Literature DB >> 21605776

Evaluation of models to predict the stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid profiles in rumen fluid of lactating Holstein cows.

Y Morvay1, A Bannink, J France, E Kebreab, J Dijkstra.   

Abstract

Volatile fatty acids (VFA), produced in the rumen by microbial fermentation, are the main energy source for ruminants. The VFA profile, particularly the nonglucogenic (acetate, Ac; butyrate, Bu) to glucogenic (propionate, Pr) VFA ratio (NGR), is associated with effects on methane production, milk composition, and energy balance. The aim of this study was to evaluate extant rumen VFA stoichiometry models for their ability to predict in vivo VFA molar proportions. The models were evaluated using an independent data set consisting of 101 treatments from 24 peer-reviewed publications with lactating Holstein cows. All publications contained a full diet description, rumen pH, and rumen VFA molar proportions. Stoichiometric models were evaluated based on root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) analysis. Of all models evaluated, the 1998 Friggens model had the lowest RMSPE for Ac and Bu (7.2 and 20.2% of observed mean, respectively). The 2006 Bannink model had the lowest RMSPE and highest CCC for Pr (14.4% and 0.70, respectively). The 2008 Bannink model had comparable predictive performance for Pr to that of the 2006 Bannink model but a larger error due to overall bias (26.2% of MSPE). The 1982 Murphy model provided the poorest prediction of Bu, with the highest RMSPE and lowest CCC (24.6% and 0.15, respectively). The 1988 Argyle and Baldwin model had the highest CCC for Ac with an intermediate RMSPE (0.47 and 8.0%, respectively). The 2006 Sveinbjörnsson model had the highest RMSPE (13.9 and 34.0%, respectively) and lowest CCC (0.31 and 0.40, respectively) for Ac and Pr. The NGR predictions had the lowest RMSPE and highest CCC in the 2 models of Bannink, whereas the lowest predictive performance was in the 2006 Sveinbjörnsson model. It appears that the type of VFA produced is not a simple linear relationship between substrate inputs and pH as currently represented. The analysis demonstrates that most rumen VFA stoichiometric approaches explain a large part of the variation in VFA molar proportions among diets, in particular for Ac, whereas predictive power for Pr and Bu differ largely among approaches. The move toward feed evaluation systems based on animal response might necessitate an improved representation of rumen fermentation, focused on improving our understanding of VFA proportions in diets that vary from the mean.
Copyright © 2011 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21605776     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of a sheep rumen model with fresh forages of diverse chemical composition.

Authors:  Indrakumar Vetharaniam; Ronaldo E Vibart; David Pacheco
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Effect of individual SCFA on the epithelial barrier of sheep rumen under physiological and acidotic luminal pH conditions.

Authors:  Gabriele Greco; Franziska Hagen; Svenja Meißner; Zanming Shen; Zhongyan Lu; Salah Amasheh; Jörg R Aschenbach
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Thermodynamic Driving Force of Hydrogen on Rumen Microbial Metabolism: A Theoretical Investigation.

Authors:  Henk J van Lingen; Caroline M Plugge; James G Fadel; Ermias Kebreab; André Bannink; Jan Dijkstra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Interaction between feed use efficiency and level of dietary crude protein on enteric methane emission and apparent nitrogen use efficiency with Norwegian Red dairy cows1.

Authors:  Alemayehu Kidane; Margareth Øverland; Liv Torunn Mydland; Egil Prestløkken
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Rumen In Vitro Fermentation and In Situ Degradation Kinetics of Winter Forage Brassicas Crops.

Authors:  José Daza; Daniel Benavides; Rubén Pulido; Oscar Balocchi; Annick Bertrand; Juan Keim
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Synchronization of rumen degradable protein with non-fiber carbohydrate on microbial protein synthesis and dairy ration digestibility.

Authors:  Annisa Rosmalia; Idat Galih Permana; Despal Despal
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2022-02-05

Review 7.  Quantification of methane emitted by ruminants: a review of methods.

Authors:  Luis Orlindo Tedeschi; Adibe Luiz Abdalla; Clementina Álvarez; Samuel Weniga Anuga; Jacobo Arango; Karen A Beauchemin; Philippe Becquet; Alexandre Berndt; Robert Burns; Camillo De Camillis; Julián Chará; Javier Martin Echazarreta; Mélynda Hassouna; David Kenny; Michael Mathot; Rogerio M Mauricio; Shelby C McClelland; Mutian Niu; Alice Anyango Onyango; Ranjan Parajuli; Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro Pereira; Agustin Del Prado; Maria Paz Tieri; Aimable Uwizeye; Ermias Kebreab
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.338

8.  The Contribution of Mathematical Modeling to Understanding Dynamic Aspects of Rumen Metabolism.

Authors:  André Bannink; Henk J van Lingen; Jennifer L Ellis; James France; Jan Dijkstra
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 5.640

9.  Negative Energy Balance Influences Nutritional Quality of Milk from Czech Fleckvieh Cows due Changes in Proportion of Fatty Acids.

Authors:  Jaromír Ducháček; Luděk Stádník; Martin Ptáček; Jan Beran; Monika Okrouhlá; Matúš Gašparík
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Characterization of variations within the rumen metaproteome of Holstein dairy cattle relative to morning feed offering.

Authors:  Mallory C Honan; Sabrina L Greenwood
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.