Ability of three dairy feed evaluation systems to predict postruminal outflows of amino acids in dairy cows: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Adequate prediction of postruminal outflows of essential AA (EAA) is the starting point of balancing rations for EAA in dairy cows. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3 dairy feed evaluation systems (National Research Council [NRC], Cornell Net Protein and Carbohydrate System version 6.5.5 [CNCPS], and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine [NASEM]) to predict EAA outflows (Trp was not tested). The data set included a total of 354 treatment means from 70 duodenal and 24 omasal studies. To avoid Type I error, mean and linear biases were considered of concern if statistically significant and representing > 5.0% of the observed mean. Analyses were conducted on raw observed values and on observations adjusted for the random effect of study. The analysis on raw data indicates the ability of the feed evaluation system to predict absolute values whereas the analysis on adjusted values indicates its ability to predict responses of EAA outflows to dietary changes. For the prediction of absolute values (based on raw data), NRC underpredicted outflows of all EAA, from 5.3 to 8.6% of the observed mean (%obs.mean) except for Leu, Lys, and Val; NASEM overpredicted Lys (10.8%obs.mean); and CNCPS overpredicted Arg, His, Lys, Met, and Val (5.2 to 26.0%obs.mean). No EAA had a linear bias of concern with NASEM, followed by NRC for His (6.8%obs.mean), and CNCPS for all EAA (5.6 to 12.2%obs.mean) except Leu, Phe, and Thr. On the other hand, for the prediction of responses to dietary changes (based on adjusted data), NRC had 2 EAA presenting a linear bias of concern, followed by NASEM and CNCPS with 4 and 6 EAA, respectively. Predictions of His showed a linear bias of concern (5.3 to 9.6%obs.mean) with the 3 feed evaluation systems. Measured chemistry of crude protein and EAA were reported for 1 or more feed ingredients of the ration in 36% of the studies, and resulted in decreased linear biases in the 3 feed evaluation systems. The difference in mean biases of Met outflows was systematically positive when comparing omasal versus duodenal studies. Predictions of Met outflows with NRC had a higher concordance correlation coefficient in duodenal (used to develop NRC equations) versus omasal studies, whereas the opposite was observed with CNCPS, the latter showing the lowest mean bias for Met in omasal sampling studies. The 30% difference in Met mean biases between sampling sites appeared related to a similar difference found for observed Met versus NAN outflows between duodenal and omasal studies, which is independent of predictions. In conclusion, NRC and NASEM yielded accurate predictions of EAA outflows, with a small superiority of NASEM to predict absolute values, and slight superiority of NRC to predict the responses to dietary changes. In comparison, CNCPS may present mean and linear biases of concern for many EAA. Moreover, it remains to determine which sampling site is more representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows.