ISS~ fl077 -4~~ r-
COllEN CSKK-Hl M f U
Bull Iat Inst
l Anim Ind I
Bulletin of
iational Institute of Animal Industry
No 56
March 1996
56
8 3 R
If ~ J( ff sect
gE ~t~
National Institute of Animal Industry
(Ministry of Agriculture Forestry amp Fisheries)
Ibaraki Japan
f~ JlI JE
it J~ 1t 11 ~ I~ ~
f J tr~ t rH
1 ~ trlj rcv
Tadashi ~1ATSCKAWA
DirectormiddotGeneral atiolal Institute Animal Industr
Shu FCRCYA
Director Research Planmng and Comiddotordination Division
Hitoshi )llKAm
Director Departmert of Animal Breeding and Genetics
Takayoshi KARIYA
Director Department of Animal Reproduction
Kiyoshi TAKESHITA
Director Department of Animal Physology
Akira ABE
Director Department of Animal Nutrition
Shoji TANAKA
Director Department of Feeding and Management
Hiroyasu NAKAI
Director Department of Animal Products
8 1f-3rn
1
middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot gung PliI)ifJAJ)[ llfIJ~jl
BULLETIN OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIlIAL INDUSTRY
N 056 (1996 3) CONTENTS
~nimal
Toshihiko IrrL H-ll I A Stud on the Transfer Coefficieut of Cesium 137 in Domestic li1k 1
Toshihko IIlui[[ o~ Cesillm HI i) UI and Rate of ib
~- utritiun
Ryuichi lIlP Shir-ichi E
litsunori IT1Lln Ilaa1i
Lc-el 011 itamin - and 3 carotene Cgtnents (f Rur1en FlcicL Plama and Colostrum in Dai ry COn arouEd Parturi tion middotmiddot 13
aoki EUBAYII Shil1-ichi Kl and 1a5a11iro middotRI Effect of Parity on
itanin and 3-- carotene Status of COs around Parturi tion Wedel
a Hot Summer middot middotmiddotmiddot middot19
Agung PlR~oIODJ lasahiro ALRI and Akira ABE Comparison of ~ear Infrared
Reflectance Value System with COJ1entional Laboratory System for Feeding lanagement of Dairy Cattle middot 27
11 I~J
Comparison of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy-Book Value System with Conyentional Laboratory System for Feeding
lvlanagement of Dairy Cattle
Agung IIC()ICc[) )Iasahiro Ijlt and Akira Am
0 Animal utrition)
This study as done in of tyO feeding calculation systems fur farms and carried
uut to 8- feedtuffs from nine farms raising at Hokkaido (j1 and Tochigi prefecture (-lIThese two
systems ere (1) system A (ol1entional method hich is feeding calculation the data
result of chemical analysis and () Sstem B IIltSbool alue system which is using thl combi
nation of predicted data by 116 l1wthod fel Feed Tables data for concentrate and
manufacture label catJ fur cOl11n1trcial i(lrl11ua feeds
The as done for c l1emical COmpUl1ll1tS cell content 10CCi cell
a]1 (OCI acid detergent fiber LDFI erude 1(1) and lotal digestible nutrients ITD)
Especially for the OC fraction didded il1tu fraction IChl (d ]0
ible fraction (Obi
The result shO that for fo ieed calculation us
illg for OCC and OC and good ior CP The TD results are found better although
were affected big differences of Oa which j used in pcdiction in both systems
This tendenc~ is obsened similar in alfalfa in the differences in oec and OCW of corn silage
are found than grass
Regarding to the total supply of chemical and TD in comparison between sysshy
tem A and B the range and average ot abolute differences from individual farms found that
oec is lying in 01 19 kg (116 OC in 01 j kg ((Jj ADF in (JO -06 kg ((U kg) CP in
02 15 kg 03 and TD ir Oo-n3 lUl kg) Based on TD supply system B observed
has an aailability and enough to caculate the feeding of dairy cattle in farm
1 IXTRODVCTIOX
ear infrared reflectance spectroscopy analytical method has been widely studied to
predict nutriti-e value of feedstuff Since 0101lt1ltIS j published his successful experiment using NIRS
to the fur ages many studies using the same anal)sis hae been carried out in many different feed
stuffs Almost all experiments conducted conclude that IRS method has an ability and reliabil
ity in predicting nutrient contents in feed ot only it is an undestructive_ and unlaborious
method hut abo it does not ue chemical reagents This makes the IRS method applicable for
big farms II future tllis method may haH a prospect in relation to optimi zation of feeding
manlgenwnt for the c1elelopmcllt of anima illdlltry
Practicalll calculatiull in farms use the fixed data frol11 feeds tables only detershy
mining ellgt matter C()lltent of each feedstdi This tables represent the value of same
feed from Ihole ctntries Thenfore the diEerellces of influenced of i II
i I] gt II
T(gti(() t Ililltr~il 1 ltJlcultllIT
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
f~ JlI JE
it J~ 1t 11 ~ I~ ~
f J tr~ t rH
1 ~ trlj rcv
Tadashi ~1ATSCKAWA
DirectormiddotGeneral atiolal Institute Animal Industr
Shu FCRCYA
Director Research Planmng and Comiddotordination Division
Hitoshi )llKAm
Director Departmert of Animal Breeding and Genetics
Takayoshi KARIYA
Director Department of Animal Reproduction
Kiyoshi TAKESHITA
Director Department of Animal Physology
Akira ABE
Director Department of Animal Nutrition
Shoji TANAKA
Director Department of Feeding and Management
Hiroyasu NAKAI
Director Department of Animal Products
8 1f-3rn
1
middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot gung PliI)ifJAJ)[ llfIJ~jl
BULLETIN OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIlIAL INDUSTRY
N 056 (1996 3) CONTENTS
~nimal
Toshihiko IrrL H-ll I A Stud on the Transfer Coefficieut of Cesium 137 in Domestic li1k 1
Toshihko IIlui[[ o~ Cesillm HI i) UI and Rate of ib
~- utritiun
Ryuichi lIlP Shir-ichi E
litsunori IT1Lln Ilaa1i
Lc-el 011 itamin - and 3 carotene Cgtnents (f Rur1en FlcicL Plama and Colostrum in Dai ry COn arouEd Parturi tion middotmiddot 13
