Animals, housing, and treatments
All procedures involving animals were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol #201709925). All methods were performance in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations, and permission and informed consent was obtained from the University of Florida (owners) for the use of the steers in this experiment.
The experiment was carried out during July and August of 2017 at the Feed Efficiency Facility of University of Florida, North Florida Research and Education Center, located in Marianna, Florida (30°52′N, 85°11″W, 35 m asl). Both ‘Argentine’ bahiagrass and ‘Florigraze’ rhizoma peanut hays were obtained from commercial producers. The hay bales were stored in enclosed barns throughout the duration of the experiment.
Twenty-five Brahman × Angus crossbred steers (Bos sp.) were utilized (average BW = 341 ± 17 kg, approx. 16 months of age). The steers were grazing bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) pastures, a C4 grass, prior to the start of the study. The day prior to the start of the experiment (e.g. day-1), steers brought to working facilities, where they remained 16 h off feed and water, in order to obtain shrunk bodyweights. On day 0 of the experiment, steers were weighed, blocked by bodyweight, and allocated to five treatments (5 steers per treatment) and housed in grouped pens. Hay intake was recorded utilizing GrowSafe© systems (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada), which utilize radio frequency identification to record feed intake by weight change measured to the nearest gram. Water was available ad libitum. Forage treatments were offered ad libitum by providing sufficient hay to maintain full feed troughs throughout each day of the experiment. Treatments were five proportions of ‘Florigraze’ rhizoma peanut hay in ‘Argentine’ bahiagrass hay: (1) 100% bahiagrass hay (0% RP); (2) 25% rhizoma peanut hay + 75% bahiagrass hay (25% RP); (3) 50% rhizoma peanut hay + 50% bahiagrass hay (50% RP); (4) 75% rhizoma peanut hay + 25% bahiagrass hay (75% RP); (5) 100% rhizoma peanut hay (100% RP). Diet chemical composition is presented in Table 1. All treatment proportions were weighed and mixed on as-fed basis. Mixing of diets was done manually; no hay mixers or choppers were used, to minimize leaf shatter.
Sample collection
Steers were housed for 32 days and sampling occurred on 0, 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after initiation of treatment diets; exception was for feces, which were collected on d-1 given steers were fasted on d-0 of the experiment. The hay mixtures offered to the steers were collected (10 samples of each diet) and analyzed for nutritive value (Table 1), at the start of the experiment. All sampling occurred between 0700 and 1000 h on each of the sampling days.
Fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum and placed in quart-sized plastic bags to avoid contamination. The feces were frozen at −20 °C. All fecal samples were thawed, dried at 55 °C for 72 h, and ground to pass a 2-mm stainless steel screen using a Wiley Mill (Model 4, Thomas-Wiley Laboratory Mill, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA). Samples were then ball milled using a Mixer Mill MM400 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) at 25 Hz for 9 min.
Blood was obtained through jugular venipuncture using 10-mL K2 EDTA vials (Becton Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and stored in ice until centrifugation. All tubes were centrifuged at 714 G for 20 min using an Allegra X-22R centrifuge (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA). A 10-mL sample of plasma was collected and placed in a separate glass vial, the remaining plasma, white blood cell, and platelet fractions were discarded. The remaining RBC pellet was re-suspended with 9 vol. 0.9% NaCl solution and mixed at room temperature for 15 min at 2 Hz orbital shaker. The tubes were then centrifuged at 714 G for 20 min. The saline solution from the centrifuged tubes was discarded after centrifugation. The rinse procedure was repeated two more times for a total of three rinses. After the third rinse procedure, a 500-µL sample was removed, frozen at −20 °C, and subsequently freeze-dried for isotopic analyses.
Hair clippings were obtained from an area of 20 × 20 cm on the left hindquarter, utilizing veterinary hair clippers (Sunbeam-Oster Inc., Boca Raton, FL, USA). Hair clippings were collected, placed in nylon bags (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA), and frozen for subsequent analysis. Clippings were always collected in the same location from each animal in order to ensure new hair growth would be analyzed. All hair samples were cleaned using soapy water and defatted following protocols for other keratin-based tissues 31,34. Each sample was sonicated twice for 30 min in a methanol and chloroform solution (2:1, v/v), rinsed with distilled water, and oven dried overnight at 60 °C. Each hair sample was ball milled using a Mixer Mill MM400 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) at 25 Hz for 9 min.
