23 visualizações

Enviado por hanahatake

scientifc article

- Regression Summary
- 7 Bivariate Eda
- 0004-282X-anp-72-10-757.pdf
- ch12
- DoesACorrelationExist Student
- Linear Regression and Correlation_ABH
- Chapter 15 Final (Homework Answers)
- Moral Disapproval and Perceived Addiction to Internet Pornography a Longitudinal Examination
- Correlations
- thunghe
- FT Sources of Meaning Methodology New
- A.Note.on.Alternative.Regressions.(A.J).1942.pdf
- Videogame Depression
- Sept-12-14
- The Effect of Inflation, Interest Rates and Exchange Rates
- Korea Med
- 11E Chapter 14(1)
- bba3SGU
- ESignal Manual Ch19
- 4_Linear_Regression_WPS.pdf

Você está na página 1de 21

C. de Blasa, J. Wisemanb,

.-J. Fragaand

39

.-J. Villamide

Universidad PolitPcnica, 28040 Madrid, Spain

bVniversity of Nottingham, Faculty ofAgricultural and Food Sciences, Sutton Bonington.

Loughborough, LE12 MD, UK

(Received 23 April 1991; accepted 17 April 1992)

ABSTRACT

De Blas, C., Wiseman, J., Fraga, M.-J. and Villamide, M.-J., 1992. Prediction of the digestible energy

and digestibility of gross energy of feeds for rabbits. 2. Mixed diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 39:

39-59.

Mixed diets, for which information relating to various chemical measurements and rates of inclusion of certain raw materials (independent variables) and their nutritive value for rabbits (dependent

variables) as assessed in terms of digestible energy (DE) and the coefficient of digestibility of gross

energy (GEu) was available, were combined in a series of correlation matrices and step-wise linear

regression analyses. GE,, removes the possible effect of variability in gross energy value on DE values

and is reported. In general, GED was better correlated to acid detergent fibre (ADF) than crude fibre

(CF ) . A general equation was derived: GEu -0.867-0.0012

ADF (g kg- DM) R*=0.888. Closer

inspection of individual points revealed that diets based on added fat, beet pulp, citrus pulp and straw

at levels higher than 200 g kg-i behaved atypically. Separate prediction equations were derived for

each of these groups of diets. Multiple regression analyses considered more than one independent

variable, but gave only marginal improvements in terms of the accuracy of prediction of GEu. Addition of rates of inclusion of feedstuffs as independent variables revealed that the chemical analyses

employed were insensitive to changes in nutritive value arising from additions of fat, pulps and straw.

These feedstuffs need to be characterised further and general prediction equations should not be applied to diets in which they are contained.

INTRODUCTION

surements is regarded as being of co

more rapid than reliance on metaboli

an ap

erable value. S

uale effk

als, ahm for

de Production Animal, Escuela TCcnica Superior

de Ingenieros Agr6nomos, Universidad PolitCcnica, 28040 Madrid, Spain.

40

C. DE BLAS ET AL.

ity control and is of fundamental importance in legislation governing the declaration of values in diets supplied by the feed industry. In non-ruminants,

equations have been derived for pigs (e.g. Wiseman and Cole, 1983; Morgan

et al,, 1987; Henry et al., 1988) and poultry (e.g. Fisher and McNab, 1987;

Car&, 1990). There is a limited amount of data with respect to the derivation

of prediction equations for diets fed to rabbits. Maertens et al. ( 1988 ) considered a number of approaches to the prediction of the digestible energy

(DE )value of 3 1 diets, including those based on digested nutrients. However,

as was pointed out, this is of limited value unless reliable estimates of digestibility are available. In addition, the same balance procedures required to

determine the digestibility of nutrients are needed to determine DE. The latter, in addition, requires only one laboratory analysis-that of gross energy.

Prediction of DE from chemical analyses would appear to be a more appropriate procedure. Maertens et al. ( 1988) employed this approach, but some

of the results were inconclusive in terms of, for example, the relative value of

the different measurements of plant flbre. Furthermore, diets based on beet

and citrus pulps had to be excluded from the analysis. Finally, the use of nitrogen-free extract is not considered acceptable because it is determined by

difference and, accordingly, is not an independent variable. In addition, owing to its method of determination, it contains all the accumulated errors associated with other chemical determinations.

The objective of the current study was a comprehensive approach to the

derivation of prediction equations for rabbits based on a number of diets of

different chemical content and raw material composition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data base for the regression analyses was that of the large number of

mixed diets that have been evaluated with rabbits at the Universidad Politecnica, Madrid, Spain. Details of methodology and data have been presented

previously (De Blas et al., 198 1, 1986, 1989; Fraga et al., 1984, 1989, 199 1;

Santoma et al., 1985,1987; Mendez et al., 1986; Carabafio et al., 1988; Ortiz

et al., 1989; Villamide et al., 1989, 199la,b); De Blas and Villamide, 1990;

Motta, 1990; Femandez, 199 1; Garcia, 199 1) .