aoki EUBAYII Shil1-ichi Kl and 1a5a11iro middotRI Effect of Parity on
itanin and 3-- carotene Status of COs around Parturi tion Wedel
a Hot Summer middot middotmiddotmiddot middot19
Agung PlR~oIODJ lasahiro ALRI and Akira ABE Comparison of ~ear Infrared
Reflectance Value System with COJ1entional Laboratory System for Feeding lanagement of Dairy Cattle middot 27
11 I~J
Comparison of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy-Book Value System with Conyentional Laboratory System for Feeding
lvlanagement of Dairy Cattle
Agung IIC()ICc[) )Iasahiro Ijlt and Akira Am
0 Animal utrition)
This study as done in of tyO feeding calculation systems fur farms and carried
uut to 8- feedtuffs from nine farms raising at Hokkaido (j1 and Tochigi prefecture (-lIThese two
systems ere (1) system A (ol1entional method hich is feeding calculation the data
result of chemical analysis and () Sstem B IIltSbool alue system which is using thl combi
nation of predicted data by 116 l1wthod fel Feed Tables data for concentrate and
manufacture label catJ fur cOl11n1trcial i(lrl11ua feeds
The as done for c l1emical COmpUl1ll1tS cell content 10CCi cell
a]1 (OCI acid detergent fiber LDFI erude 1(1) and lotal digestible nutrients ITD)
Especially for the OC fraction didded il1tu fraction IChl (d ]0
ible fraction (Obi
The result shO that for fo ieed calculation us
illg for OCC and OC and good ior CP The TD results are found better although
were affected big differences of Oa which j used in pcdiction in both systems
This tendenc~ is obsened similar in alfalfa in the differences in oec and OCW of corn silage
are found than grass
Regarding to the total supply of chemical and TD in comparison between sysshy
tem A and B the range and average ot abolute differences from individual farms found that
oec is lying in 01 19 kg (116 OC in 01 j kg ((Jj ADF in (JO -06 kg ((U kg) CP in
02 15 kg 03 and TD ir Oo-n3 lUl kg) Based on TD supply system B observed
has an aailability and enough to caculate the feeding of dairy cattle in farm
1 IXTRODVCTIOX
ear infrared reflectance spectroscopy analytical method has been widely studied to
predict nutriti-e value of feedstuff Since 0101lt1ltIS j published his successful experiment using NIRS
to the fur ages many studies using the same anal)sis hae been carried out in many different feed
stuffs Almost all experiments conducted conclude that IRS method has an ability and reliabil
ity in predicting nutrient contents in feed ot only it is an undestructive_ and unlaborious
method hut abo it does not ue chemical reagents This makes the IRS method applicable for
big farms II future tllis method may haH a prospect in relation to optimi zation of feeding
manlgenwnt for the c1elelopmcllt of anima illdlltry
Practicalll calculatiull in farms use the fixed data frol11 feeds tables only detershy
mining ellgt matter C()lltent of each feedstdi This tables represent the value of same
feed from Ihole ctntries Thenfore the diEerellces of influenced of i II
i I] gt II
T(gti(() t Ililltr~il 1 ltJlcultllIT
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
8 1f-3rn
1
middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot gung PliI)ifJAJ)[ llfIJ~jl
BULLETIN OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIlIAL INDUSTRY
N 056 (1996 3) CONTENTS
~nimal
Toshihiko IrrL H-ll I A Stud on the Transfer Coefficieut of Cesium 137 in Domestic li1k 1
Toshihko IIlui[[ o~ Cesillm HI i) UI and Rate of ib
~- utritiun
Ryuichi lIlP Shir-ichi E
litsunori IT1Lln Ilaa1i
Lc-el 011 itamin - and 3 carotene Cgtnents (f Rur1en FlcicL Plama and Colostrum in Dai ry COn arouEd Parturi tion middotmiddot 13
aoki EUBAYII Shil1-ichi Kl and 1a5a11iro middotRI Effect of Parity on
itanin and 3-- carotene Status of COs around Parturi tion Wedel
a Hot Summer middot middotmiddotmiddot middot19
Agung PlR~oIODJ lasahiro ALRI and Akira ABE Comparison of ~ear Infrared
Reflectance Value System with COJ1entional Laboratory System for Feeding lanagement of Dairy Cattle middot 27
11 I~J
Comparison of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy-Book Value System with Conyentional Laboratory System for Feeding
lvlanagement of Dairy Cattle
Agung IIC()ICc[) )Iasahiro Ijlt and Akira Am
0 Animal utrition)
This study as done in of tyO feeding calculation systems fur farms and carried
uut to 8- feedtuffs from nine farms raising at Hokkaido (j1 and Tochigi prefecture (-lIThese two
systems ere (1) system A (ol1entional method hich is feeding calculation the data
result of chemical analysis and () Sstem B IIltSbool alue system which is using thl combi
nation of predicted data by 116 l1wthod fel Feed Tables data for concentrate and
manufacture label catJ fur cOl11n1trcial i(lrl11ua feeds
The as done for c l1emical COmpUl1ll1tS cell content 10CCi cell
a]1 (OCI acid detergent fiber LDFI erude 1(1) and lotal digestible nutrients ITD)
Especially for the OC fraction didded il1tu fraction IChl (d ]0
ible fraction (Obi
The result shO that for fo ieed calculation us
illg for OCC and OC and good ior CP The TD results are found better although
were affected big differences of Oa which j used in pcdiction in both systems
This tendenc~ is obsened similar in alfalfa in the differences in oec and OCW of corn silage
are found than grass
Regarding to the total supply of chemical and TD in comparison between sysshy
tem A and B the range and average ot abolute differences from individual farms found that
oec is lying in 01 19 kg (116 OC in 01 j kg ((Jj ADF in (JO -06 kg ((U kg) CP in
