Net Energy Value of Feeds for Lactation

P. W. MOE, W. P. FLATT' and H. F. TYRRELL

Animal Science Research Division, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Abstract

Results of 543 energy balance trials

with lactating cows were summarized
to partition the energy required by lactating cows into maintenance and production components and to determine
the irtfluence of energy source on the
efficiency with which dietary energy is
used for milk production. The-total
energy requirement for lactating cows
was expressed in net energy for milk
production (NEmilk). The amount of
energy required for maintenance of a
uonpregnant, lactating cow in body
energy equilibrium and ingesting a
diet of optimum protein content under
conditions of limited physical activity
was 73 kcal NEmi~k per kg .r5 body
weight. The amount of net energy required for milk production was .74 Mcal
NEmilk/kg 4% fat-corrected milk. The
NEr~ilk of individual diets was related
to the concentration of digestible energy
(DE) in the diet by the equation:
NEm~1k (Mcal/kg DM) = .68 DE
(Mcal/kg DM) -- .36. Variation in
energetic efficiency of metabolizable energy for milk production was much less
than for digestible energy. Metabolizabflity of diets was not a constant proportion of digestible energy but was related to concentration of DE and to
feed intake.
Introduction

Feeding standards used most frequently in

the United States for rationing feed to lactating dairy animals are the total digestible
nutrients (TDN) system and the estimated net
energy (ENE) system. During the past 30
years many experiments have studied the
adequacy of these and other systems Results
of these'experiments have been interpreted in
many ways and have produced a controversy.
Basically there are two views. The first is that
Received for publication January 4, 1972.
a Present address: Office of Director, Agricultural
Experiment Stations, University of Georgia, Athens
30601.

the TDN system is inadequate to represent the

energy value of different feedstuffs and should
be replaced with a net energy system. The
second is that there may be differences in the
true productive energy value of TDN but that
these differences are not large enough to warrant scrapping the TDN system in favor of a
net energy system which is based on only
limited experimental data.
Resolution of this controversy has been considerably handicapped by the difficulty of interpreting input-output measurements with
lactating dairy animals. Body weight change
does not necessarily reflect accurately changes
in body tissue reserves. Undetected mobilization of this energy reserve may significantly affect the amount of feed required per unit of
milk produced. As has been demonstrated (6),
the lactating dairy cow is able to mobilize extremely large amounts of body tissue in early
lactation ff fed considerably below her ability
to produce milk and conversely during later
lactation is able to deposit very large amounts
of body tissue. The result is that input-output
experiments, especially those of short duration,
may be greatly influenced by feeding in relation to the ability and stage of lactation of the
experimental animals.
Because of unresolved questions concerning
the adequacy of TDN as a feeding standard
for lactating dairy animals, several experiments
involved lactating dairy animals at the Energy
Metabolism Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland. Results of some of these experiments
have been described (2, 3, 7, 8, 9). These
and other experiments have suggested the
need for a net energy system for lactating
dairy animals, and the adoption of such a system has been proposed by F l a t t e t al. (10).
The objective of this paper is to characterize
the extent of variation in efficiency of energy
use by lactating cows and to describe observations, principles, and assumptions which are
involved in a net energy system for lactating
dairy cows.
For this purpose, results of energy balance
experiments during 1962 to 1968 have been
summarized. A preliminary report on this
project was presented in 1969 (15, 16). We
shall describe procedures to establish the relationship. This includes assumptions implicit in

945

946

MO~ ET .~I,

the procedures as well as experimental evidence to support these assumptions, where

such experimental data are available.
Before the amounts of energy required by
the dairy cow for various physiological functions can be properly stated, we must decide
first in which units to express this requirement. Results of experiments described (2)
suggested that the efficiency with which the
metabolizable energy was used for milk production was not a constant but varied as the
proportion of concentrate in the diet was
changed. Those experiments suggest the need
for some type of net energy system to account
for this variation. The classic net energy system is shown in Figure 1. With this system the
net energy requirement of maintenance is
equal to the fasting metabolism, and the energy value of feeds is NEro and NE w We will
reserve the decision on terminology to see ff
there is improvement in precision by use of
more than one term.
The general approach that we have taken
to this problem is that there are three steps.
These are first, a decision regarding the unit
or units of expression; secondly, definition of
a method of relating measurements of energy
balance to those units; and, finally, development of the relationship between the energy
value of feedstuffs and easily-measured characteristics of these feedstuffs.

Experimental Procedure

Data described in this paper were from ex-

periments with lactating cows at the Energy

Metabolism Laboratory between 1962 a n d
1968. Many of these experiments have b e e n
summarized (2, 3, 7, 8, 9). Because of the
time consuming nature of energy metabolism
research each experiment was designed to
answer specific but limited questions. Nearly
all of these experiments, however, involve the
relationship between the na~tre of the diet and
the e~ciency of energy for milk production.
It is hoped that pooling data from these
studies will contribute significantly to our understanding of this relationship.
The data were obtained during complete
energy balance experiments in six open-circuit
respiration chambers described by Flatt e t a ] .
(4) and Moe and Flatt (14). Each balance
trial involved total collection of feces, urine,
and milk for 5 or 7 days and 2 to 4 respiration
measurements of 24 hr each on consecutive
days.
Total heat production was calculated from
the respiratory exchange according to the
formula adopted by the EAAP ( I ) , heat production (kcal) = 3.866 02 + 1.200 COs -.518 CH4 -- 1.431 N where Oz, COs, and
CH~ are liters of oxygen consumed, carbon
dioxide, and methane produced, and N is
grams of urinary nitrogen. The energy contents
of feeds offered and feed refused, feces, urine,
and milk were determined by direct combustion under high oxygen pressure in an
adiabatic bomb calorimeter.
Results of balance trials used terminology
suggested by the National Research Council

(19~):

GE ---- gross energy of total feedstuff consullied.

ENERGY
BALANCE

DE = apparently digested energy = GE

-- fecal energy.
ME ---- metabolizable energy = DE -methane energy -- urine energy.
NEmi1~ = net energy for milk production.
A total of 32 diets was studied. Proportions
of forage and concentrate as well as the chemical composition of diets are in Table 1.
NEm
FASTING METABOLISM
ENERGY INPUT

FIc. 1. Relation between energy balance and

classic net energy terminology. The net energy requirement of maintenance (NEro) is equal to the
fasting metabolism and the net energy for produetion (NE~) is equal to the calorie value of the
product formed.
JOURNAL OF DAIR~C SCIENCE VOL. 55, No. 7

Results and Discussion

The
intake
Figure
to 384

distribution of dietary means for ME

and total energy balance (EB) is in
2. Average ME intakes range from 98
kcal/kg .75. At a given ME intake, the
r a n g e in EB provides a measure of the total
variation in efficiency of ME for milk production. At an ME intake of 300 kcal/kg .75, for
example, the range in EB for individual diets
is 95 to 130 kcal/kg .7~. If the efficiency of ME

947

NET ENERGY OF FEEDS

TaBt E 1. Characterization of diet~ studied in Experiments 16 to 33.

Composition (DM basis )

Ration ingredients
Diet

Concentrate
Alfalfa

Trials

(No.)
161
165
171
175
176
196
197
198
206
207
208
216
217
218
227
229
247
248
249
254
255
256
272
282
284
303
304
315
323
333
334
336

Crude
Grass hay protein

ADFa

NDF b

33.2
29.1
32.6
28.6
23.3
18.8
15.0
10.3
20.7
17.4
11.1
27.6
19.6
13.6
17.1
9.0
14.3
24.7
28.9
21.2
19.5
24.5
27.4
20.9
26.4
23.3
26.4
23.1
30.1
27.8
27.3
28.5

12.4
13.1
12.9
12.9
13.6
27.0
22.2
17.2
28.9
25.3
17.6
37.3
28.2
20.4
27.1
26.5
31.3
35.0
38.7
32.9
37.8
38.7
38.9
39.1
49.2
40.7
47.6
43.9
51.7
41.5
40.7
46.0

(~o)

3
4
24
13
14
23
23
19
3
5
3
6
6
13
23
6
15
4
16
16
14
5
6
11
10
14
12
6
3
4
4
4

0
16
0
16
36
40
60
80
40
60
80
40
60
80
60
1O0
76
(Purified
(Purified
60
60
20
25
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

Lignin

Ether
extract

6.2
5.4
6.1
5.1
4.0
3.3
2.6
1.6
3.8
3.1
1.6
4.8
3.2
2.3
3.5
1.3
2.9
1.7
1.9
4.3
2.4
5.0
5.5
1.5
3.5
2.4
3.3
2.5
5.5
7.7
9.2
8.1

2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.i
2.7
1.9
2.1
1,8
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
3.0
2.3
2.2
2.0
2,4
2.1
1.8
3.4
2.8
2.9
3.2
2.8
2.4
4.3
2.9
1,9

t~)

1O0
84
100
84
64
60
40
20
60
40
20
60
40
20
40
12
diet)
diet)
40

12

40
80
75
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

23.4
24.4
23.1
24.5
27.2
20.I
20.0
19.7
20.0
19.2
20.1
16.5
17.4
18.0
18.0
14.9
13.6
15.2
14.6
16.4
14.4
16.9
22.0
15.8
12.5
15.6
12.4
14.8
14.9
J 7.3
18.3
15.3

" Acid detergent fiber.

b Neutral detergent fiber.
I l l l | ! LII,ANle
(a'eil/ILIK)
211
tl---0.is95 lily - IS6
It2=0.888

8~.x=I0.7

154

i' '
e~eoIo

: .-:.

IN

5d

METABOLIZABLEENERGYINT&ILK(kcsl/kt~|

Fro. 2. Distribution of diet means. Each point

represents the mean metabolizable energy intake
and energy balance for all measurements of a single
diet.

for milk production is computed by assuming

the maintenance requirements of 110 kcal ME
per kg .75 body weight, the total range in
efficiency is 50 to 692. If maintenance is assumed to be 66 keal N E / k g -T5 from the regression of Figure 2, the range in efficiency is from
54 to 65%. These figures illustrate the variat_ton in efficiency of ME for milk production,
some of which may be related to the nature of
the diet.
Adjustment for loss of body tissue. I n the relationship between total energy balance and
ME intake, energy which is deposited as body
tissue is treated as though the efficiency of
tissue deposition is the same as of milk produetion. Heat production which results from
body tissue loss, however, is ignored since
energy balance is milk production from which
]OURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE VOL. 55, N O . 7

948

MOE E T AL

TABLE 2. Regression of metabolizable energy intake on total energy balance corrected for tissue energy
loss and the inverse regression of energy balance on metabolizable energy intake where both variables
are expressed as kcal/kg'TL Regressions within each diet where there were three or more observations
are given as well as the pooled regression among diets.
ME* on EBb
Diet

EB on ME

Average

N
a

161
165
171
175
176
196
197
198
206
207
208
216
217
218
227
229
243
246
247
248
249
254
255
256
272
282
284
303
304
313
315
323
Pooled

3
142.4
4
136.5
24
166.2
13
47.5
14
149.4
41
135.5
41
138.0
33
148.6
3 --28.3
7
167.7
5
103.1
12
197.5
12
151.8
18
126.9
39
138.1
12
129,7
4
92.2
4
103.0
27
160.2
6
108.7
19
131.4
24
114.8
25
124.2
7
158.9
7
110.4
19
127.3
16
118.9
22
72.9
23
115.5
4
163.9
12
159.9
4
72.8
504
134.0

Sb

Sy.x

1.700
1.635
1,422
1.534
1.399
1.524
1.485
1.371
2.675
1.303
1.732
.977
1,444
1.643
1.535
1.542
1.721
1.970
1.230
1.402
1.385
1.501
1.362
1.167
1,514
1.426
1.558
1.781
1.425
1,448
1.163
1.774
1.467

.100
.524
,075
.175
.129
.078
.056
.063
.021
.057
.553
.136
.092
.160
.082
.062
.797
.460
.090
.086
.111
.070
.086
.064
.183
.124
.688
.088
.078
.188
.185
.716
.019

7.4
24.8
14.6
20.3
15.9
21,8
14.9
19,3
,4
8.9
20.1
12.4
15.1
26.5
16.0
12.0
16.5
10.4
16.2
6.5
12.4
12.9
17.0
4.1
18.7
13.7
13.2
19.9
20.7
7.6
17.0
23,8
17.0

-83.1
--50.5
-104.7
--72.1
--88.0
--70.7
-81.8
-95.0
10.6
-126.0
-16.4
--155.5
-97.3
-56.0
-71.2
--81.0
-7.2
-43,2
-99.5
--76.5
--79.0
--67.2
--73.0
--132.4
--61,7
--63.3
--70.7
--32.4
--68.0
--105.3
--81.9
--6.1
--75.6

8b

.586
.034
.507
.163
.663
.035
.571 .065
.649
.060
.595
.030
.638
.024
.684
.032
.374
.003
.761
.033
,442
.141
.857
.119
.665
.042
.529
.051
.589
.032
,638
.026
,407
.188
.458
.107
.717
.053
,703
,043
. 6 5 1 .052
.636
,030
.673
.042
.844
.046
.616
.074
.622
.054
.625
.028
.535
.027
.660
.036
.668
.086
.686
.109
.425
.172
. 6 2 9 .008

Sy.x

ME EB
( kcaI/kg"7~)

4.3
13.8
10.0
12,4
10,9
13.6
9.8
13.6
.1
6.8
10.2
11.6
0.3
15.0
9.9
7.7
8,0
5.0
12.4
4.6
8.5
8.4
11.9
3.5
11.9
9,1
8.4
10.9
14.1
5.2
13.1
11.7
11.1

323
317
301
296
287
300
320
298
340
384
319
281
289
264
299
301
266
182
319
98
223
303
298
297
250
327
326
325
310
346
319
252
298

106
110
95
97
98
108
122
109
138
166
125
85
95
84
105
111
101
40
129
--8
66
125
128
118
92
140
133
142
137
126
137
101
112

R~
.998
.911
.971
,936
.953
,953
.974
,969
1.000
,995
.875
.915
,980
.932
.951
.992
.837
.950
.939
.993
.949
.977
.958
.993
.965
.942
.987
.976
.970
.984
.893
.868
.961

a Metabolizable energy,
b Energy balance.
an amount of energy equal to tissue loss has
b e e n subtracted. Treatment of tile data in this
manner does not distinguish between trials in
which energy balance is zero and trials which
involve a higher milk production with a corresponding tissue loss. Any heat which is
liberated as a result of body tissue being converted to milk is ignored, therefore. To estimate the efficiency with which body tissue was
used for milk production, the following equation was derived from these data (15): Milk
(kcal/kg '75) = .632 + .01 ME (kcal/kg "r~)
- - .840 tissue balance (kcal/kg .75) - - 79.7
where tissue balance is a negative value. From
this equation efficiency of conversion of tissue
energy to milk was assumed 845 and could
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE r o E .