The analysis employed was a linear step-wise regression approach using the

Statistical Analysis Systems Institute ( 1985) procedure. In addition to chemical measurements (see Table 1 for definitions), some analyses also included

squared terms for acid detergent tibre ( ADF) together with neutral detergent

fibre (NDF) and actual rates of inclusion (squared) of straw and pulps. These

terms, either singly or in combination, were independent variables. Digestible energy and the coeficient of digestibility of gross energy (GEP) were both

included in the analyses as estimates of nutritive value (dependent vari-

41

TABLE 1

Definitions of abbreviations used in the text

Chemical measurements

CP

Crude protein

EE

Ether extract

CF

Crude fibre

ADF

Acid detergent fibre

ADF2

ADFxADF

NDF

Neutral detergent fibre

ADL

Acid detergent Iignin

Biological measurements

DE

Apparent digestible energy

GE

Gross energy

Coefficient of apparent digestibility of gross energy

GED

Raw feeds@ materials

Pulps

PU

PU2

PUXPU

Straw

ST

ST2

STxST

on the absence or presence of unusual feedstuffs

diets containing straw at rates of inclusion

2OOgkg- (n=25).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Correlation matrices for Analyses

Ceneraliyj high negative correlati

ere obtained between both

51.0

98.0

231.0

22.0

95.0

0.542

9.10

16.3

215.0

271.0

443.0

120.0

255.0

0.755

13.7

19.1

0.911

ADF

0.716

0.633

NDF

0.710

0.784

0.487

ADL

-0.250

- 0.299

-0.417

-0.213

CP

-0.886

-0.930

-0.586

-0.734

0.392

GEp

-0.839

-0.904

-0.586

-0.689

0.478

0.974

DE

-0.021

-0.123

-0.137

-0.002

0.459

0.133

0.354

GE

7155

16.31

GE(MJ)

51.0

98.0

193.0

10.0

9.6

81.0

0.0

0.427

::

ST

ST* lo3

DE(MJ)

GED

CF

ADF

NDF

ADL ;

ADF* ( 103)

CP

*

PU

19.14

240.0

327.0

536.3

149.0

106.9

255.0

515.0

0.789

583.0

339.9

14.31

Range of values

(g kg- DM)

0.915

ADF

0.786

0.717

NDF

0.639

0.688

0.416

ADL

0.902

0.988

0.727

0.667

ADFZ

- 0.428

-0.454

- 0.444

-0.416

- 0.464

CP

0.183

0.140

0.218

-0.305

0.133

0.087

PU

-0.801

-0.855

-0.603

-0.802

-0.845

0.589

0.227

GEn

(B) Diets including straw at all rates and pulps, and for which NDF and ADL were measured (n= 58 )

Z&J,

GE(MJ)

CF

ADF

NDF

ADL

CP

Range of values

(gkg-)

DM

ST*

0.462

0.413

0.386

0.603

0.415

-0.502

-0.168

-0.595

0.955

ST

0.504

0.465

0.403

0.590

0.469

- 0.442

-0.146

-0.604

-0.798

-0.862

-0.630

-0.750

-0.853

0.644

0.177

0.982

-0.598

-0.594

DE

(A ) Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- l, added fat and pulps, and for which NDF and ADL were measured ( n = 4 1)

TABLE 2

-0.175

-0.243

-0.301

0.064

-0.250

0.429

-0.182

0.159

-0.128

-0.154

0.340

GE

95.0

0.536

9.10

15.9

&

DE(h4J)

GE(MJ)

19.1

255.0

0.773

13.97

214.9

272.0

0.904

ADF

- 0.030

0.02 1

CP

DE

- 0.842

-0.891

0.928

0.242

GE,,

- 0.902

-0.942

0.040

- 0.294

0.512

0.08 1

0.258

0.237

GE

51.0

86.6

0.0

0.0

81.0

0.427

7.50

0.0

7.55

15.54

243.0

327.0

515.0

583.0

255.0

0.789

106.93

339.9

14.31

19.14

Range of values

(gkg- DM)

DE( MJ)

-PI.*.\

GED

ADF

CP

EE

CF

119.2

179.9

186.0

48.0

0.568

10.53

*n 2.4

194.7

257.0

206.0

85.7

0.701

12.98

*n .Y*

Range of values

(g kg- DM)

CF

ADF

PU

ST

CP

GEu

ADF* ( 103)

ST2 ( 103)

DE(MJ)

GE(MJ)

(n=93)

0.929

ADF

0.905

ADF

- 0.424

-0.114

CP

0.172

0.162

PU

---0.866 -0.775

-0.825

-0.647

0.282

0.390

0.1D98

0.363

0.95 1

-0.105

0.255

0.710

DE

- 0.842

-0.874

0.182

-0.557

0.340

GED

GEE,

-0.297

-0.204

0.066

-0.318

CP

EE

0.526

0.452

-0.136

ST

0.408

0.664

0.279

0.797

-0.291

0.019

GE

0.889

0.986

0.150

0.458

-0.239

-0.864

ADF*

0.480

0.418

-0.140

0.947

-0.364

-0.550

0.429

ST*

-0.815

-0.842

0.162

-0.540

0.474

0.953

-0.839

-0.542

DE

(D) Diets including straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- *, added fiat and pulps, and for which no measurements

51.0

86.6

Range of values

(gkg- DM)

CF

ADF

(n=66)

---

(C) Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg-, added fat and pulps, and for which no measurements

0.039

0.055

-0.061

0.022

0.445

-0.095

0.033

-0.010

0.206

GE

cn

ri

v,

r

z

fl

u

5

E;

:

8

F

g

110.0

140.0

127.6

100.0

0.552

9.76

17.37

240.0

280.0

214.0

500.0

0.784

14.31

18.25

CP

-0.061

0.036

ADF

0.973

750.0

0.789

13.97

19.66

~$MJ)

GE(MJ)

_~

:2 (103)

CP

_...a------__-...

ADF

ADF2 ( 103)

178.1

31.7

200.0

40.0

81.0

0.308

5.61

15.96

11.23

19.10

583.0

339.9

245.0

0.629

357.0

127.4

Range of values

(g kg- DM)

0.995

ADF2

---

0.375

0.370

ST

150.0

0.628

11.29

17.36

ED.