02 15 kg 03 and TD ir Oo-n3 lUl kg) Based on TD supply system B observed
has an aailability and enough to caculate the feeding of dairy cattle in farm
1 IXTRODVCTIOX
ear infrared reflectance spectroscopy analytical method has been widely studied to
predict nutriti-e value of feedstuff Since 0101lt1ltIS j published his successful experiment using NIRS
to the fur ages many studies using the same anal)sis hae been carried out in many different feed
stuffs Almost all experiments conducted conclude that IRS method has an ability and reliabil
ity in predicting nutrient contents in feed ot only it is an undestructive_ and unlaborious
method hut abo it does not ue chemical reagents This makes the IRS method applicable for
big farms II future tllis method may haH a prospect in relation to optimi zation of feeding
manlgenwnt for the c1elelopmcllt of anima illdlltry
Practicalll calculatiull in farms use the fixed data frol11 feeds tables only detershy
mining ellgt matter C()lltent of each feedstdi This tables represent the value of same
feed from Ihole ctntries Thenfore the diEerellces of influenced of i II
i I] gt II
T(gti(() t Ililltr~il 1 ltJlcultllIT
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
BULLETIN OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIlIAL INDUSTRY
N 056 (1996 3) CONTENTS
~nimal
Toshihiko IrrL H-ll I A Stud on the Transfer Coefficieut of Cesium 137 in Domestic li1k 1
Toshihko IIlui[[ o~ Cesillm HI i) UI and Rate of ib
~- utritiun
Ryuichi lIlP Shir-ichi E
litsunori IT1Lln Ilaa1i
Lc-el 011 itamin - and 3 carotene Cgtnents (f Rur1en FlcicL Plama and Colostrum in Dai ry COn arouEd Parturi tion middotmiddot 13
aoki EUBAYII Shil1-ichi Kl and 1a5a11iro middotRI Effect of Parity on
itanin and 3-- carotene Status of COs around Parturi tion Wedel
a Hot Summer middot middotmiddotmiddot middot19
Agung PlR~oIODJ lasahiro ALRI and Akira ABE Comparison of ~ear Infrared
Reflectance Value System with COJ1entional Laboratory System for Feeding lanagement of Dairy Cattle middot 27
11 I~J
Comparison of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy-Book Value System with Conyentional Laboratory System for Feeding
lvlanagement of Dairy Cattle
Agung IIC()ICc[) )Iasahiro Ijlt and Akira Am
0 Animal utrition)
This study as done in of tyO feeding calculation systems fur farms and carried
uut to 8- feedtuffs from nine farms raising at Hokkaido (j1 and Tochigi prefecture (-lIThese two
systems ere (1) system A (ol1entional method hich is feeding calculation the data
result of chemical analysis and () Sstem B IIltSbool alue system which is using thl combi
nation of predicted data by 116 l1wthod fel Feed Tables data for concentrate and
manufacture label catJ fur cOl11n1trcial i(lrl11ua feeds
The as done for c l1emical COmpUl1ll1tS cell content 10CCi cell
a]1 (OCI acid detergent fiber LDFI erude 1(1) and lotal digestible nutrients ITD)
Especially for the OC fraction didded il1tu fraction IChl (d ]0
ible fraction (Obi
The result shO that for fo ieed calculation us
illg for OCC and OC and good ior CP The TD results are found better although
were affected big differences of Oa which j used in pcdiction in both systems
This tendenc~ is obsened similar in alfalfa in the differences in oec and OCW of corn silage
are found than grass
Regarding to the total supply of chemical and TD in comparison between sysshy
tem A and B the range and average ot abolute differences from individual farms found that
oec is lying in 01 19 kg (116 OC in 01 j kg ((Jj ADF in (JO -06 kg ((U kg) CP in
02 15 kg 03 and TD ir Oo-n3 lUl kg) Based on TD supply system B observed
has an aailability and enough to caculate the feeding of dairy cattle in farm
1 IXTRODVCTIOX
ear infrared reflectance spectroscopy analytical method has been widely studied to
predict nutriti-e value of feedstuff Since 0101lt1ltIS j published his successful experiment using NIRS
to the fur ages many studies using the same anal)sis hae been carried out in many different feed
stuffs Almost all experiments conducted conclude that IRS method has an ability and reliabil
ity in predicting nutrient contents in feed ot only it is an undestructive_ and unlaborious
method hut abo it does not ue chemical reagents This makes the IRS method applicable for
big farms II future tllis method may haH a prospect in relation to optimi zation of feeding
manlgenwnt for the c1elelopmcllt of anima illdlltry
Practicalll calculatiull in farms use the fixed data frol11 feeds tables only detershy
mining ellgt matter C()lltent of each feedstdi This tables represent the value of same
feed from Ihole ctntries Thenfore the diEerellces of influenced of i II
i I] gt II
T(gti(() t Ililltr~il 1 ltJlcultllIT
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
11 I~J
Comparison of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy-Book Value System with Conyentional Laboratory System for Feeding
lvlanagement of Dairy Cattle
Agung IIC()ICc[) )Iasahiro Ijlt and Akira Am
0 Animal utrition)
This study as done in of tyO feeding calculation systems fur farms and carried
uut to 8- feedtuffs from nine farms raising at Hokkaido (j1 and Tochigi prefecture (-lIThese two
systems ere (1) system A (ol1entional method hich is feeding calculation the data
result of chemical analysis and () Sstem B IIltSbool alue system which is using thl combi
nation of predicted data by 116 l1wthod fel Feed Tables data for concentrate and
manufacture label catJ fur cOl11n1trcial i(lrl11ua feeds
The as done for c l1emical COmpUl1ll1tS cell content 10CCi cell