55~ NO. 7

be used to adjust data to zero tissue loss. Total

energy balance adjusted to zero energy
balance was milk energy plus body tissue gain
plus .84 times tissue loss, where tissue loss had
a negative value.
The regression of total energy balance per
unit metabolic body size on ME intake in the
same units was within diet for each of 32 diets.
These regressions as well as the corresponding
regressions of ME on energy balance are in Table 2. The data in this table correspond exactly
to these summarized earlier (16). The n u m b e r
of trials on each diet is not the same as in Table 1 and in succeeding tables since some trials
were combined and others deleted. Those data
will be described later. I n the majority of these

949

NET ENERGY OF FEEDS

MAINTENANCE
(kcal/kg~)

ME FOR

REGRESSION

COEFFICIENT
(b)
l.t

o
I

200[

1.5

18oI

1.4

i
i

i
i

180

1.3

f.
!

140
I

1.2

LI

1201

rio

do

" fi~
1~" g0
y-INTERCEPT ,a)

ldo'

do

I00

Fro. 3. Relationship between the regression coefl~cient and the intercept at zero energy balance
for the regression of metabolizable energy intake on
energy balance (keal/kg "7~) for individual diets
with 10 or more observations.
diets the number of observations was insufficient for a realistic measure of this regression.
In other cases the range in production was not
enough for a precise estimate of the regression.
There is extraordinary variation in the intercepts among the many estimates, even among
diets in which the regression is above average.
The relationship between a and b for regressions of ME on energy balance are in Figure
3. Only regressions for diets of 10 or more observations are included. From this scatter
diagram the wide variation in both a and b is
apparent. There is a relationship between the
two values, a high a being associated with a
lower b and vice versa. This has no biological
significance since the intercept is computed
from mean and regression coefficient.
Any possible relationship between the concentration of ME in the diet and the a is not
immediately apparent as in Figure 4. We can
conclude that variation among these data preclude linear regression analysis to partition
energy use into maintenance and production
for each diet. We, therefore, chose to pool data
from all diets for the best estimate of the
energy required for maintenance.
From pooled equations bottom of Table 2:
ME (kcal/kg .75) = 1.467 Energy Balance
(kcal/kg -7~ + 134.0

[1]

and
EB (kcal/kg .rS) =

.629 ME (kcal/kg r~)

-- 75.6
[2]
From Equation 1, estimates of the amount
of energy for maintenance are 134 kcal of ME
or 134.0/1.467 = 91.3 keal of NE per kg/-7%
From Equation 2, the corresponding estimates are 75.6/.629 ~ 120.2 kcal ME or 75.6

80~

ME

CONCENTRATION(Meal/kg DM)

FIG. 4. Relationship between the concentration

of metabolizable energy in the diet and the
amount of metabolizable energy required for maintenanee as estimated from the regression of metabolizable energy on energy balance (kcalfkg~).
ken1 NE per kg/.35. It is not clear which of these
two equations is best suited for estimating the
maintenance requirement. For the purpose
of estimating the amount of energy for given
production, Equation 1 is best suited since
the error associated with ME intake is minimized. If the purpose is to estimate the energy
balance at a particular intake of ME, Equation
2 is preferable. This is more correct statistically
since energy balance is measured with more
error than is ME intake. Since the independent
variable in either equation is measured with
error and the regression coefficient, therefore,
slightly underestimated, we chose an intermediate point as the estimate of the NE requirement of maintenance, 85 kcal NE//kg "~5.
This value was used in further computations
of the net energy value of individual diets. W e
have thus assumed that the amount of energy
required to maintain the lactating cow is equal
to the amount of energy required to produce
85 x kg -7~ kcal of milk energy. Stated in
another fashion, the amount of energy required
to maintain the lactating cow is 85 kcal
NEmilk per kg "7~.
Net energy value. From the value of maintenance above and adjusting to zero body
tissue loss, the total net energy intake for each
trial was:
NEmitk (Mcal) = Energy Balance (Mcal)
+ .085 X kg "75
where energy balance is adjusted to zero tissue
loss. The net energy value (Mcal NEmilk/kg
JouRr~L or DAIRYSOZNC~ VOL. 55, No. 7

950

MOE ET AL

NEmllk VALUE
~Meml/klr DM~

2"212.0

UNADJUSTED
DATA

DE-077
x EXPT.ID-2~
0 EXPT.24~32

r~

NEmlik 0.84

i8

o
Do o

x
x

x xx

Ig

,.A
2
2,2

24

2.6
28
3,0
3.2
DE CONCENTRATIONtMcal/kg DM)

34

Fro. 5. Relationship between concentration of

digestible energy and net energy for milk production.
DM) was obtained by dividing total NEmilk
intake by total intake of dry matter.
The average net energy values of 21 diets
with 10 or more observations of energy
balance are in Figure 5. These data are
separated into two series of experiments. The
first series (Experiments 17 to 22) was between 1962 and 1965 on diets of alfalfa hay
fed alone or in combination with a high protein concentrate mixture. The crude protein
content of these diets averaged 19.27o on the
dry matter basis. High protein concentrates
prevented changes in protein when proportions
of hay and concentrate were changed.
The second series (Experiments 24 to 32)
were between 1965 and 1968 and consisted
largely of grass hays and a considerably greater variety of concentrate mixtures. The average
crude protein content of these diets was
14.6%.
These two series of experiments have been
treated separately since the difference in crude
protein of the experimental diets is confounded
with time. During the long time of these experiments (7 years) there was some alteration
of equipment and to a lesser extent of methods
of energy balance trials. Because of these
changes it is not possible to determine whether
all of the observed difference is due to dietary
differences or if some is a result of changes in
technique. For this reason the two series have
been separated and the results pooled within series.
The net energy, value for each of the 21
diets is in Figure 5 as a function of the concentration of digestible energy. The relationships for these data are described by the following equations:
NEmilk ( M c a l / k g D M ) = .895 DE (Mcal/
kg DM) -- 1.069
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE VOL. 55, N o .