DE(MJ)

GE(MJ)

-0.554

0.016

0.301

141.0

234.0

222.0

96.0

179.0

133.6

CF

ADF

CP

CP

ADF

Range of values

(g kg- DM)

DE(MJ)

GE(MJ)

GED

CF

ADF

CP

PU

Range of values

(gkg- DM)

TABLE 2 (continued)

-0.259

-0.270

0.990

._,

-0.014

-0.003

--

-0.557

-0.540

0.110

0.975

-0.542

- 0.524

0.010

-0.893

-0.888

DE

-0.914

-0.909

GED

-0.195

-0.423

0.126

0.845

0.512

0.549

CP

-0.107

0.150

0.271

GE

-0.442

-0.312

0.786

-0.195

0.314

0.439

GE

-0.804

-0.149

0.385

DE

-0.923

-0.915

0.059

0.026

0.991

DE

- 0.683

-0.244

0.215

0.373

0.368

ST

(n=25)

0.337

0.643

0.187

GED

-0.910

-0.921

-0.059

0.054

0.312

0.288

-0.193

PU

GEp

PU

-,.

._

--

_-

-a

_a

_~_

g

?

&

!I

0.045

0.034

0.465

-0.306

- 0.088

c1

0.258

0.263

GE

45

e majority of cases, A

correlated than crude fibre (CF)

ering added fat and beet pulp. For the d

tion between DE together with GE,, an

and - 0.244, respectively).

Regressionanalysesusing one independentvariable

The results of the step-wise line

ssion analyses for all

are presented in Table 3 (A)-(H) .

lyses considered both

as dependent variables, although

variables were chemical analyses t

3 (G) and 3 (H), rates of inclusion of pulps and straw. No independent variassociated with a P value greater than 0.15 in any function was included.

rlst it is accepted that P> 0.05 is the more conventional term to employ,

it was thought appropriate to consider all variables where there was evidence

fo

ng only one independent vari

re was a general superiority of ADF over others in terms of R 2 values

expected, bearing in mind the original correlatio

ss energy values might

removes the influence that any variability in diet

have had on DE val

correlations between

than when DE was included. Thus, e

ADF tended to be associated with h

was predicted.

Differences between groups of mixed feeds

diction of nutritive value from A

est figure for R2 (0.888, eqn. ( 1

equation) was obtained from Data

and for which no measurements for

f GED to ADF levels for

tion was used subsequently to compa

all the data sets. The relationships between G

Figs. 1,2,3, and 4, respectively, for

evident from this approach that the general equation gave a reasonable estimate of GED in all cases, although there were individual differences.

values for Data Sets B and D had been lower, and

individual points revealed that in general those

fat and pulps deviated from the line of t

illustrated in Figs. 5, 6 and 7 wh

based on added fat (Analysis E)

straw (Analysis

er with the line for t

y=

y=

y=

0.751

f0.0410

P-KO.001

0.810

f 0.0285

P< 0.001

0.814

It 0.0293

P<O.OOl

0.867

f0.0.157

P<0.001

- 0.0008

+0.00018

P< 0.00 1

- 0.00089

~0.00018

P<0.001

-0.0012

+0.0001

PCO.001

-0.0012

+ 0.000 1

PCO.001

Ul

(ADF)

0.0003

I!I0.000 11

P= 0.006

+ 0.0003

f 0.000 1

P=O.O028

- 0.0006

f 0.00024

PzO.014

-m0.0004

5 0.0002

Y-O.079

(CF)

(CF)

0.00024

f 0.00011

P= 0.040

a3

a2

+ 0.0002

+ 0.00010

P=O.O60

(NDF)

ar

0.899

0.879

0.864

R2

y=

0.894

!I 0.0230

P<O.OOl

Intercept

-0.0013

It0.0001

P<0.001

al

(ADF)

a3

(CF)

a2

(ADL)

0.730

R2

0.040

rsd

(9) Diets including straw at all rates and pulps, and for which NDF and ADL were measured (n = 58 )

(a) Analysis based on chemical composition

y=

Intercept

0.019

0.889

0.020

0.02 I

rsd

(A) Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- and pulps, and for which NDF and ADL were measured (n=41)

TABLE 3

0.020

E

2

F

y=

y=

0.758

+ 0.0386

P< 0.001

8.876

_+0.0195

P<0.001

- 0.0008

+ 0.000 12

P<O.OOl

- 0.00090

+ 0.000 12

P<O.OOl

-0.0010

f0.00019

P< 0.001

-0.0011

f 0.0002 1

P<0.001

P= 0.00 Ii

0.0005

+ 0.000 15

0.897

kO.0172

Y=

0.804

+ 0.329

y=

-0.0012

+ 0.00008

P<O.OOl

-0.0013

+ 0.00008

P<O.OOl

P<O.OOl

-0.0014

+ 0.00008

-0.0013

z!z0.000 1

P<0.001

al

(ADF)

PC 0.001

+ 0.0002

+ 0.00003

+ 0.0002

f 0.00003

PcO.001

P= 0.004

- 0.0002

+ 0.00006

0.00023

+ 0.00006

P<O.OOl

W2)

WJ)

-0.0011

+ 0.00003

P<O.OOl

a3

a2

0.0003

+ 0.000 13

P=O.O15

(CP)

a4

0.849

0.816

0.898

0.025

0.027

0.030

0.853

0.886

0.041

rsd

0.730

R2

0.03 1

0.033

y=

y=

0.871

fio.0101

P<O.OOl

0.863

&O.OlO

P<O.OOl

Intercept

P<O.OOl

- 0.0009

f 0.0001

-0.0012

+ 0.000 1

P<O.OOl

al

(ADF)