a]1 (OCI acid detergent fiber LDFI erude 1(1) and lotal digestible nutrients ITD)
Especially for the OC fraction didded il1tu fraction IChl (d ]0
ible fraction (Obi
The result shO that for fo ieed calculation us
illg for OCC and OC and good ior CP The TD results are found better although
were affected big differences of Oa which j used in pcdiction in both systems
This tendenc~ is obsened similar in alfalfa in the differences in oec and OCW of corn silage
are found than grass
Regarding to the total supply of chemical and TD in comparison between sysshy
tem A and B the range and average ot abolute differences from individual farms found that
oec is lying in 01 19 kg (116 OC in 01 j kg ((Jj ADF in (JO -06 kg ((U kg) CP in
02 15 kg 03 and TD ir Oo-n3 lUl kg) Based on TD supply system B observed
has an aailability and enough to caculate the feeding of dairy cattle in farm
1 IXTRODVCTIOX
ear infrared reflectance spectroscopy analytical method has been widely studied to
predict nutriti-e value of feedstuff Since 0101lt1ltIS j published his successful experiment using NIRS
to the fur ages many studies using the same anal)sis hae been carried out in many different feed
stuffs Almost all experiments conducted conclude that IRS method has an ability and reliabil
ity in predicting nutrient contents in feed ot only it is an undestructive_ and unlaborious
method hut abo it does not ue chemical reagents This makes the IRS method applicable for
big farms II future tllis method may haH a prospect in relation to optimi zation of feeding
manlgenwnt for the c1elelopmcllt of anima illdlltry
Practicalll calculatiull in farms use the fixed data frol11 feeds tables only detershy
mining ellgt matter C()lltent of each feedstdi This tables represent the value of same
feed from Ihole ctntries Thenfore the diEerellces of influenced of i II
i I] gt II
T(gti(() t Ililltr~il 1 ltJlcultllIT
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
pussibl obsencd between areas IW seems hae an to more preciseiy predict the feeel
composition due to the benefits as described
The fundamental feature of WS method i3 its statistical program in the connected
computer which allows to calculate a]uable of absorbed wavelength from samples
measured A linear regression is the most used program in hich the precision can be de
termined in the magnitude of and standard error middotalues Data taken for such statistica
analysis in the program are usually from numerous Therefore the nutritive alue of
each sample obsened using the llS method may differ from a real value obseryed on the basis
of indiyidually chemicaily analyzed CUHI_
The aim of this study is to determine nutritie contens of a feed ration based on the -imS and those from chemicaliy analyzed data
2 )LTERIALS AD IETHODS
1 laterials
Eighty seen feedstuffs collected from CJ dairy farms vere used in this studmiddot Five farms are
located at Hokkaido and the others are at Tochigi Composition of feeel
and matter (I)11 of the feedstuff from each farm i~ in Table 1
22 lethods
Two systems to evaluate nutritive alue of each feedstuff ere used in tbis study (l)system
A was based only on the conventional laboratory analyss and defined as a cOl1entional value (2)
system B was hased on either (aJ nutritie value of predicted using the -IRS method or
(b) nutritive values of concentrate taken from Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan
(1987) for crude protein (CP) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and its organic matter hile organic
cell wall (OC1 taken from Japanese Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (l99middotjJ )r (c) nutritive
values taken from commercial feed composition supplied by manufacturer Point (b) and (e) was
termed as book value
In case of concentrate feed organic matter was divided into two fractions of organic cell
contents (OCC and organic cell wall (OCW) For forage the OCW was further divided into two
fractions namely organic a fraction (Oa) which is highly digestible and organic b fraction (Ob)
which is lmvly digestible Other nutritie values determined for both feedstuffs were CP ADF and
TDN The OCC OCW Oa and Ob were analyzed enzymatic analysisJ -vhile CP and ADF
were determined by Kjeldahl and detergent methods respectively
TDN contents of forages were calculated by folloing equations from the results of enzyshy
matic
TD (for grasO=lllHOCC-Oal 06050b
TD (for UJ28 OCCl-()Jl9 ()a~JL
-=-D (for corn IS occ lm Oa -2tiA
In contrast TD1 contents of concentrates ere calculated using the book vaue TD and
ADF content of commercial feeds ere uniformly to be 852b and 81 in dry matter base for both systems of A and B respectiely
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
ITltS allasis of in system B as obtained ireco FQA-)] A and calibrati()n
set from atlonal Institute of Animal lndustr Japan The calibration samples Lsed
were ]6 including ha~ rice straw and alfalfa 120 grass silage and 142 corn si
lages as repurted
Forage
1
Timoth silage
gra he)
Iflfa cube
Orch(lrd gra37
Alialfa
AifaL cube
-3 riJ
T i l11()ti~y sil age
Orchad grass t ed
1 shy
1i9
StlybtcJn 1()
l(lrr ~ -
B
c
o
j-(li- F Ci elil Corn
TinlUthy hay
Ifalfa cube
(Itio F
Corn
IRG
(t Cm
mtio F Cf CII
Tinoth hay
I Haifa ha
Rice stra
Conl1ercia~SLlppl) Cuncc11tC-lte ~upply
feed uppl)
A 7u60 I)eeLi)L~P
J1 Corn
Il)(ltilJ F
IdGU
~l
3
35
11
1-13 11 6J
70 2S
27
4A
Lorn
] f j
II]
he2 bran
Bcetpull
Rolled Barle
11
Tofu c2ke
Whe2t bran
Rolled barle)
Eolled cor]
lIeated
2ced
Beetplp
E mtlo F CI em falfa cube 09 Tofu cake Tn()th [lIiid BrJc licL Ioled