Experiments 17 to 22 [3]
r2 = . 8 5 6 S y . x = . 1 3 S b = . 0 3 2
NEmi lk (Mcal/kg DM) = .785 DE (Mcal/
kg DM) -- .472
Experiments 24 to 32 [4]
rz = . 8 9 3 S y . x = . 1 1 S b = . 0 2 6
NEmilk (Mcal/kgDM) = .840 DE (Mcal/
kg DM) -- .773
Pooled data
[5]
re = . 8 7 0 S y . x = . 1 2 S b = . 0 2 1
Although only the mean of each diet is plotted
in Figure 5, the regressions were from individual observations (293 in the first series
and 242 in the second). Values for the first
series of experiments are lower than those of
the second. In both sets, however, the zero-intercept of net energy is negative which suggests that the net energy value changes at a
greater rate than could be expected if the
digestible energy of all diets were used equally effectively for milk production. In pooled
data the averages of NEmilk and DE were
1.717 and 2.967 Mcal/kg DM. The ratio
1 . 7 1 7 , / 2 . 9 6 7 z ,579 gives the regression coefficient which would be expected ff the NE
value is directly proportional to the concentration of DE. The observed regression of .840
was significantly greater than .579 (t-test,
P < . O 1 ) . The same test was applied within
each series of experiments. Observed regressions (.895 and .785) were both significantly
greater ( P < . 0 1 ) than the ratios of means. It
may be concluded tllat the net energy value
of these diets was not proportional to the concentration of DE but changed at a greater
rate than would be expected from differences
in digestibility. This means that the value of
the DE of diets of high digestibility for milk
production is higher than for diets of lower
digestibility.
The regression of net energy value on the
concentration of ME in the diets resulted in
the following relationships:
NEmim (McaI/kgDM) =

.803 ME (Mcal/
kg DM) -- .451
Experiments 17 to 22 [6]
r z = .904 Sy.x ~ .11 Sb = .022
NEmilk (Mcal/kgDM) = .894 ME (Mcal/
kg DM) -- .475
Experiments 24 to 32 [7]
r 2 = .885 Sy.x = .11 Sb = .030
NEmim (Mcal/kgDM) = .835 ME (Mcal/
kg DM) -- .445
Pooled data
[8]
r - = ,895 Sy.x = .11 Sb = .018

N E T ENERGY OF F E E D S

TABLE 3. Relationship between megaealories of

net energy per kilogram of dry matter in feeds~ffs for milk production (Meal NEmi~/kg DM)
and other expressions of energy value based on
535 energy balance measurements with lactating
dairy cows (unadiusted data).
(Meal/kg DM) = .84 DE (Mcal/kg
.77
r ~ = .87
Sy.x = .12
Sb = .02

~Emilk

DM)

NEmilk (Mcal/kg DM) = .84 ME (Mcal/kg DM)

.44
r = = .90
Sy.x = .11
Sb = .01
-

NEm~,k (Mcal/kg DM) = .0373 ~ D E - .80

r ~ = .85
Sy.x = .13
Sb = .0010
NEm~k (Mealfkg DM) = .0369 ~ ME -- .46
r ~ = .88
Sy.x = .12
Sb = .0009
NEm~lk (Mcal/kg DM) = .0352 % TDN -- .62
r ~ = .84
Sy.x = .14
Sb = .0010
NEml~k (Mcalfkg DM) = .0376 % dig. DM -- .88
r ~ = .8~
Sy.x = .13
Sb = .0010
NE,mk (Mcal/kg DM) = .0358 % dig. OM - .61
r ~ = .84
Sy.x = .14
Sb = .0010
NE~,~ (Meal/kg DM) = 1.15 ENE (Meal/kg
DM ) q- .25
r~ = .84
Sy.x -----.14
Sb = .03
The comparison between series is similar to
that for DE. By tests as described, each of the
three regressions was significantly greater
(P<.01)
than the respective NEmilk/ME
ratios. The relationships between NEmi lk value
and other expressions of energy value are
in Table 3. Only pooled regressions are
given. The differences between series are similar to that noted above.
Application of these data. Data above were
described b y Moe and F l a t t (16) and were incorporated in the 1971 revision of the Nutrient
Requirements of Dairy Cattle (22). In the
NEmilk system the maintenance requirement
was set at 85 keal/kg .75 and the requirement
for milk production at .74 Meal NEmilk p e r
kg of 47o FCM. The NEmilk values of individual feedstuffs were computed from the
T D N equation of Table 3 [NEmilk(Mcal/kg
DM) = .0352 % T D N --.62] rather than
from DE or ME since both of these were also
derived from TDN. The resulting NEmiik
values of individual feedstuffs were further reduced 7% because of the uncertainty of applying energy balance results under confined and
closely controlled conditions to animals under
commercial conditions. The value of 7% was
chosen because it corresponds to approximately one standard deviation from the prediction

951

equation. The NRC (22) recommends a

further adjustment in the energy value of some
diets such as corn silage, coarse textured grains
or forages with high cell wall content to compensate for changes in nutritive value associated with high feed intakes.
Further computation of these data. After
preliminary description of the data described
above (16), data were further screened and
studied to remove known effects. Several trials
were deleted because of apparently discrepant
values. W e recognize the inherent dangers of
doing this but felt that these few trials d i d not
contribute to the description of the energy
metabolism of "normal" animals. Data from
Experiment 33 was included in this summary
although not included above. Later experiments involving corn silage have been summarized separately, and those data are not included in this report. Another change was the
computation of 10-day means for many of the
trials. W i t h the exception of Experiment 17,
most of the data were from experiments in
which two consecutive 5-day trials were conducted with no change in diet. This was done
initially to test for time trends in energy
balance procedures. Such effects were not of
any consequence, and the procedure was later
abandoned. W e have, therefore, counted each
pair of these trials as a single trial for the summary which follows. This will explain the
~maller number of observations on each diet.
W i t h these changes there were 350 trials with
lactating animals compared to 543 summarized
above. I n several instances one trial of a given
pair was deleted because of experimental difficulties. I n those instances, the remaining 5day trial was used.
Adjustment for excess nitrogen intake. F r o m
above, the results of Experiments 17 to 22 were
considerably different from Experiments 24 to
32. Energy balances of the former were considerably lower than of the latter. In a detailed analyses of these data, Tyrrell et al.
(23) partitioned the portion of total heat
production which was attributable to intake
of digestible nitrogen in excess of that
required for maintenance and production.
To reduce variation in the actual data
which was due to excess intake of protein,
balance trial data were adjusted to an intake of
digestible nitrogen equal to the requirement.
This was done b y adding 7.2 kcal to the measured energy balance for each gram of digestible nitrogen in excess of requirements. This adjustment was made when energy balance was
related to ME intake. The correction was
|OURNAL OF DAIRy SCIENCE VOL. 55, NO. 7

952

MOE E T AL

larger when energy balance was related to DE

because of the increased urine excretion of
energy due to excess nitrogen. The correction
in this case was to add 13.3 kcal to the measured energy balance for each gram of excess
digestible nitrogen. The requirements were
computed on the basis of crude protein with
the requirement for maintenance .456 g per
kilogram body weight, the requirement for
milk being milk nitrogen divided by .625, and
the requirement for fetal growth being 45 g
per Mcal of fetal energy deposited.
Adjustment for energy for pregnancy. Many
of the lactating animals were pregnant during balance trial measurements. I n the summary of data above, all trials on animals

pregnant for more than 90 days were eliminated to avoid the confounding of pregnancy
with ettlciency of energy use for lactation.
Later study of the data of dry pregnant cows
(19) provided a method of relating stage of
pregnancy to amount of energy for fetal
growth. This information was used to adjust
the energy balance of the lactating cows to remove the influence of pregnancy from lactation data. This was done b y computing the
energy balance of the dam alone by subtracting the amount of energy retained in the fetal
tissues. The latter was estimated b y differentiating the equation of Jakobsen et al.
(13) to the following: energy retained in fetal

