Using in vitro methods to estimate metabolizable energy content of five forage legumes harvested under different defoliation systems / Einsatz von in vitro Methoden zur Schätzung der umsetzbaren Energie in fünf Futterleguminosen aus unterschiedlichen Nutzungssystemen

NIRS calibration statistics of the determined parameters IOM (g/kg DM), ME_CM (MJ/kg DM), TT-OMD (%), and ME_TT (MJ/kg DM) of the legume samples (n = 431)

Tabelle 1. NIRS Kalibrationsstatistik für folgende Parameter: IOM (g/kg TM), ME_CM (MJ/kg TM), TT-DOM (%) und ME_TT (MJ/kg TM)

Parameter	n(1)	Range (2)		Mean (3)	SD (4)	SEC (5)	R²(6)	CV_SD(7)
IOM (8)	77	90.60	353.73	204.42	72.18	11.52	0.98	15.96
ME_CM	76	8.18	11.90	10.11	0.93	0.15	0.97	16.27
TT-OMD	77	42.42	79.83	63.51	7.82	3.24	0.83	41.43
ME_TT	73	6.20	11.03	8.61	1.05	0.59	0.69	55.86

(1) Number of samples included in the calibration

(2) Minimum and maximum of the parameter values

(3) Mean of the parameter values

(4) Standard deviation of the laboratory-determined values

(5) Standard error of calibration

(6) Coefficient of determination; relationship between NIRS- and laboratory-determined values

(7) Variation coefficient referred to the SD of the reference method (CV_SD = SEC × 100/SD)

(8) IOM, enzymatically insoluble organic matter; ME_CM, ME content estimated with pepsin-cellulase method; TT-OMD, Tilley and Terry method estimated organic matter digestibility; ME_TT, ME content estimated using Tilley and Terry method data

Table 2

Differences between the in vitro analyzed OMD (CM-OMD: pepsin-cellulase method; TT-OMD: Tilley and Terry method) of four standard samples and their in vivo digestibility; TT-OMD data prior to routine correction with in vivo OMD

Tabelle 2. Differenzen der in vitro untersuchten OMD (CM-OMD: Pepsin-Cellulase-Methode; TT-OMD: Tilley und Terry-Methode) für vier Standardproben zu in vivo Verdaulichkeit; TT-OMD Daten vor der Routinekorrektur durch die in vivo OMD

Standard samples			in vivo OMD±SD	CM-OMD (%)					TT-OMD (%)

					Range (2)					Range (2)
No.	Cuts/year	Cut	(%)	n(1)			Mean (3)	SD (4)	n⁽¹⁾			Mean (3)	SD (4)
					Min	Max				Min	Max
198	1	1	41.9±3.92	5	0.72	3.30	2.06	1.13	24	−15.44	1.89	−2.44	3.99
232	3	1	68.4±2.13	5	−3.91	−2.88	−3.63	0.43	24	−10.82	1.09	−3.45	3.16
246	4	2	75.2±2.26	4	2.92	4.34	3.78	0.63	24	−7.74	0.93	−3.50	3.07
298	1	1	46.7±4.15	5	2.65	3.65	2.98	0.40	23	−15.56	1.22	−3.20	4.68

(2) Minimum and maximum differences to the in vivo value

(1) Number of runs in which standard samples was included

(3) Mean of the differences to the in vivo value

(4) Standard deviation of the differences of the laboratory-determined values to the in vivo values

(3) Mean of the differences to the in vivo value

(4) Standard deviation of the differences of the laboratory-determined values to the in vivo values

Table 3

ME contents of several forage legumes from the 3-cut system at three cutting dates over study sites and years, based on two different in vitro methods (n = 286), expressed as MJ ME/kg DM

Tabelle 3. ME Gehalt verschiedener Futterleguminosen (3-Schnittsystem) als Mittelwert über Standorte und Jahre, mittels zwei in vitro Methoden (n = 286), als MJ ME/kg TS

	Pepsin-cellulase method (ME_CM)				Tilley and Terry method (ME_TT)				Means over methods

	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3	Mean	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3	Mean	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3
White clover	11.0	10.1	10.6	10.6 ^v,V	10.1	8.8	9.4	9.4 ^w,V	10.5 ^a,A	9.4 ^a,C	10.0 ^a,B
Red clover	10.3	9.7	10.0	10.0 ^v,W	9.2	8.2	8.8	8.7 ^w,W	9.8 ^b,A	8.9 ^b,C	9.4 ^b,B
Lucerne	9.9	9.5	9.5	9.6 ^v,X	8.3	7.6	7.8	7.9 ^w,X	9.1 ^c,A	8.5 ^c,B	8.6 ^c,B
Birdsfoot trefoil	9.9	9.3	9.4	9.5 ^v,X	8.5	7.6	7.5	7.9 ^w,X	9.2 ^c,A	8.5 ^c,B	8.4 ^d,B
Mean	10.3 ^g,G	9.6 ^g,I	9.9 ^g,H	9.9	9.0 ^h,G	8.1 ^h,I	8.4 ^h,H	8.5