Yhez1t bran
Rul-d
u9
~ 1
11
Ll 08
08
1)8
15
119
IS
I
13 III
c l-Ll
D-il Db 22
E Od
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
thn that in the
fnn uf hay or
ones Three malll
in aril)Us
R)led
BceuJpd--
(1 I
Tablt I continued ~~--- ~~---~ ----~ --~----~------
F Frmiddotr~c[ en ]0-) j jll
F 112
(Jet hay
Alialfa cube
Inc 1(1 F C em Beetpup ( a l
fa1f cube
IRG ilage
Cottun us G b U Oat hay Rnlled Corn 11
Rned Bark 11)
Rolled Soybean
c
hay
11 en
Betpulp
Til10thy r~ 1 Al-fa (UD(
il
1~ C Cili
CO] siJai~e [ 13
ha Roed Ba-ley
11I(d C(1T 06
Soybean nlEaJ uJ Healed Subean O-l
Breers grain U6
Cotlon seed lU
Fish ITeai n3
otc farm ir Hukk2~d) farn1 F tJ I lucattd il TOC1igi 1RG Italian ryegrass F forage conc(ntrate en cornrlercial feed
3 RESrLTS AXD DISClSSIOX
As presented in Table 1 concentrate including commercial feed is the main feed given in all
farms under il1estigation Concentrate contains rich protein and starch which are required for
milk producti()n Across the farms components in the concentrate used were apparently similar
In most cases the limitedly aailable concentrate is ith the increase of commercial
feed Especial for the commercial feed 1Xvl frolll COllce1trate in the Hokkaido farms is higher
used in all farms are grasses in the
In t70 case8 farms 0 and E rice
straw was added in the fnrae supply
1 Furages
The chemical composition and TD contents of grasses based on the s~sterns A and B were
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
Table ~ C()mpari~c)1 stem- and 13 ior chemical composition ac TD1 grass
oee (X Oa Ob DF CP TD) Fced~ (farr) ---shy-__- ~---
B Ii A 13 B B B
TiI110Ih stlage 11 ~ti4 -(12 7-1 )1-1 395 H9 81 99 J-L7 -193
Orchad grass hay 1-) 273 015 632 l~ -ISJ -199 0 omiddot I J-1 1gt8 qc-- 553 57S
Timothmiddot hay (B) ~29 ) - ~) I ~middot9 677 111 iA 608 61]3 HI n3 80 9-1 569 515
IRG silage (e) j3~ 568 lil 13--1 397 -109 341) 3~11 IS 151 6()9 579
Til11oth~ hay (D) 160 -~ ) I I ~) JU 1 6L~ 630 )
-t_t U6 80 8--1 521 510
Rice straw ()) 161 17l 71 I] 7~ 1 119 139 6ill 39-1 I -1L l8 31 199 5Ll Timothy hay lEI 2U 2~L -shy 7~ J t5S--l l~ J ]J
_) it) 561 -lUI 381 99 5)7
Rice straw iEI 165 1- aI iJ9l ~2J 119 17 i ]72 399 -lli 17 J U-l
mG siiage IFI
Oat hal iF
312 ~Li
~- f
61)0
636
)~n IGJ
I =j
I 1 )
79
437 -137
5-L6 371
347 0shy) (
101
7S
122
~9
604
)-L~
58
Lishy
mG silage (G) 312 31 5S9 J
1J~ Ho 3-13 1~l L) ()16 )~l
Oat hal (G) 2middott9 662 h5~ 568 366 3S4 (1 irIS
Timothy ha fIl 2115
592 0 bull 10 ILl I
Bermuda srttr ill 2-L1J d oJ Si ~ y ~) 1-
Sudan grass hay (IIi shy tol 1 J3 i
Oat hay III l~i l i J -~---------- --~-----shy
erage 89 ~L 7 )JJ -L2
B Caculatif)7 u~ing ~SLen1
presented in Table 2 In average the alue of each chemical compmition as ell as TDN was
similar and there was a tendency that the alues observed using system B is lower than those obmiddot
served using system A
In enzymatic fractions an unexpected result was found in the case of timothy silage The
value of oee in farm A was 91 qo higher in the system A than B This is significantly above the
average differences of oce alues obserwd in other grasses which ranged from 01 to 41 In
the case of OCI the difference of values obsened in system A and B was also than those
of other grasses In farm B D E and H the differences were S2 37 and 40 respecmiddot
tively In contrast the differences observed in other grasses varied from to 34 In all
farms in the case of Oa and Ob the range (and average) of differences between two systems were
and OO-47degJ (19)
In ADF one unexpected result was found Difference of the alue between system A and B
ranged from for alJ cases but 11 for oat in farm L For CPo slight difference of
the values bctveen two ystcms as obsened ranging from 01 to with an average value
of OtI) Based on the formula TD was unavoidably affected by differences in each conshy
stituent The range of differences for the TD between tmiddoto systems as considerably wide from
0 to Hueer oniy t () ide differences were found 54 in timothy silage used in
flrll1 A and 1(110 in rice straw l1ed in farm E Differences in the others were lower than
to animals aerged differences of nutritive alue
for oec OC Cl and TD respectiel~
Chemica and TD percentage of alfalfa in systems A and B ere shown in Tamiddot
ble
and
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
dl
chemical composition and TD -alfalfaTablel Comparison tgtf ~stem
oce OC Oa Ob CP TD Feed (farml
B B B B B 13
Alia cube LB1
Alfalfa hay iDl
lfalfa cube (Ei 466 316 291 168 206 586 627
1falia ha (FI 30A 306 64 630 lID amp7 501 S~3 4 367 129 139 512 507
lfaIfCl cube (FCHI 391 kL 1 -t93 3i8 II 175 48U 371 3U 183 188 555
lfalia IHI middot121 47 ~69119 149 402 300 329 DA Z42 5U 602
4U 151 -l()l 61 294 269 263 552 592
lt)Q ) )c_erage 301) 20A 55R
Table 4 Compariso of see and B for chemical cnmpo5ion TD ~ilagcJ
OCC OC Oa Ob OF CI 10 F2n11
B 396
50
F 427
491
155
49) 51 4fiJ cUi 50] 69X
~) j
655
TablE ~
Table- Comparison of sstem A and B for chemical composiion and TDNbeetpuip
OCC Ocyr ADF CP TO Far
B B B A B VB
A 251 70A 721 210 263 lOA 126 i~6
B 2811 22l 721 2-)9 263 91 746
C 269 nl 665 721 265 263 89 126 746
o 221 718 721 263 100 126 746
E 259 221 676 721 269 102 126 746
r 21 67-1 721 268 103 126 746
G 275 656 721 261 263 100 1~6 746
H 20 221 721 261 2(U 72 126 746
23~ 69 721 126 746 _-_ ------ shy
677 71 269 263 95 126 middotL6
Table
In contrast the differences for Oa Ob and ADF were 7 and S respecti vely all of )]ch were higher than 1 the differences obsened were in falor of system 13 except
