Comparison among methods of effective energy evaluation of corn silage for beef cattle

  • Wei, Ming (College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Chen, Zhiqiang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Wei, Shengjuan (College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University) ;
  • Geng, Guangduo (College of Animal Science, Anhui Science and Technology University) ;
  • Yan, Peishi (College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2017.07.13
  • Accepted : 2017.11.18
  • Published : 2018.06.01


Objective: This study was conducted to compare different methods on effective energy evaluation of corn silage for beef cattle. Methods: Twenty Wandong bulls (Chinese indigenous yellow cattle) with initial body weight of $281{\pm}15.6kg$, were assigned to 1 of 5 dietary treatments with 4 animals per treatment in a randomized complete block design. Five dietary treatments included group 1 with corn silage only diet, group 2 with corn silage-concentrate basal diet (BD) and 3 groups with 3 test diets, which were the BD partly substituted by corn silage at 10%, 30%, and 60%. The total collection digestion trial was conducted for 5 d for each block after a 10-d adaptation period, and then an open-circuit respiratory cage was used to measure the gas exchange of each animal in a consecutive 4-d period. Results: The direct method-derived metabolizable energy and net energy of corn silage were 8.86 and 5.15 MJ/kg dry matter (DM), expressed as net energy requirement for maintenance and gain were 5.28 and 2.90 MJ/kg DM, respectively; the corresponding regression method-derived estimates were 8.96, 5.34, 5.37, and 2.98 MJ/kg DM, respectively. The direct method-derived estimates were not different (p>0.05) from those obtained using the regression method. Using substitution method, the nutrient apparent digestibility and effective energy values of corn silage varied with the increased corn silage substitution ratio (p<0.05). In addition, the corn silage estimates at the substitution ratio of 30% were similar to those estimated by direct and regression methods. Conclusion: In determining the energy value of corn silage using substitution method, there was a discrepancy between different substitution ratios, and the substitution ratio of 30% was more appropriate than 10% or 60% in the current study. The regression method based on multiple point substitution was more appropriate than single point substitution on energy evaluation of feedstuffs for beef cattle.


Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China


  1. ZoBell DR, Olson K, Wiedmeier R, et al. Effects of processed corn silage on its digestibility and production of growing beef replacement heifers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2002;96:221-8.
  2. Krishnamoorthya U, Rymerb C, Robinsonc PH. The in vitro gas production technique: limitations and opportunities. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005;123-124:1-7.
  3. Orskov ER, Hovell FD, DeB Mould F. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Trop Anim Health Prod 1980;5:195-213.
  4. Vanzan ES, Cochran RC, Titgemeyer EC. Standardization of in situ-techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. J Anim Sci 1998;76:2717-29.
  5. Birkett S, de Lange K. Limitations of conventional models and a conceptual framework for a nutrient flow representation of energy utilization by animals. Br J Nutr 2001;86:647-59.
  6. Adeola O, Jendza J, Southern L, Powell S, Owusu-Asiedu A. Contribution of exogenous dietary carbohydrases to the metabolizable energy value of corn distillers grains for broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2010;89:1947-54.
  7. Bolarinwa OA, Adeola O. Direct and regression methods do not give different estimates of digestible and metabolizable energy of wheat for pigs. J Anim Sci 2012;90(Suppl 4):390-2.
  8. Bolarinwa OA, Adeola O. Regression and direct methods do not give different estimates of digestible and metabolizable energy values of barley, sorghum, and wheat for pigs. J Anim Sci 2016;94:610-8.
  9. Qu ZT. Determination of crude feed composition and production levels of net energy impact of L.Chinensis and different varieties of corn net [master's thesis]. Harbin, China: Northeast Agricultural University; 2012.
  10. Zhao MM, Ma T, Ma JN, et al. Prediction and equation of effective energy values of common roughages for mutton sheep. Chn J Anim Nutr 2016;28:2385-95.
  11. Villamide MJ. Methods of energy evaluation of feed ingredients for rabbits and their accuracy. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996; 57:211-23.
  12. Villamide MJ, Garcia J, Cervera C, et al. Comparison among methods of nutritional evaluation of dietary ingredients for rabbits. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2003;109:195-207.
  13. Suzuki T, Phaowphaisal I, Pholsen P, et al. In vivo nutritive value of pangola grass (Digitaria eriantha) hay by a novel indirect calorimeter with a ventilated hood in Thailand. Jpn Agric Res Q 2008;42:123-9.
  14. Young BA, Fenton TW, McLean JA. Calibration methods in respiratory calorimetry. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol 1984;56:1120-5.
  15. McLean JA, Tobin G. Animal and human calorimetry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 108-11.
  16. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC International. 18th edn. Gaithersberg, MD: AOAC International; 2006.
  17. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Washington, DC, USA: USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 379, 1970. p. 1-20.
  18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97.
  19. Lofgreen GP, Garrett WN. A system for expressing net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing beef cattle. J Anim Sci 1968;27:793-806.
  20. Adeola O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. In: Lewis DJ, Southern LL, editors. Swine nutrition. 2nd edn. New York, USA: CRC Press; 2001. p. 903-16.
  21. Adeola O, Ileleji K. Comparison of two diet types in the determination of metabolizable energy content of corn distillers dried grains with solubles for broiler chickens by the regression method. Poult Sci 2009;88:579-85.
  22. National Research Council (NRC). Subcommittee on beef cattle nutrition. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th rev. ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.
  23. Valdes C, Carro MD, Ranilla MJ, Gonzalez J. Effect of forage to concentrate ratio in complete diets offered to sheep on voluntary food intake and some digestive parameters. Anim Sci 2000;70:119-26.
  24. Huhtanen P, Jaakkola S. The effects of forage preservation method and proportion of concentrate on digestion of cell wall carbohydrates and rumen digesta pool size in cattle. Grass Forage Sci 1993;48:155-65.
  25. Nousiainen J, Rinne M, Hellamaki M, Huhtanen P. Prediction of the digestibility of primary growth and regrowth grass silages from chemical composition, pepsin-cellulase solubility and indigestible cell wall content. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2003;110: 61-74.
  26. Owens FN, Sapienza DA, Hassen AT. Effect of nutrient composition of feeds on digestibility of organic matter by cattle: a review. J Anim Sci 2010;88:151-69.
  27. Mc Geough EJ, O'Kiely P, Hart KJ, et al. Methane emissions, feed intake, performance, digestibility, and rumen fermentation of finishing beef cattle offered whole-crop wheat silages differing in grain content. J Anim Sci 2010;88:2703-16.
  28. Zhao MM, Yang KL, Deng KD, et al. A comparison on metabolizable energy of Leymus Chinensis in mutton sheep determined by direct and substitution methods. Chn J Anim Nutr 2016;28:436-43.
  29. Maertens L, De Groote G. The digestible energy of alfalfa meal determined by digestibility tests with rabbits. Rev Agric 1981; 34:79-92.