The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predicting Digestibility of Different Diets with Internal Markers: Evaluation of Four Potential Markers
Abstract
Four independent digestion trials with four diets were conducted using four Hereford × Angus steers per trial to evaluate the ability of four internal markers to predict in vivo dry matter digestibility. Diets were 1) cubed alfalfa hay; 2) tall fescue (pre-boot stage, harvested .5 h before feeding); 3) tall wheatgrass hay plus .9 kg soybean meal (SBM)/d and 4) prairie hay. Forages were fed once daily at 90% of ad libitum intake. Separation of internal markers was accomplished by 1) 6-d in vitro fermentation followed by acid detergent fiber (ADF) extraction (IVADF); 2) 6-d in vitro fermentation followed by neutral detergent fiber extraction (IVNDF); 3) ADF extraction followed by 3-h digestion with 72% H2SO4 (ADD and 4) ADF extraction followed by 10-d cellulase incubation (ADFIC). Dry matter digestibility (DMD) was calculated from the feed:feces ratio of each internal marker and compared with in vivo apparent DMD within each diet. When compared within both cubed alfalfa hay and tall wheatgrass/SBM, digestion coefficients from IVADF ratio and IVNDF ratio were similar (P>.10) to in vivo coefficients. However, digestion coefficients from ADL ratio and ADFIC differed (P<.01) from in vivo apparent digestibilities. When compared within tall fescue and prairie hay, digestion coefficients from all internal markers evaluated were different (P<.01) from in vivo digestion coefficients. Fecal marker recoveries explained observed differences between in vivo DMD and DMD from marker ratios. The relationship between in vivo DMD and DMD determined by IVADF and IVNDF ratio was highly variable. Caution should be exercised in using IVADF and IVNDF as internal markers, particularly with immature, freshly harvested or grazed forage. Acid detergent lignin and ADFIC were least acceptable for use as internal markers in all diets evaluated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Huhtanen, P., Kaustell, K., & Jaakkola, S. (1994) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/0377-8401(94)90173-2 · Cited by 517
Broderick, G. A., Brito, A. F., & Colmenero, J. J. O. (2007) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(07)71624-7 · Cited by 58
Effect of length of cut and kernel processing on use of corn silage by lactating dairy cows
Cooke, K. M., & Bernard, J. K. (2005) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)72689-8 · Cited by 35
Bernard, J. K., West, J. W., Trammell, D. S., & Cross, G. H. (2004) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(04)70037-5 · Cited by 34
Production response to corn silage produced from normal, brown midrib, or waxy corn hybrids
Barlow, J. S., Bernard, J. K., & Mullis, N. A. (2012) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5345 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Cochran, R. C., Adams, D. C., Wallace, J. D., & Galyean, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1986-11-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1476-1483
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3163
- OpenAlex
- W224773131
- Cited by
- 504
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting Digestibility of Different Diets with Internal Markers: Evaluation of Four Potential Markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas1986.6351476x
- The paper
- Cochran, R. C., Adams, D. C., Wallace, J. D., & Galyean, M. L. (1986). Predicting Digestibility of Different Diets with Internal Markers: Evaluation of Four Potential Markers. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351476x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.