P=O.O04

- 0.00049

+ 0.000 16

0)

a2

0.022

0.02 1

0.902

rsd

0.888

R2

(61) Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- and pulps, and for which no measurements for NDF and ADL were taker. (n= 66)

P<O.OOl

0.877

+0.0161

P<0.001

y=

P<O.OOl

0.894

+ 0.0230

P<O.OOl

y=

Intercept

F

Ez

z

fl

4

B

y=

0.808

+ 0.0295

P<O.OOl

P<0.001

0.793

&0.0285

0.878

kO.0152

P<O.OOl

-0.0010

_+0.00017

P<O.OOl

P<O.OOl

-0.0012

* 0.00007

-0.0013

f 0.000 1

PCO.001

Cl1

(ADF)

- 0.00035

_+0.00013

P=O.O05

0.00046

f 0.000 13

P-c 0.001

a2

(CP)

- 0.00038

_+0.0002 1

PzO.104

(CF)

a3

y=

y=

y=

y=

0.837

f 0.0205

P<O.OOl

0.836

f0.0210

P<0.001

P<O.OOl

0.889

+0.0105

P<O.OOl

0.883

kO.0113

Intercept

(CR

(Iv

- 0.00049

+ 0.000 15

P=O.O02

- 0.0004

+ 0.000 15

P=O.OOS

0.0002

+ 0.00002

P< 0.00 1

0.00022

+ 0.00002

P<0.001

0.0002 1

+,0.00002

P< 0.00 1

- 0.0009

f 0.000 12

P<O.OOl

-0.0010

~0.00012

PC 0.00 1

-0.0010

+ 0.000 12

P<O.OOl

P<O.OOl

0.00022

It 0.00003

P<O.OOl.

-0.00061

+ 0.000 15

a3

a2

-0.0014

+ 0.00006

P< 0.001

al

(ADF)

y=

(b )

y=

Intercept

(ST)

(ST)

P= 0.029

0.906

+ 0.00022

k 0.00009

P= 0.02 1

0.892

0.872

R2

0.901

-0.00012

rf.0.00005

a6

a5

0.036

0.036

0.038

rsd

0.00027

* 0.00009

P=O.O05

(CP)

a4

0.798

0.792

0.764

R=

(D) Diets including straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- and pulps, and for which no measurements for NDE and ADL were taken (n= 93)

(a) Based on chemical composition

TABLE 3 (continued)

0.024

0.025

0.026

0.038

rsd

g

$

F

i%

0.0002 1

_+0.00002

PcO.001

- 0.00047

-t 0.00016

P= 0.003

y=

y=

2L

0.844

+ 0.0296

PC 0.001

0.874

+,0.0332

P<O.OOl

P<O.O01

0.797

f0.0189

I!z0.000 1

P<0.0001

-0.0011

al

(W

P<O.OOl

-0.0012

k 0.000 14

-0.0011

f 0.000 16

P<O.OOl

a2

(ADF)

0.00077

Z!I0.00024

P= 0.004

WE)

a3

y=

y=

P<O.OOl

0.922

+ 0.0242

+ 0.0430

P< 0.00 1

0.940

Intercept

P<O.O01

-0.0015

f: 0.000 11

P<O.O01

-3.0013

AI0.0002

Ul

(ADF)

0.000 18

+ 0.00004

P=O.O03

(PW

a2

0.959

0.848

R2

Based on chemical composition and rate of inclusion of ingredients

y=

Intercept

(E)

step with only one independent variable: see eqn. ( 1 ), Table 3 (D) (a).

-0.0010

+0.00012

P<O.OOl

Initial

0.844

-t-0.0208

PCO.001

y=

0.015

0.027

rsd

0.782

0.68 1

0.749

R2

P=O.O39

0.00020

f 0.00009

0.017

0.020

0.018

rsd

- 0.00009

~0.00014

P= 0.024

0.000 1

f 0.00006

P=O.120

0.909

0.024

6

0

R

=i

3

6

rcI

y=

0.966

f0.1337

PC 0.001

- 0.0023

f0.00109

P=O.O91

(W

al

0.466

R2

0.946

fsd

0.942

4 0.0408

P<O.OOl

0.976

f 0.0372

P< 0.001

y=

y=

Intercept

-0.0015

f 0.000 15

PcO.001

-0.0017

f 0.000 15

PcO.001

Ul

(AD0

- 0.0002

f 0.00007

P= 0.008

(ST)

a2

0.881

0.835

R2

Based on chemical composition and rate of inclusion of ingredients

Intercept

Based on chemical composition and rate of inclusion of ingredients

TABLE 3 (continued)

0.032

0.037

rsd

51

Mixed

Diets

0.81

0.41

50

75

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 3 0

ADF (g/kg DM)

Fig. 1. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,,).

Analysis A: Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg-, added fat and pulps, and

for which NDF and ADL were measured (n=41). y=O.863-0.0012 ADF (g kg- DM);

R2=0.888 (eqn. (1), Table 3(C)).

Mixed

Diets

0.7-

%

CJ 0.8-

0.5-

n = 58

0.4s

50

75

1

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

ADF (g/kg DM)

Fig. 2. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility oegross energy (GED).

Analysis B: Diets including straw at all rates and pulps, and for which ISDF and ADL were

measured (n=58).y=0.863-0.0012ADF

(gkg-* DM);R2=0.888 (eqn. (l),Table3(C)).

bility of the general equation to predict the nutritive values of all diets with

equal accuracy is due to the insensitivity oft

ployed (ADF) to estimate a ological value precisely.

from one source does not h

Such insensitivity in them

species of animals (e.g. with pigs, ng and Taverner, 1975; Just et al., 1984)

C. DE BLAS ET AL.

52

Mixed

Diets

0.7-

OS-

n = 66

044

* 50

75

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 3 i0

ADF (@kg DM)

Fig. 3. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,).

