Luke
 

Comparison of different residual carbon dioxide formulations as a means to select feed−efficient dairy cows

dc.contributor.authorChegini, Arash
dc.contributor.authorNegussie, Enyew
dc.contributor.authorBayat, Ali R.
dc.contributor.authorStefański, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorLidauer, Martin H.
dc.contributor.departmentid4100210310
dc.contributor.departmentid4100210310
dc.contributor.departmentid4100211510
dc.contributor.departmentid4100211510
dc.contributor.departmentid4100210310
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4892-9938
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4894-0662
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5553-9941
dc.contributor.organizationLuonnonvarakeskus
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-20T08:25:41Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractImproving feed utilisation efficiency and environmental sustainability by the selection of superior animals are amongst the widely studied topics during the last decade. For the evaluation of individual’s feed utilisation efficiency, residual feed intake (RFI) has become the common metric and is defined as the difference between actual and expected feed intake. Lately, a new metric for carbon dioxide (CO2) called residual CO2 (RCO2) is being developed and similarly defined as RFI. However, the partial regression coefficients for expected feed intake obtained by regressing DM intake (DMI) on energy sinks may not be biologically plausible and this could also be the case for CO2. The objective of this study was to compare RCO2 and RFI formulations calculated using different partial regression coefficients of energy sinks obtained either from regression on energy sinks or from different energy requirement formulations used nationally or internationally. The correlations between these different formulations as well as production, efficiency, and BW measurements were also calculated. Repeated daily measurements of CO2 production (n = 51 977) using two GreenFeed Emissions Monitoring system and records of DMI from 83 primiparous Nordic Red dairy cows were used. Three types of RCO2 and RFI formulations were calculated. The first was by fitting a multiple linear regression (RCO2MLR and RFIMLR) whereas the second and third were based on the Finnish energy requirement formulation (RCO2FIN and RFIFIN) and National Research Council 2021 (NRC, 2021; RCO2NRC and RFINRC), respectively. Correlations between different RCO2 and RFI formulations were lower (from 0.37 to 0.44) than the correlation between CO2 production and DMI (0.58) implying that selection based on different RFI formulations may lead to selection of different sets of animals. Selection based on RCO2 formulations would lead to improvement in energy conversion efficiency (ECE) albeit with a slightly lower rate compared to selection based on RFI formulations. However, the decline in the trend of CO2 production would be enhanced when selection is based on RCO2 rather than RFI. Of all the residual formulations studied in Finnish dairy cows, the use of RCO2FIN is preferred because it had higher favourable correlations with ECE, CO2 and methane emission per unit of energy-corrected milk. Due to its high correlation with DMI, the conventional RFI could favour cows with lower DMI, regardless of their milk production. More data are needed to further verify the correlation between CO2 production and feed intake.
dc.format.pagerange8 p.
dc.identifier.citationHow to cite: A. Chegini, E. Negussie, A.R. Bayat, T. Stefański, M.H. Lidauer, Comparison of different residual carbon dioxide formulations as a means to select feed−efficient dairy cows, animal, Volume 19, Issue 4, 2025, 101450, ISSN 1751-7311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2025.101450.
dc.identifier.urihttps://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/11111/103108
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2025.101450
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe20251020102211
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.avoinsaatavuuskytkin1 = Avoimesti saatavilla
dc.okm.corporatecopublicationei
dc.okm.discipline412
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationei
dc.okm.julkaisukanavaoa1 = Kokonaan avoimessa julkaisukanavassa ilmestynyt julkaisu
dc.okm.selfarchivedon
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.articlenumber101450
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.animal.2025.101450
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnimal
dc.relation.issn1751-7311
dc.relation.issn1751-732X
dc.relation.numberinseries4
dc.relation.volume19
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.source.justusid126843
dc.subjectDM intake
dc.subjectenergy conversion efficiency
dc.subjectenergy sink
dc.subjectfeed efficiency
dc.subjectresidual feed intake
dc.teh41007-00218800
dc.titleComparison of different residual carbon dioxide formulations as a means to select feed−efficient dairy cows
dc.typepublication
dc.type.okmfi=A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä|sv=A1 Originalartikel i en vetenskaplig tidskrift|en=A1 Journal article (refereed), original research|
dc.type.versionfi=Publisher's version|sv=Publisher's version|en=Publisher's version|

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
2025_Chegini_et_al._Animal.pdf
Size:
354.94 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
2025_Chegini_et_al._Animal.pdf

Kokoelmat