^a,b,c,d LSMeans differ between species within cutting date at P < 0.05; SE = 0.07

^A,B,C LSMeans differ between cutting dates within species at P < 0.05; SE = 0.07

^g,h LSMeans differ between methods within cutting date at P < 0.05; SE = 0.05

^G,H,I LSMeans differ between cutting date within method at P < 0.05; SE = 0.05

^v,w LSMeans differ between methods within species at P < 0.05; SE = 0.05

^V,W,X,Y LSMeans differ between species within method at P < 0.05; SE = 0.05

Table 4

ME contents of forage legumes from different defoliation systems (3-cut system, 3C; 5-cut system, 5C; rotational grazing, RG) from the site in Germany over years, estimated by NIRS based on two different in vitro methods, expressed as MJ ME/kg DM

Tabelle 4. ME Gehalte von Futterleguminosen verschiedener Nutzungssystems (3-Schnitt-, 3C; 5-Schnittsystem, 5C; Umtriebsweide, RG) aus dem Standort Deutschland als mittel über Jahre, geschätzt mittels NIRS aus zwei unterschiedlichen in vitro Methoden, als MJ ME/kg TS

	Pepsin-cellulase method (ME_CM)						Tilley and Terry method (ME_TT)						Means over methods

	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3	Cut 4	Cut 5	Mean	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3	Cut 4	Cut 5	Mean	Cut 1	Cut 2	Cut 3	Cut 4	Cut 5
3-cut system (n = 176)
WC	11.0	10.0	10.2			10.4 ^v,^V	10.6	8.8	9.3			9.6 ^w,^V	10.8 ^a,^A	9.4 ^a,^C	9.8 ^a,^B
RC	10.4	9.7	9.4			9.8 ^v,^W	9.6	8.3	8.6			8.8 ^w,^X	10.0 ^c,^A	9.0 ^b,^B	9.0 ^b,^B
KC	10.8	10.3	10.3			10.5 ^v,^V	9.9	9.0	8.9			9.2 ^w,^W	10.3 ^b,^A	9.6 ^a,^B	9.6 ^a,^B
LC	9.8	9.5	9.0			9.4 ^v,^X	8.4	7.7	7.4			7.8 ^w,^Y	9.1 ^e,^A	8.6 ^c,^B	8.2 ^c,^C
BT	10.0	9.7	8.9			9.6 ^v,^X	9.1	7.9	7.0			8.0 ^w,^Y	9.6 ^d,^A	8.8 ^b^c,^B	8.0 ^c,^C
Mean	10.4 ^g,^G	9.8 ^g,^H	9.6 ^g,^I			9.9	9.5 ^h,^G	8.3 ^h,^H	8.2 ^h,^H			8.7
5-cut system (n = 276)
WC	11.8	11.1	9.8	11.1	11.2	11.0 ^v,^V	10.1	9.9	8.6	9.7	9.5	9.5 ^w,^V	10.9 ^a,^A	10.5 ^a,^B	9.2 ^b,^C	10.4 ^a,^B	10.4 ^a,^B
RC	11.2	10.8	9.9	10.4	10.7	10.6 ^v,^X	9.6	9.5	8.4	8.8	8.6	9.0 ^w,^X	10.4 ^b,^A	10.1 ^b,^B	9.1 ^b,^D	9.6 ^c,^C	9.6 ^c,^C
KC	11.4	10.9	10.5	10.9	10.8	10.9 ^v,^W	9.6	9.5	9.0	9.4	9.2	9.3 ^w,^W	10.5 ^b,^A	10.2 ^b,^B	9.7 ^a,^C	10.1 ^b,^B	10.0 ^b,^B
LC	10.8	10.4	10.0	10.1	10.4	10.4 ^v,^Y	8.8	8.6	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.4 ^w,^Y	9.8 ^c,^A	9.5 ^c,^B	9.0 ^b,^D	9.2 ^d,^C^D	9.3 ^d,^B^C
BT	10.9	9.9	9.8	10.1	10.4	10.2 ^v,^Z	8.5	7.9	7.6	7.9	8.0	8.0 ^w,^Z	9.7 ^c,^A	8.9 ^d,^C	8.7 ^c,^D	9.0 ^e,^C	9.2 ^d,^B
Mean	11.2 ^g,^G	10.6 ^g,^H^I	10.0 ^g,^J	10.5 ^g,^I	10.7 ^g,^H	10.6	9.3 ^h,^G	9.1 ^h,^H	8.3 ^h,^J	8.8 ^h,^I	8.7 ^h,^I	8.8
RG (n = 238)
WC	11.5	10.9	10.6	11.2	11.5	11.1 ^v,^V	10.5	9.7	9.5	9.7	9.4	9.8 ^w,^V	11.0 ^a,^A	10.3 ^a,^B	10.0 ^a,^C	10.5 ^a,^B	10.4 ^a,^B
RC	11.1	11.1	10.1	10.5	10.6	10.7 ^v,^W	9.6	9.6	8.8	8.7	8.7	9.1 ^w,^W	10.4 ^b,^A	10.4 ^a,^A	9.5 ^b,^B	9.6 ^b,^B	9.6 ^b,^B
LC	10.6	10.5	10.4	10.2	10.4	10.4 ^v,^X	8.7	8.8	8.7	8.2	8.1	8.5 ^w,^X	9.6 ^c,^A	9.7 ^b,^A	9.6 ^b,^A	9.2 ^c,^B	9.2 ^c,^B
BT	9.9	10.2	9.7	10.1	10.4	10.1 ^v,^Y	8.2	8.3	7.8	7.7	8.1	8.0 ^w,^Y	9.1 ^d,^A^B	9.3 ^c,^A	8.7 ^c,^C	8.9 ^d,^B^C	9.3 ^c,^A