&ralysis C: Diets excluding straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg-, added fat and pulps, and

for which no measurements for NDF and ADL were taken (n = 66). y=O.863 -0.0012 ADF (g

kg- DM); R*=0.888 (eqn. (l), Table 3(C)).

Mixed

Diets

0.8

50

75

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 3 i0

ADF (g/kg DM)

Fig. 4. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,).

Analysis D: Diets including straw greater than at a rate of 200 g kg- and pulps, and for which

no measurements for NDF and ADL were taken (n = 93). y=O.863 - 0.0012 ADF (g kg- DM);

R*=0.888 (eqn. (l), Table 3(C)).

and is the major reason why there is considerable interest in the derivation of

separate prediction equations for individual classes of feeds (Wiseman et al.,

1992).

.4ccordingly, it was considered appropriate to treat the diets containing

added fat, pulps and straw in this manner. The results are presented in Tables

Mixed

53

Diets

0.70.6.

cl

g

0.5.

04

0.3,

50

10;

n

75

150

I+

200

250

ADF (g/kg DM)

300

350

4 0

Fig. 5. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,,).

Analysis E: Diets containing added fat (but excluding those in Tables 2(A) or 2(D) above)

(n=25). y=O.863-0.0012 ADF (gkg- D ); R2=0.888 (eqn. (I), Table 3(C)).

Mixed

Diets

w 0.6(3

0.5.

0.4-r

50

n = 19

I

75 100 125 150 175 209 225 250 275 300 325 3 IO

ADF (g/kg DM)

Beet pulp

citruspulp

Fig. 6. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,,).

Analysis G: Diets containing added beet and citrus pulp (n= 19). y=O.863-0.0012 ADF (g

kg- DM); R2=0.888 (eqn. (I), Table 3(C)).

3(E) (fat), 3(

prediction equations rel

high figures for

the use of CF resulted in

dent variable (

diets containing beet pulp).

C. DE BLA!3 ET AL.

54

Mixed

Diets

427

0.7-

0.5D

S OS-

0.4-

0.d

50

100

150

200

250

ADF (g/kg DM)

300

35:

4 IO

Fig. 7. Relationship between ADF and the coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,).

Analysis H: Diets containing straw at rates greater than 200 g kg- (n = 25). y=O.863 -0.0012

ADF (g kg- DM); R*=0.888 (eqn. (l), Table 3(C)).

generally poor predictors of GED in diets based on added fat. Although the

addition of fat could be regarded merely to dilute the other components of

the diet, and thus maintain correlations between chemical measurements and

nutritive value, fat is a variable commodity both in itself and in the manner

in which it may influence other dietary constituents (e.g. Santoma et al.,

1987 ). Additions of a fixed amount of fat to a diet will accordingly have a

variable response in terms of nutritive value. Furthermore, the addition of

fats to diets was invariably associated with changes in the content of other

chemical measurements (e.g. an increase in crude protein), which may also

have influenced the nature of the regression.

Diets based on citrus pulp were also comparatively poorly correlated with

measurements of fibre and, additionally, it was evident that the fibre from

this raw material was behaving in a different way, nutritionally, than that

from other fibre sources. The general equation was a comparatively accurate

predictor of other previously reported sources of fibre (Fig. 8 ) . It should be

noted that the general equation excluded those diets containing high levels of

added straw. However, the reason for this was not the higher levels of lignin

that would be expected to be present in these diets. Other fibre sources (e.g.

grape mart) have high levels of lignin and yet did not deviate from the response predicted by the general equation. It would seem that other issues contribute to the anomalous responses recorded with diets high in straw and it is

probable that factors including particle size are important with this particular

raw material.

Mixed

55

Diets

0.7-

0.6n

g

OS-

0.4n = 25

0.3 1

50

100

150

200

250

ADF (g/kg DM)

300

350

400

Fig. 8. Comparison between the response of the general equation from the current study (eqn.

( I), Table 3(C) ) and previously published work considering different sources of fibre.

Step-wise linear regression an sis allows the effects of additions of indeto the model t

are presente

ber of independent variables improved the

owever, improv

pet

h that achieved

par

variable.

For those reasons discussed above, diet

ed on added fat, straw an

individually.

were subsequently considered separately

It should be noted that regression equations are mathematical fu

but that their applicability should not be viewed solely in te s of accuracy

as indicated by high R* values. Thus, in multiple linear regressions it is assumed that all the independent variables are independent of one another.

However, it could be argued that the presence of more than one icrm for fibre

(e.g. CF and NDF) is not valid as the terms are not strictly in

each other as they are estimating a similar fract

. It may, therefore, be inwever, the original correappropriate to use equations where this occurs.

lation matrix had revealed that, in fact, the c

ation between A

was

occasionally

a

significant

improv

ADL was poor, and that th

the proportion of the ove

ariation accounted for independent variables

when these two te s were included in the sa

n this basis, the

use of both of them would seem justifie

56

C. DE BLAB ET AL.

inclusionoffeedstuflas independentvariables

The insensitivity of those chemical measurements used to predict changes

in the nutritive value of mixed diets based on added fat, pulps and straw has

been discussed above. As a means of overcoming this difficulty, further approaches were considered. It is possible that increases in fibre content may

not be linearly related to changes in the nutritive value of mixed diets. ACcordingly squared terms were employed for ADF in Analyses B, D and H.

