, Technical Review. Farnham Royal: CAB. Baldwin, R.L.; Bywater, A. C. (1984). Annual Review of Nutrition 4 101-114 Blaxter, K-L. (1959) Sciemfic Principles of Feeding Farm Livestock, p21-46. Proceedings of a Conference held at Brighton. November 1988. London: Farmer and Stock-breeder. Blaxter, K.L. (1967). George Scott Robertson Memorial Lecture, Belfast: Queen Blaxter, K'L:; Clapperton, J. L. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition. 19: S11-822! Bines, J.A.: Napper, D.J.j Jobnson, V.W. (1977). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36: 146A. Broste, W.H.; Thomas, C. (1982). Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. Nottingham, 1981, 49-69. (Ed W. Haresign) London: Butterworths ‘Campling, R.C. (1966). British Journal of Nutrition. 20; 28-39. Cowan, R.T.; Robinson, J..; McDonald, I; Smart, R. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science. 98: 497-514 Curran, M.K.: Wimble, R.H.; Holmes, W. (1970), Animal Production. 12: 195-212. Donald, H.P.; Russell, W.S. (1970). Animal Production, 12: 273-280, Foot, 3.Z. (1969). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. Supp. 9. 9-16. Harkins, J; Edwards, R.A; McDonald, P. (1974). Animal Production. 19: 141-148. Jarrige, Ri Demarquilly, C.; Hoden, A; Robelin, J.; Beranger, C.; Dulphy, .P.; Geay, Y.; Journet, M.s Malterre, C.; (1979). The INRA "Fill Unit” System CR-ZV. Lewis, M. (1981). ADAS Nutrition Chemisis* Technical Conference, Bristol, June 1981. Lodge, G.A.; Heaney, D.P. (1973). Canadian Journal of Animal Science. §3: 98-105, Lonsdale, C:R. (1976). PAD Thesis, University of Reading. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland; Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (1975). Technical Bulletin 33. London: HMSO. MLC (1981). Feeding the Ewe, 2nd edn, Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes. Neal, H.D. St. C.; Thomas, C. Cobby, J.M. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science. 103: 1-10. Neal, H.D. St. C.; France, 3; Ort, R.Ju; Treacher, T.T. (1985). Animal Production, 40: 93-100, NRC (1984). National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Catle, 6th edn, Washington, D. Orr, RJ; Treacher, T-T. (1984). Animal Production. 39: 89-98, Robinson, J.J. (1983), Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, Nottingham, 1983. 143-161, (Ed. W. Haresign) London: Butterworths. Robinson, J.J.; MeDonald, I.; MeHatte, .; Pennie, K. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science. 91: 291-340. Roy, J.H.B. (1980). The Colf 4th edn. p29-6S. (Ed. J.H.B. Roy) London: Butterworths. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients (1988). Report of the Working Party on the Prediction of the Voluntary Intake of Ruminants under Farm Conditions. ‘Theriez, Mc; Tissier, M.; Robelin, J. (1981). Animal Production. 32: 29-37. ‘Treacher, T.T.; Orr, RJ. (1988). BSAP Winter Meeting paper No. 13. Scarborough, March 1985, Tyrrel, H.F.: Reid, IT. (1965), Journal of Dairy Science. 48: 1215-1223. Vadiveloo, J-; Holmes, W. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science. 93: 583-562 Wright, LA.; Russel, A.J.F. (1984). Animal Production. 39: 368-369. University col, D.; Pett, M. [National Academy of Sciences,