TABLE 4. Regression of metabolizable energy intake on total energy balance corrected for tissue loss
and gain, excess nitrogen intake and pregnancy and the inverse regression of energy balance on metabolizable energy intake where both variables are expressed as kcal/kg "~5. The regressions within
each diet where there were three or more observations are given as well as the pooled regression
among diets.
ME a on EB b
Diet

EB on ME

161
165
171
175
176
196
197
198
206
207
208
216
217
218
227
229
247
248
249
254
255
256
272
282
284
303
304
315
323
333
334
336
Pooled

3
4
24
13
14
23
23
19
3
5
3
6
6
13
23
6
15
4
16
16
14
5
6
11
10
14
12
6
3
4
4
4
332

Sb

Sy.x

122.2
123.6
149.7
130.6
136.2
125.7

1.665
1.546
1.400
1.496
1.341
1.579

.049
.384
.663
.142
.112
.094

1 3 0 . 7 1.523

.057

3.7
19.9
12.5
17.3
14.6
19.8
12.4
13.3
1.0
7.3
19.5
13.3
10.4
19.2
15.3
10.1
13.9
7,9
12.8
13,2
16.2
2.9
11.1
12,5
12,9
19.6
14.9
20.4
5.9
8.1
9,5
2.0
14.7

128.8
--8.7
165.7
--4.0
192.7
138.4
100.7
125.4
136.9
132.9
106.5
134.4
100.5
113.2
150.7
101.3
110.5
111.3
68.4
93.1
158.2
23.3
162.1
155.5
155.4
122.1

1.535
2.508
1.302
2.573
.994
1,551
1.902
1.621
1.547
1.473
1.434
1.247
1.614
1.478
1.2&5
1.552
1,566
1,641
1.899
1.711
1.244
2.494
1.160
1.125
1.108
1.547

.069
.046
.070
1.048
.214
.102
.162
.092
.136
.092
.147
.105
.088
.102
.055
.115
.095
,090
.119
.104
.901
.315
.257
.848
.052
.021

Metabolizable energy.
b Energy balance.
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE VOL. 55, NO. 7

a
--73.2
--57.5
--98.1
--69.4
--85.1
--66.4
--80.0
--77.5
3.5
--124.6
18.9
--149.7
--86.0
--43.4
--66.1
--81,9
--80.4
--72.9
--91.6
--55.2
--66.1
-- 120,6
-- 62.4
--64,3
--631
--28.6
--48.3
46.1
--7.8
--117.4
--23.0
--139.1
--67.7

Sb

Sy.x

ME EB
.(kcal/kg "~)

.600
.576
.686
.608
.688
.589
.638
.629
.399
.761
,333
,849
.634
,487
,578
.627
.646

.018
.143
.031
.058
.057
.035
,024
.028
.007
.041
.136
.183
.042
.042
.033
.055
.040

2.2
12.2
8.8
11.0
10.5
12.1
8.0
8.5
0.4
5.6
7.0
12.3
6.7
9.7
9.1
6.4
9.2

323
317
301
296
287
299
308
293
340
395
313
281
289
245
285
340
303

121
125
108
111
112
110
116
107
139
176
123
88
97
76
98
131
115

,683

,070

5.4

92

--10

.729
.595
.640
.81)5
,631
,618
.595
.503
.564
,260
,395
.785
.416
.898
.603

.062
.032
.044
.036
.047
.037
.033
.031
.034
.188
.050
.174
.313
.042
.008

9.8
8.0
10.7
2.3
7.1
7.9
78
10.1
8.6
9.3
23
6.7
5.8
1,8
9.2

223
286
286
289
2t)8
310
331
314
295
319

236
291
244
288
290

71
115
117
112,
69
128
134
129
118
129
85
111
78
119
108

1~2
.9996
.944
.979
.954
.961
.964
.986
.983
.9998
.996
.926
.918
.991
.962
.968
.985
.976
.990
.954
.980
.973
.997
.989
.984
.988
.977
.982
.568
.992
.954
.684
.998
.970

NET ENERGY

tissues = 7,2 e .z74t kcal per day where t is the

number of days pregnant. The maternal energy
balance was then adjusted upward by assureing that the energy which was used to promote
growth of the fetus would have contributed
44e "zr4t kcal to the total energy balance. This
correctiort was made for cows weighing 600
kg with a linear adjustment for cows of other
body weights.
Summary of adjusted data. Regressions of
ME intake on corrected energy balance as well
as the reciprocal regressions are in Table 4.
Dietary means for digestibility and metabolizabflity are in Table 5. The chemical composition
of diets is in Table 1. Pooled regressions from
the bottom of Table 4 are:
ME (kcal/kg .75) = 1.547 Energy Balance
(kcal/kg 'rL) + 122.1
[9]
Energy balance (kcal/kg .75) = .608 ME
(kcal/kg.r~) --67.7
[10]
Estimates of the amount of energy required for
maintenance from these regressions are 122.1
and 111.3 kcal M E / k g "r5 or 78,9 and 67,7 kcal
N E / k g -rL. These estimates are below estimates
from the unadjusted data (Equations 1 and
2), and this difference is primarily a reflection
of the elimination of energy loss due to excess
nitrogen intake. The average NE requirement
(73.3 keal/kg .rL) is nearly identical to the average fasting heat production (73,5 kcal/kg -75) of nonlactating nonpregnant dairy cows
following a period of maintenance feeding
measured in this laboratory (5). This supports
the concept that the "apparent efficiency" of
energy use for maintenance is equal to that for
milk production.
Net energy values were recalculated using
73 kcal NE~im as the maintenance requirement. The relationships between DE and NE
concentrations within series ignoring diet
were:
-~ .677 DE (Meal/
kg DM) -- .411
Experiments 17 to 22 [11]
r ~ = .854 Sy.x = .10 Sb = ,030
NEmiIR (Mcal/kg DM) = .677 DE (Meal/
kg DM) -- .296
Experiments 24 to 33 [12]
r z = .864 Sy.x = .11 Sb = .023
NEmHk ( M c a l / k g D M ) = .677 DE (Meal/
kg DM) -- .359
Pooled data
[13]
r 2 = .859 Sy.x = .10 Sb = ,022
The result of the several adjustments was
to decrease variation between series. The

oF FEEDS

953

TABLE 5. Digestibility and metabolizability of diets.