However, in no case did the addition of this term improve the accuracy of

prediction significantly. Although such an improvement was reported in diets

for pigs by Wiseman and Cole ( 1983) using CF and modified ADF, the final

R*data reported were similar to those in the current study without squared

terms.

A further analysis considered the use of rates of inclusion of pulps and straw

as independent variables. Such an approach did not significantly improve the

accuracy of prediction for Analyses B and D, but did have a large effect on

those analyses which considered pulps and straw separately (F and G, respectively, for beet and citrus pulps, and H for straw ). These analyses confirmed

the insensitivity of those chemical measurements employed in the prediction

of the nutritive value of diets.

The magnitude of the difference between the GEn values predicted from

the general equation and those actually determined was viewed in terms of

the regressionof this difference against chemical measurements and the rates

of inclusion of feedstuffs. Data are presented in Table 4.

term for the rate of inclusion of beet and citrus pulps re

tively high R2, indicating that the difference between the predicted and actual

GEn could be explained largely by the addition of these two feedstuffs (in

contrast to the lack of ability of chemical measurements to achieve this). In

contrast, the presence of rates of inclusion of added fat (in the form of ether

extract content of the diet ) and straw did not improve the accuracy of prediction to such an extent. The possibility exists, therefore, that these two commodities were interacting in a variable way with other components of the diets

in which they were contained.

The general conclusions to be drawn from this study are that prediction of

the nutritive value of mixed diets fed to rabbits, as expressed in terms of GEb

was in general more accurate when ADF was used in comparison to CF as the

independent variable. The addition of further chemical measurements as independent variables improved the accuracy of prediction, but often only marginally. Diets containing added fat, beet pulp, citrus pulp and straw reduced

the accuracy of prediction, and individual functions were derived for those

diets containing these four commodities. Prediction equations can be applied

to diets as long as the range in measurements for chemical compone

beneath or beyond those studied. In addition, diets containing added fat, pulps

57

TABLE 4

Regression of the difference between the actual znd predicted coefficient of digestibility of gross energy (GE,,A-GEnP, dependent variable) on chemical measurements and rates of inclusion of raw

materials (independent variables). Cl&P is from eqn. (b), Table 3(C)

(A)

Diets containing added fat (n= 25). Original prediction equations are presented in Table 3 (E)

Y=

Intercept

al

(W

R2

rsd

-0.020

+0.0161

PzO.225

0.00077

* 0.00023

P= 0.003

0.33 1

0.016

(B ) Diets containing added beet pulp (n = 10). Original prediction equations are presented in Table

3(F?

Intercept

al

W-J)

Y=

0.015

f0.0140

PcO.317

0.00016

+ 0.00005

P=O.Oll

Y=

0.059

+ 0.0242

P= 0.046

0.00018

+ 0.00004

P= 0.003

a2

(ADF)

-0.00024

f 0.00011

PzO.078

R2

rsd

0.579

0.018

8.738

0.015

(C) Diets containing added citrus pulp (n = 7). Original prediction equations are presented in

Table 3 (G)

Y=

Y=

Intercept

C:

W-J)

- 0.032

+ 0.0296

P=O.326

0.174

+ 0.0827

PzO.104

+0.00025

0.00006

P=0.0010

+ 0.00034

+ 0.00006

P= 0.004

a2

(ADF)

-0.0012

+ 0.00047

PcO.062

R2

rsd

0.764

0.03 1

0.910

0.02 1

( D ) Diets containing straw at rates greater than 200 g kg- ( n= 25 ) . Original prediction equations

are presented in Table 3(H)

Intercept

al

(ST)

Y=

0.057

f 0.0262

PzO.041

-0.00027

+ 0.00007

P=O.OOl

Y=

0.113

kO.0372

PzO.006

-0.00027

+0.00007

P=O.OOS

a2

(ADF)

-O.OOO~F

+0.00015

PcO.056

R'

rsd

0.378

0.034

0.475

0.032

58

C. DE BLASET AL.

and straw should be treated separately for the purposes of predicting nutritive

value. Finally, it is crucial to note that the equations are only applicable to

those diets with chemical compositions within the range of values employed

in the current study. Extrapolation beyond or beneath this range is not

justified.

REFERENCES

Carabafio, R.M., Fraga, M.J., Santomi, G. and de Blas, C., 1988. Effect of diet on composition

of caecal contents and on excretion and composition of soft and hard feces of rabbits. J.

Anim. Sci., 66: 901-910.

Carre, B., 1990. Predicting the energy value poultry feeds. In: J. Wiseman and D.J.A. Cole (Editors), Feedstuff Evaluation. Proc. 50th Easter School in Agricultural Sciences. Butterworths, London, pp. 283-300.

De Blas, C. and Villamide, M.J., 1990. Nutritive value of beet and citrus pulps for rabbits.

Anim. Feed Sci. Tecbnol., 31: 239-246.

De Blas, C., Villamide, M.J. and Carabafio, R.M., 1989. Nutritive value of cereal byproducts

for rabbits. 1. Wheat straw. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., i2: 148-I 5 1.

De Bias, C., Santoma, G., Carabgno, R.M. and Fraga, M.J., 1986. Fiber and starch levels in

fattening rabbit diets. J. Anim. Sci., 63: 1897-l 904.

De Blas, C., Perez, E,, Fraga, M.J., Rodriguez, J.M. and Galvez, J.F., 1981. Effect of diet on

feed intake and growth of rabbits from weaning to slaughter. J. Anim. Sci., 52: 1225-1232.

Fernandez, C., 199 1. Efecto de la incorporaci6n de grass en piensos fibrosos sobre la utilizacibn

digestiva y metabolica de la dieta y sobre la composici6n corporal y calidad de la canal de

conejos en cebo. PhD Thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain.

