IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0331549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of estimating total-tract fibre and protein fractions digestibilities using uNDF, uNDFom, and AIA markers, and their NIRS prediction potential in dairy sheep and goats

Author

Listed:
  • Tommaso Danese
  • Alberto Guerra
  • Marica Simoni
  • Giorgia Mantovani
  • Arianna Goi
  • Rosario Pitino
  • Alexandros Mavrommatis
  • Massimo De Marchi
  • Federico Righi
  • Eleni Tsiplakou

Abstract

This study investigated the use of uNDF, uNDFom, and acid insoluble ash (AIA) markers for estimating the total-tract and total-tract apparent digestibility (ttD and ttaD) of nutrients in dairy sheep and goats fed alfalfa hay and concentrate separately, and the potential of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) in predicting the estimated digestibility. A total of 180 faecal samples were collected from animals fed alfalfa hay and concentrate at varying ratios (F:C – 60:40, 50:50, 40:60). The samples underwent wet chemistry markers and nutrients analysis, to evaluate the digestibility of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), soluble CP, ash, neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), hemicellulose, cellulose, neutral detergent insoluble CP (NDICP), acid detergent insoluble CP (ADICP), and potentially degradable NDF (pdNDF). NIRS spectra acquisition was performed on the same samples and predictive models developed and tested. Compared to digestibility determined by total collection, results indicate that all the considered markers, namely uNDF, uNDFom and AIA tend to underestimate ttaD and ttD. Among the three makers, AIA resulted in the lowest recovery. Using uNDF as marker, NIRS predictive models showed almost adequate screening performance for ttADICPD and ttAshD, with a R²ExV values of 0.63 and 0.59, and RPDExV of 1.56 and 1.45, respectively. The uNDFom marker showed better performance for ttaDMD and ttADICPD preliminary screening, with R2ExV values of 0.55 and 0.62, and RPDExV values of 1.42 and 1.61, respectively. The study highlights that all the considered markers underestimate the nutrients digestibility, while uNDFom performed better concerning the NIRS calibration. Despite the encouraging results obtained, the NIRS accuracy in predicting digestibility traits in small ruminants remains poor, and further research are needed to explore its potential for nutrients ttD and ttaD measurement in sheep and goats.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommaso Danese & Alberto Guerra & Marica Simoni & Giorgia Mantovani & Arianna Goi & Rosario Pitino & Alexandros Mavrommatis & Massimo De Marchi & Federico Righi & Eleni Tsiplakou, 2025. "Accuracy of estimating total-tract fibre and protein fractions digestibilities using uNDF, uNDFom, and AIA markers, and their NIRS prediction potential in dairy sheep and goats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331549
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331549
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331549&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0331549?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.