Using Chemical and Biological Approaches to Predict Energy Values of Selected Forages Affected by Variety and Maturity Stage: Comparison of Three Approaches

  • Yu, P. (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan) ;
  • Christensen, D.A. (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan) ;
  • McKinnon, J.J. (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan) ;
  • Soita, H.W. (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan)
  • 투고 : 2003.02.21
  • 심사 : 2003.09.16
  • 발행 : 2004.02.01


Two varieties of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L cv. Pioneer and Beaver) and timothy (Phleum pratense L cv. Climax and Joliette), grown at different locations in Saskatchewan (Canada), were cut at three stages [1=one week before commercial cut (early bud for alfalfa; joint for timothy); 2=at commercial cut (late bud for alfalfa; pre-bloom head for timothy); 3=one week after commercial cut (early bloom for alfalfa; full head for timothy)]. The energy values of forages were determined using three approaches, including chemical (NRC 2001 formula) and biological approaches (standard in vitro and in situ assay). The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of forage variety and stage of maturity on energy values under the climate conditions of western Canada, and to investigate relationship between chemical (NRC 2001 formula) approach and biological approaches (in vitro and in situ assay) on prediction of energy values. The results showed that, in general, forage species (alfalfa vs. timothy) and cutting stage had profound impacts, but the varieties within each species (Pioneer vs. Beaver in alfalfa; Climax vs. Joliette in timothy) had minimal effects on energy values. As forage maturity increased, the energy contents behaved in a quadratic fashion, increasing at stage 2 and then significantly decreasing at stage 3. However, the prediction methods-chemical approach (NRC 2001 formula) and biological approaches (in vitro and in situ assay) had great influences on energy values. The highest predicted energy values were found by using the in situ approach, the lowest prediction value by using the NRC 2001 formula, and the intermediate values by the in vitro approach. The in situ results may be most accurate because it is closest to simulate animal condition. The energy values measured by biological approaches are not predictable by the chemical approach in this study, indicating that a refinement is needed in accurately predicting energy values.


  1. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis (15th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.
  2. Ayres, J. F., K. S. Nandra and A. D. Turner. 1998. A study of the nutritive value of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in relation to different stages of phenological maturity in the primary growth phase in spring. Grass Forage Sci. 53:250-259.
  3. Canadian Dehydrator's Association. 1990. Canadian Processed Alfalfa for Dairy Cattle p. 1.
  4. Canadian Hay Association, 1999. Timothy Production Handbook.
  5. Cox, W. J., J. H. Cherney, D. J. R. Cherney and W. D. Pardee. 1994. Forage quality and harvest index of corn hybrids under different growing conditions. Agron J. 86:277-282.
  6. Elizalde, J. C., N. R. Merchen and D. B. Faulkner. 1999. Fractionation of fiber and crude protein in fresh forages during the spring growth. J. Anim. Sci. 77:476-484.
  7. Ferdinandez, Y. S. N. and B. E. Coulman. 2001. Nutritive values of smooth bromegrass, meadow bromegrass, and meadow${\times}$ smooth bromegrass hybrids for different plant parts and growth stages. Crop Sci. 41:473-478.
  8. Firdous, R. and A. H. Gilani. 2001. Changes in chemical composition of sorghum as influenced by growth stages and cultivar. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14:935-940.
  9. Hoffman, P. C., S. J. Sievert, R. D. Shaver, D. A. Welch and D. K. Combs. 1993. In situ dry matter, protein and fiber degradation of perennial forages. J. Dairy Sci. 76:2632-2643.
  10. Jung, H. G. and M. S. Allen. 1995. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2774-2790.
  11. Licitraa, G., T. M. Hernandezb and P. J. Van Soest. 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 57:347-358.
  12. Lundvall, J. P., D. R. Buxton, A. R. Hallauer and J. R. George. 1994. Forage quality variation among maize inbreds: in vitro digestibility and cell-wall components. Crop Sci. 34:1672-1678.
  13. Lyon, D. J., D. D. Baltensperger and M. Siles. 2001. Wheat grain and forage yields are affected by planting and harvest dates in the central Great Plains. Crop Sci. 41:488-492.
  14. Marten, G. C. and R. F. Barnes. 1980. Prediction of energy digestibility of forage with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization, Analytical Methodology for Feeds (Ed. W. J. Pigden, G. C. Balch, M. Graham), Ottawa, Canada. pp. 61-71.
  15. Mathison, R. D., C. C. Sheaffer, D. L. Rabas, D. R. Swanson and J. H. Halgerson. 1996. Early spring clipping and herbicide treatments delay alfalfa maturity. J. Prod. Agric. 9:505-509.
  16. McKinnon, J. J., J. A. Olubobokun, A. Mustafa, R. D. H. Cohen and D. A. Christensen. 1995. Influence of dry heat treatment of canola meal on site and extent of nutrient disappearance in ruminant. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 56:243-252.
  17. Minson, D. J. and M. N. McLeod. 1970. The digestibility of temperate and tropical grasses. In: Proc. XI Int. Grassland Congress (Ed. M. J. T. Norman), Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, p. 719.
  18. NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle (7th Rev. Edt). National Research Council, Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.
  19. NRC. 2001. Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle (7th Rev. Edt). National Research Council, Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.
  20. SAS. 1991. User's Guide: Statistics, Version 6 Edition, SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
  21. Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Symposium: Carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3597.
  22. Weiss, W. P., H. R. Conrad and N. R. S. Pierre. 1992. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 39:95-110.
  23. Yu, P., D. A. Christensen, J. J. McKinnon and J. D. Markert. 2003a. Effect of Variety and Maturity Stage on Chemical Composition, carbohydrate and Protein Subfractions. In vitro Rumen degradability and Energy Values of Timothy and Alfalfa. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83:279-290.
  24. Yu, P., D. A. Christensen and J. J. McKinnon. 2003b. Comparison of the National Research Council-2001 Model with the Dutch System (DVE/OEB) in the Prediction of Nutrient Supply to Dairy Cows from Forages. J. Dairy Sci. 86:2178-2192.

피인용 문헌

  1. Protein secondary structures (α-helix and β-sheet) at a cellular level and protein fractions in relation to rumen degradation behaviours of protein: a new approach vol.94, pp.05, 2005,
  2. Chemical characterization, energy values, protein and carbohydrate fractions, degradation kinetics of frost damaged wheat (with severely overall weight loss) in ruminants vol.80, pp.2, 2009,
  3. L. Taxa from Tunisia vol.14, pp.3, 2015,