DE S

Diet

DE

ME

( Mcal/kg DM ) (% of gross energy)

3
4
24
13
14
23
23
19
3
5
3
6
6
13
23
6
15
4
16
16
14
5
6
11
10
14
12
6
3
4
4
4

161
165
17t
175
176
196
197
198
206
207
208
216
217
218
227
229
247
248
249
254
255
256
272
282
284
303
304
315
323
333
334
336

ME b

2.73
2.93
2.74
2.93
3.18
3.13
3.28
3.42
2.95
3.08
3.48
2.87
3.10
3.26
3.03
3.42
2.57
3.14
2.56
3.04
3.00
2.82
2.78
2.85
2.50
2.95
2.71
2.88
2.72
3.02
2.62
2.85

2.25
2.41
2.24
2,40
2,62
2,68
2.90
3.05
2.54
2.71
3.18
2.45
2.67
2.86
2.68
3.14
2.31
2.60
2.31
2.66
2.62

62.0
66.5
62.1
66.5
71.6
70.8
74.1
77.1
67.0
69.9
78.3
66.6
71.2
74.0
68.4
76.3
57.9
74.8
63.7
68.4
67.7
64.4
63.1
64.3
56.7
67.5
61.9
64.7
60.5
63.4
58.1
64.4

2.44

2.35
2.94
2.18
2.58
2.36
2.54
2.30
2.60
2.29
2.47

51.1
54.8
50.9
54.6
58.9
60,8
65.8
68.8
57.7
61,6
71.8
56.8
61.3,
64.9
60.5
70,1
52.0
61.9
57.3
60,0
59.0
55.8
53.2
57.2
49.6
58.9
53.8
57,1
51.2

54.5

50.7
55.8

Digestible energy.
b Metabolizable energy.

ADJUSTED DATA

NEmilk VALUE
(Mal/kg DM)
2.0

1.8

x~

NEmllk=0.68 OE-0.36

~.~

x EXPT. 16-22
o EXPT. 24-33

~.~

NE~ilk ( M c a l / k g D M )

1.6
o

o
o

0 o
o 0 x

"

xX

1,4

12
2.2

2'.4

~6

2',

31o

312

3.~-

DE CONCENTRATION ( M c a l / k g DM)

FIc. 6. Relationship between concentration of

net energy for milk production and digestible energy in individual diets. Net energy for milk production of these diets has been adjusted to body
energy and protein equilibrium for a nonpregnant
COW.
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCI]~NC/~ VOL.

55, NO.

954

MOE E T AL

regression coefficients are identical for Equations 11 and 12 indicating that the rate of
change in the net energy value with respect
to digestibility was the same for the two series
of experiments. There was, however, a difference in intercepts. An analysis of covariance
indicated that NEmilk values of the first series
of experiments were significantly lower
( P < . 0 1 ) than of the later series. This difference, however, is considerably smaller than
with the unadjusted data (Equations 3 and
4). The reduction in the difference between
the two series of experiments is apparent in
Figure 6. In addition to decreasing variation
between series, another result of the corrections was to decrease the rate of change in
NEmilk with respect to DE. This indicates
that the extent of variation in efficiency which
may be attributed to the change in DE concentration is less than we reported earlier for the
unadjusted data (16). In both series, the variation in efficiency of use of DE was significant
( P < . 0 1 ) with the t-test described above.
This was not the case for the relationship
between ME and NEmilk.
The individual regressions are:
NEmllk ( M c a l / k g D M )

.645 ME (Meal/
kg DM) -- .088
Experiments 17 to 22 [14]
r = = .891 Sy.x = .095 Sb = .024
NEmilk (Mcal/kg DM) = .820 ME (Meal./
kg DM) -- .419
Experiments 24 to 33 [15]
r 2 = .889 Sy.x = .095 Sb = .034
NEmilk (Mcal/kg DM) = .703 ME (McaI/
kg DM) -- .193
Pooled data
[16]
r z = .884 Sy.x = .097 Sb = .020
By the t-test the influence of concentration
of ME on efficiency of energy use was significant ( P < . 0 1 ) for 24 to 32 and for the pooled
data but not for the earlier experiments. The
range is apparent efficiency of ME for milk
production is considerably reduced. At ME
concentrations of 2.0 and 3.0 McaI/kg DM
predicted NEmiz~ values are 1.213 and 1.916
Meal NEmilk/kg DM which indicates a range
in efficiency of 60.7 to 63.9%. The variation
in efficiency with which ME is used for milk
production is, thus, substantially less than the
variation in use of DE. This conclusion is valid
only with regard to ME values which are
actually determined and not to calculated
values. This is because ME is not a constant
proportion of DE, but the relationship varies
with feed intake and protein nutrition of the
animal. The effect was, however, different beJOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE g o t .

55. NO. 7

tween the two series as in the following:

ME = 1.15 --+ .02 % DE + 1.55 -+ .22
PN -- 24.7
Experiments 17 to 22 [17]
r 2 = .92
Sy.x = 1.81
and
go ME = .85 .02 % DE q- 1.06 + .17 PN
1.2
Experiments 24 to 33 [18]
r 2 = .92
Sy.x = 1.36
where PN is the plane of nutrition and is computed by ME (keal/kg'r5)/llO. The average
ratios between percentages ME and DE were
.862 and .876 for the two series, somewhat
above the commonly used ,82. The coefficient
of 1.15 for percent DE with the earlier experiments is surprising and along with the large
constant may be related to the large amount
of excess nitrogen in those diets. It may also
be a consequence of the way the change in
percent DE was accomplished which was
largely by substitution of alfalfa hay by concentrate. If, for example, the amount of
methane produced per unit of energy digested
is greater for alfalfa hay than for a corn grainsoybean meal mixture, the result could be an
unusually high coefficient for percent DE.
With both series percent ME is increased
relative to percent DE at higher feed intake.
This is a consequence of the decreased loss of
urine energy and methane per unit of diet consumed at high intakes.
The relationship between ME and DE was
nearly the same when expressed as concentration in the dietary dry matter:
ME (Mcal/kg DM) = 1,15 .02 DE
(Mcal/kg DM) q- .065 .010 PN -- 1.07
Experiments 17 to 22 [19]
r 2 = .92
Sy.x = .06
ME (Mcal/kg DM) = .82 - .02 DE
(Mcal/kg DM) + .046 +- ,007 PN + .04
Experiments 24 to 33 [20]
r 2 = .94
Sy.x = .06
The simple linear regression of ME on DE
concentration is in Figure 7, All except two
diets fall above the imaginary line represented
by ME = .82 DE, and ME values by that regression arc incorrect for lactating cows at high
feed intake.
The relationship between adjusted NEmilk
and other expressions of energy value induding '% ME, % DE, % TDN, and E N E are in
Table 6. These prediction equations are comparable to those in Table 3 except that these
were from the adjusted data. Estimated net
energy was computed from the percent T D N
observed for each trial from the equation of
-

NET

ENERGY

ME CONCI~NTRATION
( M e l l / k g DM)
3.;2

3.0

el
J

I i

.J

2,4

a o//

=/
2A
2,1

~.,

i.~

~'.~

~o

~i~

~:,

Dt CONCBNTRATION(MelLI/klt Dill)

FIG. 7. Relationship between the concentration

of digestible and metabolizable energy. For comparison, the relationship ME ~ .82 DE is also
shown graphically. Metabolizable energy of these
diets is nearly all in excess of .82 x DE.
Moore et al. (20) which was arithmetically
changed to:
E N E ( M c a l / k g DM) ~- .0307 % T D N -.764.
Compare this equation to the corresponding
NEr, ilk equation:
NE~ilk ( M c a l / k g D M ) = .0266 % T D N
--

.12.