for Ob ald ADF
Hesults of elaluatiol1 for corn silage as in Table 4 shows that the averaged differmiddot
ences betIeen two systems in the fractions ere and 1 for DeC
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
Table G Compariscn of 5stC A and B for chemical composition and TO -Sobean and its derat lcs
acc ac ADF cp TO __-shyFeeds Ifarm)
bulll B A B A 3 A B AB
Soybean () 6)9 770 25S lii 12A 83 423 middotIU 103 Q )l bull SObean (E) 64 710 Zgg 17 ILl 390 417 107
-- JHeated Soybean (OJ 7 11- 231 175 ILl 13 middotlOJ 419 106
Heated Soybean () 656 772 ~9n 175 139 417 419 lOG -- I bull ~) EO 41 106
Soybean meal (G) iT~ 6S9 89 ~lA 868
Aerage 676
-1 )Soybean meal (Ill 647 69 290 2-plusmn~ 16 89 -i9~ J~_ 861
Soybear meal (1 692 ~~~
erage 694 6~9 2-11 ---_
Tofu cake Ill) ~~~ -t6~
Tofu cake lEI E4 -pound69
(rage 10)
see Teale 2
Table Comparison of system A and B for chemical composi ion and TO heat and Barley
acc aC AOF CP TO ---~Feeds (farm)
l B l B A B A B AIG
heat bran (C) 68 535 278 jO8 19 lU 163 177 723 heat bran (0) 509 55 429 408 139 141 181 17 723
Wheat bran IE) 502 535 ~37 408 l-U ILl 180 177 723
Aerage 566 535 381 408 120 144 175 177 723
Barley (H) 806 799 169 175 66 66 122 120 8~1
Rolled Barley (C) 728 799 249 6 66 128 l20 au Rolled Barley (0) 69 799 271 17) 100 66 147 l20 841
Rolled Barley (E) 70 799 258 175 100 66 118 120 841
Rolled Barley (G) 773 799 201 175 U 66 125 120 841 Rolled Barley (l) 757 799 215 175 69 66 128 120 84l
Anrage 715 799 227 175 79 66 128 120 841
see Table 2
OC Oa and 0)) respectiely For ADF CP and TDN the differences were 3) o and 32
respectiYely This result clearly shoed that the nutritie values for CP and Ob ere well pre-
dieted by system B this was only represented in 4 farms
32 Concentrate
As mentioned in the materials and methods system R used in this caluation -as based
on the hook alue This means that nutrithe alues used in the s~stem B for the evaluation for
each feedstuff are the same
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
Table ~ CC1mparison ot system and B for chemcal c()mpOSilio~ and TO~Corn
occ OC DF Cl TD Feeds Ifa Im i
~ 13 [~ B A B
Corn t) 9 X-OiJ 08 1(6 38 92 102 921
Roled corn (01 33 9 580 lUi 106 ~r 9A 102 923
Rolled corn (E) 26 106 u 91 10 923
Rolled corn (G) ltS6J) SSn 120 106 fi 3X 95 102 923
Rulled cum (Ill K~ ~o1i J) J~
__-____---
38 9A 102 923 Q) c J~JRolled corn () 38 96 102
erage 3b oi 102 923 __ __ ______ __
Table
Tab1e 9 C0111parl-on ~ysterl1 and B for composition and TOmiddotcornmiddot n-ercia
=~~-=-==-=--=--==
OCC OC ~[)F CP TO ___
~---- shyFarm B E -I B 13 B
-I i II ) ~)~
B 7119 1 11 23 1) no 832
C irn 325 F1 ~9S 20u
D iU Ii I) 210 2U1J -
D (h) 17u 1b2 201 61 192 21J0 852 )1 )E il i -iO _-d) 21)J 81 3E 200 ) i shyF 67 770 _t) 852
C a () 37 201 81 19~ 200
G (bl 738 7i-n ~K2 Ol 81 131 2DO 852 I 0 1~7 01 8l Ih3 200 852
yerage 709 770 2Ll 211 81 217 ~on 852
In evaluating beetpulp used in ali farms results observed for chemical composition under sysshy
tem A were compared with the value in the book value As shown in Table 5 the averaged differshy
ences in all chemical constituents were 44 08 and 31 for OCC OCW ADF and CP
respectively TD vas not ea]uated in this comparison because this value was taken from the
book value for both systems In general nutritive alues calculated from system A were higher
than those from system B for OCC and AOF but they were lower for oew and CP
Chemical compositions and TO for and its derivatives was presented in Table (S
In g~neral the alue of fraction a1d ADF observed using two systems were signifishy
cantly diffCrent HOeer this as not the case for CP except 111 tofu cake which might be
caused by different conducted to the
Chemical and TO contents of yheat bran and were presented in Table
I For heat bran the Clyeraged differences of the t() systems in the ADF and C1 contents ere
Similar results were observed for barley in which awcraged differ
for AOF and CP respectiely
jdeg6 and u
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
)1 ~nn]f~-yenimiddotj-t(~ ~ ~ irJifl-U~ )1+lt
Tabe 1u uriem supply kgDLday) resulted from calculation based on system A and B~parts of forage
O(e sup~l)- 001 supp ADF suppl~ CP supply ID suppl~
B A B A I3 AB i B AB bulll B ABI
~ J AmiddotI 7~9 0] Hi l 0 6~6 OJ~~
l 03 8~IJ 8l 01 Jn 4~7 OJ 1bull ~ ltj 1 I ~2 69 6B 01
lmiddot3 middotO 36 ()~ 87 SC 01 JJ 51 04 ] 20 03 76 16 001 ~
1 ) o B ~8 0 J) OJ ) ) O~ 10 10 0(1 52 53 01
C 5S 63 1)5 6 06 - ~J 01 C 01 39 90 01 ) 1 Q
D ~J 02 66 1)1 lK (J(J 10 l0 011 )2 03 E U I~ 02 iv IJ[I ~5 00 US 06 01 36 03
F g 1)2 09 011 1 06 L2 01 61 01 c G ~6 oJ )1 O~ U 12 0 ~6 ~6
h) rJH 36 - OJ Ii 17 00 61 6 11
I C~ j 1
25 01 ]A U (10 ~9 ~9 1)0
wrage 02 3~ 02 I Li i)1 S i~1 01 --~-----~---
Table bet ~een system B
An extremely different result on nutritive values of wheat bran observed for the oee and
oew was found in the farm e The difference between systems A and B was 1 and
for oce and Oey respectively which are significantly higher than differences observed in
the farms D and E These were in average 30 and for oee and Oe respectively This
situation may be explained for the Japans case III this country wheat bran are normally proshy
duced as bymiddot products from the wheat flour manufacturing This is classified into two including
high and low recOeries of flour Viheat bran used in the farm e is considered from the low reshy
cOery of flour
A veraged differences between two systems than previous alues were found in the contents