^a,b,c,d,e LSMeans differ between species within cutting date at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.12; SE5C = 0.08; SERG = 0.08

^A,B,C,D LSMeans differ between cutting dates within species at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.12; SE5C = 0.08; SERG = 0.08

^g,h LSMeans differ between methods within cutting date at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.07; SE5C = 0.04; SERG = 0.05

^G,H,I,J LSMeans differ between cutting date within method at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.07; SE5C = 0.04; SERG = 0.05

^v,w LSMeans differ between methods within species at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.09; SE5C = 0.04; SERG = 0.04

^V,W,X,Y,Z LSMeans differ between species within method at P < 0.05; SE3C = 0.09; SE5C = 0.04; SERG = 0.04

Relationship between ME of several forage legumes estimated by NIRS based on pepsin-cellulase method (ME_CM) and Tilley and Terry method (ME_TT), respectively. Figures include all data of both study sites and years (if available) as means over field replicates. Bisector shown as dashed line. Underlined regression parameters differ from unity (slope) respective zero (intercept).
Abbildung 1. Zusammenhang zwischen mit NIRS geschätzte ME-Gehalt verschiedener Futterleguminosen, auf Basis von der Pepsin-cellulase-Methode (ME_CM) bzw. Tilley und Terry-Methode (ME_TT). Die Abbildung zeigt die Daten aus beiden Standorte und Jahre (soweit verfügbar) als Mittelwerte über Feldwiederholungen. Die Winkelhalbierende wird als gestrichelte Linie dargestellt. Unterstrichene Regressionsparameter unterscheiden von Eins (Steigung) bzw. von Null (Achsenabschnitt).

Relationship between ME of several forage legumes estimated by NIRS based on pepsin-cellulase method (ME_CM) and Tilley and Terry method (ME_TT). Figures include data from both study sites and years as means over field replicates, grouped by defoliation systems: A, 3-cut system; B, 5-cut system; C, rotational grazing. Bisector shown as dashed line. Underlined regression parameters differ from unity (slope) respective zero (intercept).
Abbildung 2. Zusammenhang zwischen mit NIRS geschätzte ME-Gehalt verschiedener Futterleguminosen, auf Basis von der Pepsin-Cellulase-Methode (ME_CM) bzw. Tilley und Terry-Methode (ME_TT). Die Abbildung zeigt die Daten beider Standorte und Jahre als Mittelwerte über Feldwiederholungen, sortiert nach den Nutzungssysteme: A, 3-Schnittsystem; B, 5-Schnittsysem; C, Umtriebsweide. Die Winkelhalbierende wird als gestrichelte Linie dargestellt. Unterstrichene Regressionsparameter unterscheiden von Eins (Steigung) bzw. von Null (Achsenabschnitt).

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/boku-2016-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2719-5430 (formerly 0006-5471) | Journal ISSN: 0006-5471

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English, German

Page range: 121 - 131

Submitted on: Apr 22, 2016

Accepted on: Jul 20, 2016

Published on: Dec 2, 2016

Published by: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: Volume open

Keywords:

Forage legumes,

metabolizable energy,

NIRS,

Tilley and Terry method,

pepsin-cellulase method

Related subjects:

Life sciences,

Ecology,

Life sciences, other

© 2016 Martin Gierus, Birgit Eickler, Reinhard Resch, Ralf Loges, Friedhelm Taube, Erich M. Poetsch, published by Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 67 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)