What the hay: predicting equine voluntary forage intake using a meta-analysis approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To properly formulate diets, the ability to accurately estimate feed intake is critical as the amount of feed consumed will influence the amount of nutrients delivered to the animal. Inaccurate intake estimates may lead to under- or over-feeding of nutrients to the animal. Individual differences in equine forage intake are well-known, but predictive equations based on animal and nutritional factors are not comprehensive. The objective of the present study was to consolidate the current body of knowledge in the published literature on voluntary forage DM intake (VFDMI) in equines and conduct a meta-analysis to identify driving factors, sources of heterogeneity, and develop predictive equations. Therefore, a systematic literature search was applied and identified 61 publications which met the inclusion criteria. From each study, the outcomes of interest (e.g., forage intake), diet composition (e.g., forage information, nutrient composition), and animal factors (e.g., sex, age, breed, BW, exercise level) were extracted. Forage intake was analyzed as two different outcome variables: (1) VFDMI in kg/d and (2) VFDMI in g/kg BW. Linear mixed model analysis treating study as a random effect was applied, using a backward-stepping approach to identifying potential driving variables for VFDMI (both units) where all terms have P < 0.1. The best fitting models for VFDMI included similar factors (also across kg/d and g/kg BW) such as forage quality (i.e., neutral detergent fiber or CP content), forage type (i.e., grass, legume, or mixed), the animals' size category (i.e., horses vs ponies), and some management factors (i.e., pasture access). As anticipated, forage intake increased when higher quality forages were fed (i.e., lower neutral detergent fiber or higher CP), potentially due to improved digestibility. Additionally, VFDMI increased as BW increased but ponies increased their VFDMI more per every kg increase in BW compared to horses. Lastly, pasture access (i.e., grazing) may influence VFDMI such that pastured animals consume less than stalled animals, possibly due to the time it takes to graze forage. In conclusion, equations to predict equine VFDMI with high accuracy and precision (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.82 - 0.95; root mean squared error RMSE = 0.82-5.49) were developed which could be applied in practice by equine nutritionists or owners and managers. The results of this meta-analysis confirm that animal traits and forage quality have a significant impact on the VFDMI of equines and should be accounted for when formulating diets to ensure nutritional requirements are met.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».