Evaluation of NRC, UC Davis and ADAS approaches to estimate the metabolizable energy values of feeds at maintenance energy intake from equations utilizing chemical assays and in vitro determinations

Feed samples received by commercial analytical laboratories are often undefined or mixed varieties of forages, originate from various agronomic or geographical areas of the world, are mixtures (e.g., total mixed rations) and are often described incompletely or not at all. Six unified single equation approaches to predict the metabolizable energy (ME) value of feeds determined in sheep fed at maintenance ME intake were evaluated utilizing 78 individual feeds representing 17 different forages, grains, protein meals and by-product feedstuffs. The predictive approaches evaluated were two each from National Research Council [National Research Council (NRC), Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, seventh revised ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2001], University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and ADAS (Stratford, UK). Slopes and intercepts for the two ADAS approaches that utilized in vitro digestibility of organic matter and either measured gross energy (GE), or a prediction of GE from component assays, and one UC Davis approach, based upon in vitro gas production and some component assays, differed from both unity and zero, respectively, while this was not the case for the two NRC and one UC Davis approach. However, within these latter three approaches, the goodness of fit (r(2)) increased from the NRC approach utilizing lignin (0.61) to the NRC approach utilizing 48 h in vitro digestion of neutral detergent fibre (NDF:0.72) and to the UC Davis approach utilizing a 30 h in vitro digestion of NDF (0.84). The reason for the difference between the precision of the NRC procedures was the failure of assayed lignin values to accurately predict 48 h in vitro digestion of NDF. However, differences among the six predictive approaches in the number of supporting assays, and their costs, as well as that the NRC approach is actually three related equations requiring categorical description of feeds (making them unsuitable for mixed feeds) while the ADAS and UC Davis approaches are single equations, suggests that the procedure of choice will vary dependent Upon local conditions, specific objectives and the feedstuffs to be evaluated. In contrast to the evaluation of the procedures among feedstuffs, no procedure was able to consistently discriminate the ME values of individual feeds within feedstuffs determined in vivo, suggesting that the quest for an accurate and precise ME predictive approach among and within feeds, may remain to be identified. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.