of oee and Oe- for rolled barley in 6 farms The difference was and for oee and
oew respectively The high differences in these two enzymatic fractions may be due to
rance of the values of the different forms in the rolled barley used Disappointingly the values of
this feedstuff according to their forms are not specifically classified in the book value
As expected the difference between two systems was considerably low Presented in Table
8 the differences of the chemical composition for corn were 15 1 and 08 for oee Oer ADF and ep respectively
Table 9 shOs the chemical composition of commercial feeds The commercial feeds distribshy
uted for animal industries in Japan aried greatly The differences between the two systems are
shown for the contents of oee oew and CPo The averaged differences are 62 42 for OCe OC and CP respectively However if the farms were considered individually high differmiddot
ence beteen two ystems as only found in farm e for at constituents and in farm E for cr The differences in the farm e vere If 124 and 95 for oee oew and CP respectively
while for ep in the farm E as 135lt~ The differences observed in ep showed that system A as higher thm system B
Table 10 shows the total nutrient (kgd) from forage based 011 ystem A and B Tbe
aeraged differences beteen system A alld 13 are 02 kg for oce oew and ADF In additioi1
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
Tilble 11 mriellt upply (kg 0)1 d resulted froll] caiculatioll ba~ed on sy~jern A and B whole feed [(tal ration
on ()( ilk ep TllTotFarm
HB A B
l I 1) P~ 161 16) 0 1)_1 I)) t ( I ti 113 201 n2
3 6 ~9 nI 3 2~Y 01
B 21 it) Iql 1 03 191 192 J C 33 ~ 19 lCl~ 57 i6 ( 20 00
D ~13 9- Ui 11 (U 5n OJ E 2~3 Il 1deg ~ iJI 05 i6f 171 03
F ll~ ~9 (lS JJ ~ s 6 170 I il 01 G 111 (11 i ]h7 OJi
A 1Ii 60 (I _~ 191J
i) OiI -~- ~
11(
the difference beteen [0 systems for cr and TDi is the same being 01 kg Because of smail
difference beteen tHJ systems data predicted using IRS is for calculation of the ra
tion
33 Total sUPPlY in all farms and its effect on milk production
Table 11 shos the nutrient supply (kgd) of total rations based on system A and l3 The
mean of each constituent supply as 06 kg (U kg 03 kg 04 and 01 kg for OCC oew ADF
CP and TD respectiely Those hich have more than 05 for each constituent were farms 13
C D E and F for OCC farms C D E and F for OCW farms E F and H for ADF as well
farms C and E for cr Hoeer these figures were not found for TD
Based on TD values there as no difference in farms C and 1 The important in this
result was that proportion of forage than concentrate in ration was offered in both farms
In contrast larger differences 03 were found in farms D and E One possible explanation for
this result is that high quantity of tofu cake was served as a feed ingredients As described previ
ousl this difference affected the total (see Table 6)
SnTER and ROFFLE( outlined the allocation of metabolizable protein (11) for maintenance
and for milk and stated that lIP is equal to about of CP hen 10 protein rashy
tions are fed Assuming that milk contains true protein ancl the efficiency -ith which IP is
utilized for milk production and bod~ eight gain is 60 the of 1 of milk ill re
quire i1J g of 11 The aeragecl differences of CP total supply beteen the stems un parts of
ration and it cUl1ersiol1 to milk production ycre sho in Table I~
The contribution 5hO5 that only farm A has a big difference (J2~l milkci) This
silage offered in large amount Slightly j()er difference were found
in jlrJns Band B (Ie milkd which tend tu be affected timothy hay and bermuda gras
gttr (see Table 2) These t1ree kinds of forages ShOll in Table ere Lhuse hich wert
poorly predictfd in the system B
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
TaJle 1 Crude protein ~uppl) contributed from forages concentrates commercial feed its diffea~nce between to s)slerls and its cOIWerSlOI1 to milk production (kga))
Concentrate Commercial Total suppljmilk mik ci1k difitT Ciffer differB B B All B - B B AB
0 )11_j 30
l~ 16 10 U 14 O2~
Ii 13 )lt116 16 0119 51 - 023
B 111 OJ 03 10 007 ll 15 OJO Oh il3 121 18 41 070 05
li IJ~ 103 000 01 33 31 016
E 05 06 no~ 06 U lA 220 03 Oil 16 37 153 230
F 13 nli3 06 25 ~2 029 H 39 022 33
G I~ 15 OJ9
l
In the concentrate contribution the extremely big difference was observed in farm E (22 kg
milkidl Referring to Table 1 in the farm E tofu cake was giYen in a large amount in the ration
(84 kgd which is around of total Divl supply) As already presented in Table 6 the signifishy
cant difference between two systems is influenced by the value of tofu cake The same situation
was apparently found in the farm n In another case farms G and I whose differences were 27 kg
milkd and 24 kg milkd respectiely may be caused by the utilization of either rolled or heated
concentrate These processes hae an effect on protein
The results of conversion to milk production contributed from commercial feed were obshy
sened extremely big differences in farm C and F by 124 kg milkd and 44 kg milkd respecshy
tively These ere resulted from a significant difference in CP values determined using two sysshy
tems (see Table 9) foreover in these farms commercial feed is offered in a large quantity (see
Table Since system B is lower than system A it means that if system B was used as a stanshy
dard calculation it would oversupply CP to animals Thus although this system is still applicable
in feeding calculation the more valid data reported from the manufacturers is needed