This relationship suggests that the rate of

TABLE 6. Relationship between megacalories of net
energy per kilogram of dry matter in feeds~ffs
for milk production and other expressions of energy value based on 350 energy balance measurements with lactating dairy cows (adjusted data).
NE~,,k (Mcal/kg DM) = .677 DE (Mcal/kg DM)
.36
r* = .86
Sy.x = .10
Sb = .022
NE~Ilk (Meal/kg DM) = .703 ME (Meal/kg DM)
.19
r~ = .88
Sy.x = .097
Sb = .020
N E ~ k (Meal/kg DM) = .0305 % DE -- .41
r* = .84
Sy.x = .108
Sb = .0011
NE~,,k (Mcal/kg DU) = .0309 % ME -- .19
r ~ = .86
Sy.x = .11
Sb = .0010
N E ~ k (Meal/kg DM) = .0266 ~ TDN -- .12
r* ~- .79
Sy.x = .12
Sb = .0011
NEm~k (Mcal/kg DM) = .0307 % DDM -- .47
r* = .83
Sy.x = .11
Sb = .0011
NE~t,k (Mcal/kg DM) = .0273 % DOM -- .12
r ~ = .79
Sy.x = .12
Sb = .0011
N E ~ k (Mcal/kg DM) : .809 ENE (Mcal/kg
DM) q - . 5 4
r2 = .79
Sy.x -----.12
Sb = .036
--

--

955

OF FEEDS

change in NEmilk with respect to percent

T D N is about 87% as great as the corresponding change in ENE. The absolute value of the
NEmizk figure is also somewhat greater than
ENE, and the two are not interchangeable.
Estimation of NEm~tk value of feeds. The
major limitation to immediate application of
the NEmi~k system is lack of directly measured NEmiik on a large number of feeds. This
limitation can be overcome partially by regressions described in Table 6 to estimate the NE,nick value from digestibility or metabolizability data of individual diets. In using these
regressions, however, we must emphasize that
the starting point should be the digestibility
which is actually measured at the producing
feed intake rather than a figure at maintenance
or with other species. There are undoubtedly
many factors which contribute to the NEm~lk
of feeds other than simply digestibility.
One of the goals of this laboratory is to relate NEmilk of feeds to parameters more easily measured than digestibility. Considerable
data have been compiled on lignin and cell
wall components of individual diets in these
studies as determined b y methods of Van Soest
(24) a n d Van Soest and Wine (25). These
data will b e summarized later in an a t t e m p t
to improve on the prediction of NEmilk.
It is likely that prediction equations of this
p a p e r describe maximum or optimum NE~IIk
values of diets, W e have attempted to remove
as many factors as possible which influence energy losses. Factors such as pregnancy, nutrient imbalance, disease, tissue energy gain, environmental stress, and exercise all tend to
reduce efficiency b y either increasing the
amount of energy required for maintenance
or decreasing the apparent metabolic efficiency of production. I n commercial dairying, nearly all of these factors will operate
to reduce apparent efficiency to a greater
or lesser extent. Because of these considerations, it is fortunate that our earlier estimate
of 85 kcal NEmtlk/kg .75 for maintenance was
used in the latest NRC publication instead of
73 kcal NE~ilk/kg "r5 which we have obtained in this p a p e r from the adjusted data.
Net Energy Value of Mixed Diets

Past experiments have shown many instances in which the productive value of a
mixed diet is greater than the arithmetic mean
of the ingredient feedstuffs. This has been
termed the "associative effect" and applies not
only to digestibility b u t to net energy as well.
The full explanation of the associative effect
JOURNAL OF

DAIRY SCIENCE VOL,

55,

No.

956

MOE E T AL

is not deafly understood although it is likdy

that at least a portion of this effect is due to
one or both ration components being nutritionally imbalanced when fed alone. The importance of associative effects is considerably
reduced when only nutritionally balanced diets
are considered.
The resolution of questions concerning the
additivity of net energy values of single feedstuffs is not possible from data in this report.
This is because the maiority of data thus far
involved mixed diets alone. These data were
from diets ranging from 2.4 to 3.4 Mcal DE/kg DM and may be assumed to apply to most
mixed diets within this range of digestibility.
The same is not necessarily true for single
feedstuffs of similar apparent digestibility, especially those that do not by themselves provide a nutritionally balanced dict.
In practical dairy husbandry, however, the
energy values which are of greatest concern
are those which are expressed when component feedstuffs are fed in combination to lactating cows, i.e., the partial net energy values
of the component feeds rather than the net
energy values of these same feeds when fed
alone. The true net energy values of single
feedstuffs which are nutritionally imbalanced
when fed a/one are, thus, of little practical
value in computing rations for lactating cows.
In the experiments reported here, little interaction was in those experiments in which several
different ratios of the same component feeds
were given. Experiments 17, 19, and 21 for example involved 3 diets, two of which were different by about .4 Meal ME/kg DM with an
intermediate diet. The measured NEmi~k value of the intermediate diets differed from that
predicted by extrapolation between the higher
and lower ME diets by 0, -b .01, and --.02
Mcal/kg DM for these three experiments. Little associative effect was observed in the use
of the ME of these diets for milk production.
These diets all included alfalfa hay fed alone
or in combination with a high protein concentrate mixture. The same may not be true of
diets of other materials.
The uncertainty of the associative effect may
be partially resolved by the use of partial NE,
DE, or ME values in table of feed composition, This is, in fact, the case for concentrate
m/xtures given to ruminants when the energy
value of the concentrate is actually obtained
by difference. Derivation of net energy values
for individual feedstuffs from the prediction
equations in Table 6 will yield figures which
more closely represent partial than true net en]OORNAL OF DamY SCI~NC~ VOL 55. N o . 7

ergy values since the equations were almost exclusively from trials with mixed diets. This
means that values which may be assigned to
individual feedstuffs may be used directly
when those feedstuffs are to be incorporated
in a nutritionally adequate mixed diet.
Because the relationship between net energy
value and concentration of ME or DE was linear, it seems unlikely that large errors will result from the assumption of linearity on a practical basis.
Effect of feed intake on NEm,~ value. The
relationships between NEmilk and other expressions of energy content in Table 6 were
from actual data rather than by adjustment to
digestibility or metabolizability at a maintenance intake. A depression in digestibility of
some of the diets was observed at high feed intake but was not consistent. The average decrease in percent DE and percent TDN was
1.12% and 1.00% per multiple of maintenance with 110 kcal ME/kg -75 body weight
as the expression of maintenance. The range
for individual diets was from a slight increase
to --5.4% digestibility units per unit increase
in intake.
These data, thus, involve a slight decrease
in DE value with increasing intake. It is suggested that estimation of net energy be after
adjustment for any feed intake effect which
may be known for a specific feed. The present
state of knowledge precludes accurate prediction of intake effects. Secondly, some causes
such as fineness of grinding and frequency of
feeding are not characteristic of a given feed
but are more correctly assigned to management. It is not likely that such factors can be
incorporated into tables of feed composition
except for a few universal feedstuffs.
The best approach at present appears to be
to use tables of feed composition as they exist,
and where additional knowledge about depressions in DE and ME values is available, reduce
the "textbook" figure accordingly before prediction of net energy value.
A note on terminology. There is a definite
possibility of confusion in the net energy terminology between NEmilk and ENE. When
NEm~k is estimated from one of the prediction equations of Tables 3 or 6, it would be
technically correct to refer to it as an estimated
net energy value. We recognize, however, that
all net energy values are at some point estimated. We, therefore, prefer to reserve the
term estimated net energy and its abbreviation
ENE for the values derived by Morrison and
incorporated into his book (21) or those de-

NET ENERGY OF FEEDS

rived from those values such as the equation

of Moore et al. (20). The confusion may be
enhanced by the use of the term NElactatin g
o, introduced in the fastest NRG publication
(22). NEl~ot~ti,,g o~ is in every way
equivalent to NEr~ilk in this paper. W e recommend that NEmHk be used, whether the
value is estimated or measured, ff it is intended
to represent the energy value in units of milk
energy or its equivalent. This is in keeping
with the NRC recommended terminology
(12).

