Paper · 2023 · Agriculture

Estimation of Energy Value and Digestibility and Prediction Equations for Sheep Fed with Diets Containing Leymus chinensis Hay

Hewei Chen; Fengliang Xiong; Qichao Wu; et al.

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass, including its chemical composition, dry matter intake, nutrient digestibility, and available energy, as well as the prediction equations of dry matter intake (DMI), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), dry matter digestibility (DMD), digestible energy (DE), and metabolizable energy (ME). Two independent experiments based on a completely randomized experimental design were performed to evaluate the feeding value. The results showed that there were significant relationships between chemical composition and DMI, digestibility, and available energy. The best-fit equations were as follows: DMI (g/d·W0.75) = 121.75 + 0.06CP (%) − 0.24EE (%) − 0.10ADF (%) − 0.60NDF (%) − 0.15OM (%) (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.01), DMD (%) = −1.37 + 0.23CP (%) + 2.96EE (%) + 0.32ADF (%) − 0.82NDF (%) + 1.27OM (%) (R2 = 0.83, p < 0.01), NDFD (%) = 225.58 − 0.59CP (%) + 0.04EE (%) + 0.09ADF (%) − 2.46NDF (%) + 0.12OM (%) (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.01), DE (MJ/kg) = −5.19 + 0.38OM (%) − 0.26NDF (%) − 0.03ADF (%) + 0.16CP (%) (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.01), and ME (MJ/kg) = 5.55 + 0.67DE (MJ/kg) + 0.01CP (%) − 0.01ADF (%) − 0.08NDF (%) + 0.02OM (%) (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.01). This study found the energy value of sheepgrass to be 11 MJ/kg, which is similar to that of millet grass silage. The NDF was the main component that affected DMI and digestibility. Using a hay replacement ratio of 28.5% to determine the forage value of sheepgrass allowed accurate prediction equations to be established. The NDF demonstrated the strongest correlation with DMI, NDFD, OMD, DE, and ME. DE was estimated to be the best single predictor of ME.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chemical composition was significantly related to DMI, digestibility and available energy of sheepgrass.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Compound
chemical compositione1
Outcome
DMI, digestibility, and available energye1

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that there were significant relationships between chemical composition and DMI, digestibility, and available energy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–639 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best-fit DMI prediction equation for sheepgrass hay had R2 = 0.85.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
DMIe1
Value
R2 = 0.85e1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“DMI (g/d·W0.75) = 121.75 + 0.06CP (%) − 0.24EE (%) − 0.10ADF (%) − 0.60NDF (%) − 0.15OM (%) (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–794 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best-fit DMD prediction equation for sheepgrass hay had R2 = 0.83.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
DMDe1
Value
R2 = 0.83e1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“DMD (%) = −1.37 + 0.23CP (%) + 2.96EE (%) + 0.32ADF (%) − 0.82NDF (%) + 1.27OM (%) (R2 = 0.83, p < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 796–900 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best-fit NDFD prediction equation for sheepgrass hay had R2 = 0.67.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
NDFDe1
Value
R2 = 0.67e1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“NDFD (%) = 225.58 − 0.59CP (%) + 0.04EE (%) + 0.09ADF (%) − 2.46NDF (%) + 0.12OM (%) (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–1008 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best-fit DE prediction equation for sheepgrass hay had R2 = 0.91.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
DEe1
Value
R2 = 0.91e1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“DE (MJ/kg) = −5.19 + 0.38OM (%) − 0.26NDF (%) − 0.03ADF (%) + 0.16CP (%) (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1010–1104 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The best-fit ME prediction equation for sheepgrass hay had R2 = 0.98.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
MEe1
Value
R2 = 0.98e1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“ME (MJ/kg) = 5.55 + 0.67DE (MJ/kg) + 0.01CP (%) − 0.01ADF (%) − 0.08NDF (%) + 0.02OM (%) (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1110–1220 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The energy value of sheepgrass was 11 MJ/kg, similar to that of millet grass silage.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
energy valuee0
Value
11 MJ/kge0
Comparator
millet grass silagee0

Verbatim

e0

“This study found the energy value of sheepgrass to be 11 MJ/kg, which is similar to that of millet grass silage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1222–1333 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NDF was the main component affecting DMI and digestibility of sheepgrass.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Compound
NDFe1
Outcome
DMI and digestibilitye1

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“The NDF was the main component that affected DMI and digestibility”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1335–1401 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NDF showed the strongest correlation with DMI, NDFD, OMD, DE and ME of sheepgrass.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Compound
NDFe1
Outcome
DMI, NDFD, OMD, DE, and MEe1

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“The NDF demonstrated the strongest correlation with DMI, NDFD, OMD, DE, and ME”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1543–1621 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DE was estimated to be the best single predictor of ME in sheepgrass.

Taxon
sheepgrasse0
Outcome
DE was estimated to be the best single predictor of MEe1

Verbatim

e0

“investigate the feeding value of sheepgrass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 35–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“DE was estimated to be the best single predictor of ME”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1623–1677 · show in text ↑