Protein illtake is not the only factor affecting milk production An interaction between dieshy
tary protein and dietary energy is more important l )) It is well known that the sources of dietary
protein differ in the affecting the ability to convert feed into milk production Fish meal protein
wa found to be hetter than plant protein in supporting such ability due to low degradability in
the rumen Further the response of lactating cow to increasing levels of protein in the diet obey
the ia of diminishing returns Each Oiuccessive increment to the ration causes a progressiely
smaller response In advancing lactation the energy balance increases and the protein requirement
will decrPilsc n exees of in the diet ill compensate for shortage of energy and ice
versa Thus the differcllces of C1 intake do not automatically cause differences in milk yield
CommCrcial eed should he more importantly considered as the main source of protein for
mi I k twn COTlcectratc and This argument is caused by the fact that coml11c-middot
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
)1) J J 996
cial feed has escape (called a protein) which is available for absorption
The differences resulted from Gn be ignored in affecting milk production Supply of for
ages tends to be lIsed as a main source of energy for maintenance and production
Commercial feed as found better than concentrate source in term of the aeraged difference
of milk production The differences resulted from concentrate and commercial feed were 35 kg
milkd and 26 milkd respectively But by eliminating farm E (in concentrate) and farm C (in
commercial feedl it was observed similar by 165 and L)2 kg milkd respectively
Consider to TD it needs 031 TD to produce 1 milk containing 35 milk
fat The averaged differences of TD~lt total was 0] kg it means that the milk produc
tion has only about 03 kgd differences s mentioned in materials and methods TD~ for
as calculated prediction equations and for concentrate as cited from the book value in
both systems Thus the differences of TD~ value were only influenced by forages some
differences were obsened in inc1iiclual forage total supp1- Ohos no differences between the two
calculation yter1O These results support that ~ms elata of is applicable for
calculation
4 COCLrSIO~
Resuts il1(stigated in thi stuely that (1 ~IRS predicted data of are ap
for farm feeding calculation (2) The cOIlentional data should be used if one kind of
concentrate al~ered in a large quantity or (3) the more accurate information about chemical
(yf commercial feeel from manufacturer is needed
REFERECES
1 bull ()[ll K 11 R F 131lt ES ] E IIooRE and J H SHEK Predicting Forage (~uality Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy I Allim Sci 43 889-897 1976
z j Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat ~ljnistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (El87) Central Asso
ciation of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1987
3 I Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat vlinistry of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries Feeding Standard for Dairy Cattle (1994) Central Associa
tion of Liestock Industry Tokyo 1994
4 jAm S HOltll and K K~IEOrA Application of Enzymatic Analysis with Glucoamylase
Pronase and Cellulase to Various Feed for Cattle I Anim Sci 48 1 Hn-1489 1979
J ~I()[ml()T() H Dobutsu shikenho (Experimental ~vlethod of Animal K utrition) Yokendo
Tokyo ~8(J 1971
6 AnE II Slil(U K hI1 F SITO 1 S[IJ and g Ll-ILI~i Assessment of Total
~utriel1ts (1D1) of Hays frol11 Its Chemical jll) I Zooech Sci 50
12~19 1J
Japanese Grassland no hinshibll guide book (Guide Book for Formiddot
age Ealtation i 1994
~ AI~r 1 ~ ~L R s ~I-~-r- S SEI~L- -A and T loc Prediction of Chetnical
Composition ancl ~ utriti e al ue of Forages by ~ ear Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy 1
Prtdictiol1 of chemical composition I jaHlii Gms a~ 219226 1987
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
1987
9 SmiddotTTEU L D and R E RUFFLER Influence of itrogen and Carbohydrate Inputs on Rumen
Fermentation ill W I1R-01( and D J A COLE (Editors) Recent Developments in Rumishy
nant utrition Butterworth London 135 1981
10) KmiddotLFL- and H IIEEISTER Composition of lilk ill HO GrltAERT (Editor) World
Animal Science C Production-system Approach 3 Dairy-Cattle Production Elsevier 136
III BODY A A_ Animal utrition John Wiley amp Sons Ltd Chichester 463~-t66 1987
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
iii
1L4- 0) fiUJ ~H-fr~~~ lifT = E tt ~ jll-$ jfff fiUJ f-i- nX0)
~~JEfrffi A T 1~ Cf~~fffif( C 0) JtJx
flhW t 9 pi H c- C7)H~IH6Jt~l) ~~]t L fit-tt-lllUJ (87) ~C7)tRlf~ -
~c AC7)~~~~ L ~fl~~~~C7)~ ~~HL~
7) ti6J +Iti 5t pound- 1~ 17q 7 TDI=--gt-(l -tf1v ITD 1 ~ l 1]~ rli ph Vll6 ittIjItiUjmiddotf+IHl
5 pound- )j~ 6
~ 7-T1 B ~Ht1Y +)-1 v-gt--gtlti5kyi- J l)ftdjC7)iWJ5E~ c-flt)7i-7)
fl 4f~i~ti6Jf4QX5t~t~ 9 I n ~t $L F 7) T- 5 pound- mP 6 c
(OCC (OCYV) ~11 75 - ~ tllHit (ADF) HtililJ J)J (TDi)LJ) I) +)-1 v-c -H-c~ifi1ttt1Utt
(Oa) c jriliftltt~~lt Ob) ~
ilUffYl-~Nlr c eli 1 1 OCC OCV
ti5-CJ) I) tilllJ W-Ili5YHHirl- J I) Iplj I)
jjIij j~
I 7 )v 7 7 )v 7 7
J I) b j ~ v fiR c Ij - t 0
ft-Ij-tiilJ1$C7))1Xi1H J tfTD i --gtll ~ 7 TL A L t ~ ~ 7 TL B c ttl I~ c fC7)~t~7)-yent5]llliipound-h6 c OCC 1101-19 HZUJilliiO6kg) OCW-Z(01-15kg 04
kg) ADF -Z 00-06 kg(fJ 03 Hill LI pc-z- 02-1 5 kg(fI51 03 kg) f L -z TDN -C( 00
-03 Olkg)-Z0 to C7)-ciJ~ TDNMilj-liC7)~yenlilJj(=--gtv-Z ~7TLBplusmnfLt-iC7)
tlUJf4~l~ItffC7)jJJiiil ifUtZ 6 b C7) t flJItF~ hto