Fisher, C. and McNab, J.M., 1987. Techniques for determining the metabolizable energy (ME)

content of poultry feeds. In: W. Haresign and D.J.A. Cole (Editors), Recent Advances in

Animal Nutriton-1987. Butterworths, London, pp. 3-18.

Fraga, M.J., Barreno, C., Carabaiio, R.M., Mtndez, J. and de Blas, C., 1984. Efecto de 10s niveles de flbra y proteina de1 pienso sobre la velocidad de crecimiento y 10spammetros digestivos de 10sconejos. An. Inst. Nat. Invest. Agrar. Ser. Ganadera, 2 1: 9 1- 110.

Fraga, M.J., Lorente, M., Carabaiio, R.M. and de Blas, C., 1989. Effect of diet and of remating

interval on milk production and milk composition of the doe rabbit. Anim. Prod., 48: 459466.

Fraga, M.J., Perez de Ayala, P., Carabafio, R.M. and de Blas, C., 199 1. Effect of type of fibre on

the rate of passage and on the contribution of soft feces to nutrient intake of fattening rabbits. J. Anim. Sci., 69: 1566-l 574.

Garcia, G., 199 1. Efecto de la sustitucion de cebada por pulpa de remolacha en la digestibilidad

de conejos en crecimiento y cebo. PhD Thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain,

Henry, Y., Vogt, H. and Zoiopoulus, D., 1988. Feed evaluation and nutritional requirements

III. 4. Pigs and poultry. Livest. Prod. Sci., 19: 299-354.

Just,A.,Jorgensen, I-L and Fernandez, J.A., 1984. Prediction of metabolizable energy for pigs

on the basis of crude nutrients in the feeds. Livest. Prod. Sci., 11: 105-128.

Ring, R.H. and Taverner, M.R., 1975. Prediction of the digestible energy in pig diets from

analyses of fibre contents. Anim. Prod., 21: 275-284.

Maertens, L., Moermans, R. and De Groote, G,, 1988. Prediction of the apparent digestible

energy (ADE) content of commercial pelleted feeds for rabbits. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 11:

60-67.

59

Mendez, J., de Blas, C. and Fraga, M.J., 1986. The effect of diet and remating interval after

parturition on the reproductive performance of the commercial doe rabbit. J. Anim. Sci., 62:

1624-1634.

Morgan, C.A., Whittemore, C.T., Phillips, P. and Crooks, P., 1987. The prediction of the energy

value of compound pig foods from chemical analysis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 17: 8 1- 107.

Motta, W., 1990. Efectos de la sustitucion partial de heno de alfalfa par orujo de uva o pulpa

de remolacha sobre la utilization de la dieta y 10s rendimiento? productivos en conejos en

crecimiento. PhD Thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain.

Ortiz, V., de Blas, C. and Sanz, E., 1989. Effect of dietary fibre and fat content on energy balance

in fattening rabbits. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 12: 159-162.

Parigi-Bini, R. and Chiericato, G., 1980. Utilisation of grape mart by growing rabbits. Proc. II

World Rabbit Congress, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 204-213.

Partridge, G.G., Garthwaite, P.H. and Findlay, M., 1989. Protein and energy retention by growing rabbits offered diets with increasing proportions of fibre. J. Agric. Sci., 112: 17 1- 178.

Santoma, G., Carabaiio, R.M., de Blas, C. and Fraga, M.J., 1985. Utilization de dietas con

distintos cereales por conejos en cebo. Anal. Inst. Nat. Invest. Agrar. Ser. Ganadera, 22: 7%

82.

Santoma, G., de Blas, C., Carabaiio, R.M. and Fraga, M.J., 1987. The effects of different fats

and their inclusion level in diets for growing rabbits. Anim. Prod., 45: 29 l-300.

Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, 1985. SAS Users guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary,

NC.

Villamide, M.J. and de Blas, C., 1991. Nutritive value of several cereal grains. J. Appl. Rabbit

Res., 14: 144-147.

Villamide, M.J., de Bias, C. and Carabafio, R.M., 1989. Nutritive value of cereal by-products

for rabbits. 2. Wheat bran, corn gluten feed and distillers dried grains with solubles. J. Appl.

Rabbit Res., 12: 152-l 55.

Villamide, M.J., Fraga, M.J. and de Blas, C., 199 la. Effect of basal diet and rate of inclusion on

the evaluation of protein concentrates with rabbits. Anim. Prod., 52: 2 15-224.

Villamide, M.J., de Blas, C. and Carabafio, R-M., 1991b. Nutritive value of cereal byproducts

for rabbits. 2. Wheat bran, corn gluten feed and dried distillers grains and solubles. J. APP~.

Rabbit Res., 12: 154-155.

Wiseman, J. and Cole, D.J.A., 1983. Predicting the energy content of pig feeds. In: W.

(Editor), Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition-1983. Butterworths, London, pp. 59-70.

Wiseman, J., Villamide, M.J., de Bias, C. and Carabafio, R.M., 1992. Prediction of the dietary

energy value of feeds for rabbits. I. Individual classes of feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 39:

27-38.