Summary
The concentration of DE or ME in the diet
of lactating cows has an influence on the efficiency of milk production when energy intake
is expressed in those units. The variation in the
efficiency with which ME is used for milk production is, however, substantially less than for
DE. The relationship between D E and ME is
not a constant but is influenced by the concentration of DE as well as feed intake.
The concentration of net energy in diets for
which the digestibility is known may be computed from the equation:
NEnailk
(Mcal/kg DM)
=
.68 DE
(Mcal/kg DM) -- .36
The amount of NEmilk required for milk
production is equal to the caloric value of the
milk produced (.74 Mcal/kg 4g FCM). The
amount of energy required for maintenance is
equal to .073 Mcal NEmuk X kg "r5 for an animal under the confined conditions of a respiration chamber. The requirement for animals of
normal activity is somewhat greater than this.

References
(1) Brouwer, E. 1965. Report of sub-committee
on constants and factors. Proc. 3rd Symp.
Energy Metabolism, Troon, Scotland. European Ass. Animal Prod., 11:441.
(2) Coppock, C. E., W. P. Flatt, and L. A.
Moore. 1964. Effect of hay to grain ratio
on utilization of metabolizable energy for
milk production by dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci., 47:1330.
(3) Coppock, C. E., W. P. Flatt, L. A. Moore,
and W. E. Stewart. 1964. Relationships between end-products of rumen fermentation
and the utilization of metabolizable energy
for milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 47:1359.
(4) Flat-t, W. P., P. J. Van Soest, J. F. Sykes, and
L. A. Moore. 1958. A description of the
Energy Metabolism Laboratory at the U. S.
Department of Agriculture Research Center
in Beltsville, Maryland. Proc. 1st Symp.
Energy Metabolism, Copenhagen, Denmark.
European Ass. Animal Prod., 8:53.

957

(5) Flat-t, W. P., C. E. Coppock, and L. A.

Moore. 1965. Energy balance studies with
dry, non-pregnant dairy cows consuming
pelleted forages. Proe. 3rd Syrup. Energy
Metabolism. European Ass. Animal Prod.,
11:131.
(6) Flat-t, W. P., L. A. Moore, N. W. Hooven,
and R. D. Plowman. 1965. Energy metabolism studies with a high producing lactating
dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci., 48:797.
(7) Flat-t, W. P., P. W. Moe, R. R. Olt~en, P. A.
Putnam, and N. W. Hooven, Jr. 1969. Energy metabolism studies with dairy cows receiving purified diets. Proe. 4th Syrup. Energy Metabolism. European Ass. Animal
Prod., 12:109.
(8) Flatt, W. P., P. W. Moe, L. A. Moore, N. W.
Hooven, .Jr., R. P. Lehmann, R. W. Hemken, and E. R. Orskov. 1969. Energy utilization by high producing dairy cows. I. Experimental design, ration composition, digestibility data, and. animal performance
during energy balance trials. Proc. 4th
Symp. Energy Metabolism. European Ass.
Animal Prod., 12:221.
(9) Flatt, W. P., P. W. Moe, A. W. Munson,
and T. Cooper. 1969. Energy utilization by
high producing dairy cows. IL Smnmary of
energy balance experiments with lactating
Holstein cows. Proc. 4th Symp. Energy Metabolism. European Ass. Animal Prod.,
12:235.
(10) Flatt, W. P., P. W. Moe, and A. J. H. van
Es. 1969. Calorimetric studies as a basis for
feeding standards for lactating dairy cows.
Proc. 2nd World Conf. on Animal Production, p. 399. Publ. by Amer. Dairy Sci.
Ass., Champaign, Illinois.
(11) Goering, H. K., and P. J. Van Soest. 1970.
Forage fiber analysis: apparatus, reagents,
procedures, and some applications. Agr.
Handbook 379, ARS, USDA.
(12) Harris, L. E. 1966. Biological energy interrelationships and glossary of energy terms.
Nat. Res. Coun. Publ. 1411.
(13) Jakobsen, P. E., P. H. Sarensen, and H. Larsen. 1957. Energy investigations as related
to fetus formation in cattle. Acta Agr.
Scand., 7:103.
(14) Moe, P. W., and W. P. Flatt. 1969. Automatie data logging equipment for energy
metabolism studies. Proe. 4th Syrup. Energy
Metabolism. European Ass. Animal Prod.,
12:463.
(15) Moe, P. W., and W. P. Flatt. 1969. Use of
body tissue reserves for milk production by
the dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci., 52:928.
(16) Moe, P. W. and W. P. Flatt. 1969. The net
energy value of feedstuffs for lactation. J.
Dairy Sci., 52:928.
(17) Moe, P. W., H. F. Tyrrell, and W. P. Flatt.
1970. Partial efficiency of energy use for
maintenance, lactation, body gain and gestation in the dairy cow. Proc. 5th Syrnp.
JOU~N^~ OF D A m Y

SCI~NC~ VOL. 55. NO. 7

958

(18)

(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)

MOE ET AL
Energy Metabolism, European Ass. Animal
Prod., 13:65.
Moo, P. W., H. F. Tyrrell, and W. P. Flatt.
1971. Loss of fat from dairy cows: Energetics of body tissue mobilization. J. Dairy
Sci., 54:548.
Moo, P. W. and H. F. Tyrrell. 1972. The
metabolizable energy requirement of pregnant dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 55:480.
Moore, L. A., H. M. Irvin, and J. C. Shaw.
1953. Relationships between TDN and energy values of feeds. J. Dairy Sci., 36:93.
Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and Feeding.
22nd ed. Morrison Publishing Co., Clinton,
Iowa.
National Research Council. 1971. Nutrient

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE VOL.

55, NO. 7

Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Fourth revised edition.

(23) Tyrrell, H. F., P. W. Moe, and W. P. Flatt.
1970. Inguence of excess protein intake on
the energy metabolism of the dairy cow.
Proe. 5th Syrnp. Energy Metabolism. European Ass. Animal Prod., 13:69.
(24) Van Soest, P..I. 1963. The use of detergents
in the analysis of fibrous feeds: II. A rapid
method for the determination of fiber and
lignin. J. Ass. Offlci. Agr. Chem., 46:829.
(25) Van Soest, P..L and R. H. Wine. 1967. Use
of detergents in the analysis of fibrous
feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall
constituents. J. Ass. Offici. Anal. Chem.,
50:50.