- Regression SummaryEnviado porSiobhan Griffin
- 7 Bivariate EdaEnviado porrahul_iiim
- 0004-282X-anp-72-10-757.pdfEnviado poriyan r
- ch12Enviado porBoBo Ting
- DoesACorrelationExist StudentEnviado porCharlotte Ellen
- Linear Regression and Correlation_ABHEnviado porYonas Tadesse
- Chapter 15 Final (Homework Answers)Enviado porKelly Johnson
- Moral Disapproval and Perceived Addiction to Internet Pornography a Longitudinal ExaminationEnviado portimsmith1081574
- CorrelationsEnviado porhameedada
- thungheEnviado porDiên Tuấn Lê
- FT Sources of Meaning Methodology NewEnviado porHunter Geisel
- A.Note.on.Alternative.Regressions.(A.J).1942.pdfEnviado porpedronuno20
- Videogame DepressionEnviado porRadael Junior
- Sept-12-14Enviado porMAGNT Research Report
- The Effect of Inflation, Interest Rates and Exchange RatesEnviado porLaeeqHcc771
- Korea MedEnviado porSalini Vinesh
- 11E Chapter 14(1)Enviado porslade
- bba3SGUEnviado porhetujeny
- ESignal Manual Ch19Enviado porTatu Arroyo
- 4_Linear_Regression_WPS.pdfEnviado porNipun Goyal
- Output SPSS Struktur 1 Dan 2Enviado porTriSetyoBudiono
- Data Mentah Spss Tugas GenapEnviado pordwi kurnia
- A Method-comparison Study Regarding - LactateEnviado porAlmiraNadia
- RegressionEnviado portanyagoswami11
- Functional RelationshipEnviado porRama Nathan
- Fuyuki Yoshikane, 2013Enviado porMacksWendhell
- capston essayEnviado porapi-300138624
- Attitude towards Statistics and Attitude Towards Research of Fourth Year College StudentsEnviado porLovely Aballe Booc
- Practical Guidelines to Improve Defect Prediction Model – A ReviewEnviado porinventionjournals
- JuuuuurnalEnviado porTeguh Hanapi

- 87761011Enviado porhanahatake
- Maquinaria Por Procesos ALMIBAREnviado porhanahatake
- 95916614Enviado porhanahatake
- 95916614Enviado porhanahatake
- Smal RuminantEnviado porhanahatake
- 217037Enviado porhanahatake
- ejerlipidos.docEnviado porhanahatake
- Tutorial de R.pdfEnviado porrauni_medina
- Tutorial de R.pdfEnviado porrauni_medina
- 1-s2.0-0921448895006393-mainEnviado porhanahatake
- at17Enviado porhanahatake
- 7206-19818-1-PBEnviado porhanahatake
- TaxonomÍa de Bloom de Habilidades de PensamientoEnviado poroscar hidalgo
- M Olivares 2Enviado porhanahatake
- _HtnUazeCv43WEnviado porpiposat
- 19219206-Egan-Greg-Ciudad-PermutacionEnviado porGermánPerrotta
- Yu 2004 Exogenous Phytase Activity in the Gastrointestinal on Broiler ChiceknsEnviado porhanahatake
- drying foodEnviado porhanahatake
- 566-2014_KipcakEnviado porhanahatake
- Journal of Food Science Volume 68 Issue 1 2003 [Doi 10.1111%2Fj.1365-2621.2003.Tb14111.x] v.a. Tironi; M.C. Tomás; M.C. Antón -- Effect of Malonaldehyde on the Gelation Properties of Myofibrillar ProtEnviado porhanahatake
- Enhancing in Vitro Degradation of Alfalfa With EnzymesEnviado porhanahatake
- Enhancing in Vitro Degradation of Alfalfa With EnzymesEnviado porhanahatake
- EnsaladasEnviado porhanahatake

- Series in Sensors R.S. Popovic Hall Effect Devices Institute of Physics Pub 2004Enviado porGLADIS
- Piping and Instrument Diagram SymbolsEnviado poraviz gumaya
- uspcatalog20131112-dl.pdfEnviado portahirazan74
- Get Ielts Band 9 SpeakingEnviado porNopporn SaSa
- Numerical solutions of conjugate heat transfer and thermal stresses in a circular pipe externally heated with non-uniform heat fluxEnviado porshowman18
- Xanthan Gum 2006Enviado porRene Bras
- Copper by iodometric titration.docEnviado porAbhimanyu Dwivedi
- MANOMETROSEnviado porSantiago Chinome
- Effect of Tyre Pyrolysis Oil (TPO) Blends on Performance of Single Cylinder Diesel EnginevEnviado porEditor IJRITCC
- 183258Enviado porMaaz Nasim
- self compacting concreteEnviado poraditya thakare
- Meinköhn D. (Ed.) - Dissipative Structures in Transport Processes and Combustion - (Springer Series in Synergetics) - 1990Enviado porfictitious30
- Midterm Review Sheet.docxEnviado porAnonymous QIhCdlVza
- Filtration Applications in Aromatic Fractionation (BTX Extraction)Enviado porBob Pepping
- Water Sources ChemistryEnviado porLovlesh Ruby
- Ti Spc Ohe Ins 0070 FinalEnviado porAbhishek Pandey
- Glutathione (Wikipedia)Enviado porgotglut
- CCB_-_orglet_2007_9_355Enviado porNarendra Kumar
- Heat Pipes - EngineeringEnviado porprinciqueso
- 1,4 ButanediolEnviado porElham Drs
- Chapter 1 Properties of Reinforced ConcreteEnviado porSochan Seng
- 08.- Evaluacion Del Paciente Con VihEnviado porBridget Limpias
- First Quarter Test in Grade 7 Scienc1Enviado porRevtech Revalbos
- Xii - Combined Test - 1 (Neet) - 11.06.2017Enviado porSankar Kumarasamy
- lab report LLE Latest.docxEnviado pornajihah
- M20532Enviado porjeanada phillips
- tomiska2004 (1)Enviado porMansita Simbolon
- H8_0713Enviado porbauemmvss
- ECRE_CD-CH10Enviado pornickmarinov1
- ElectrostaticsEnviado porFaaiz