Calculations
After processing, all samples were analyzed for total C and N using a CHNS analyzer through the Dumas dry combustion method (Vario MicroCube, Elementar Americas Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA) coupled to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IsoPrime 100, Elementar, Elementar Americas Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). Certified standards of L-glutamic acid (USGS40, USGS41; United States Geological Survey) were used for isotope ratio mass spectrometer calibration. Isotope ratios were as follows: δ13C of −26.39, + 37.63‰, and δ15N of −4.52, 47.57‰ for USGS40 and USGS41, respectively. Calibration of the IRMS was conducted according to Cook, et al. 35, with an accuracy of ≤ 0.06 ‰ for 15N and ≤ 0.08 ‰ for 13C.
The isotope ratio for 13C/12C was calculated as:
$$delta^{{{13}}} {text{C}} = , left( {^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{sample}}}} {-}^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{reference}}}} } right)/ , left( {^{{{13}}} {text{C}}/^{{{12}}} {text{C}}_{{{text{reference}}}} times { 1}000} right)$$
(1)
where δ13C is the C isotope ratio of the sample relative to Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) standard (‰), 13C/12Csample is the C isotope ratio of the sample, and 13C/12Creference is the C isotope ratio of PDB standard 5. The isotope ratio for 15N/14N was calculated as:
$$delta^{{{15}}} {text{N}} = , left( {^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{sample}}}} -^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{reference}}}} } right)/left( {^{{{15}}} {text{N}}/^{{{14}}} {text{N}}_{{{text{reference}}}} times { 1}000} right)$$
(2)
where δ15N is the N isotope ratio of the sample relative to atmospheric nitrogen (‰), 15N/14Nsample is the N isotope ratio of the sample, and 15N/14Nreference is the N isotope ratio of atmospheric N (standard) 5. The fraction factor (Δ) in this study was considered to be the difference between the diet isotopic composition (δ13C or δ15N) and that of the given sample 5.
The dietary proportion of rhizoma peanut hay was back-calculated using δ13C and δ15N of each plant on a DM basis 3. This method is advantageous in that it does not require further tissue processing and facilitates implementation at the field scale. The proportion of rhizoma peanut was estimated using Eq. (3), described by Jones et al. 3:
$$%RP=100-left{100 times frac{A-C}{B-C}right}$$
(3)
where %RP is the proportion of RP in the diet, A is the δ13C or δ15N of the sample obtained, B is the δ13C or δ15N of bahiagrass, and C is the δ13C or δ15N of RP.
Statistical analysis
All response variables were analyzed using linear mixed model procedures as implemented in SAS PROC GLIMMIX (SAS/STAT 15.1, SAS Institute). Individual animals were considered the experimental unit. Treatment, collection day, and their interaction were considered fixed effects, and block was considered a random effect in the model. The data were analyzed as repeated measures, considering collection day as the repeated measure. The best covariance matrix was selected according to the lowest AICC fit statistic. Least squares treatment means were compared through pairwise t test using the PDIFF option of the LSMEAN statement in the aforementioned procedure. Based on the recommendations by Milliken and Johnson 36 and Saville 37, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Orthogonal polynomial contrasts (linear and quadratic effects) were used to test effects of RP inclusion on isotopic responses. The slice option was used when the treatment × collection day interaction was significant (P ≤ 0.05), using collection day as the factor, to test treatment effects across collection days. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. The contrast statement was used to test for linear or quadratic effects. Regression analyses for the dietary predictions were conducted using PROC REG from SAS.
Predictions of dietary proportions based on Eq. (3) were generated for 16 subgroups reflecting combinations of isotope (13C or 15N), day (8 or 32), and sample type (feces, plasm, RBC, or hair). Analyses comparing predicted versus actual diet proportions included several components. First, we computed the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) following the recommendations from Crawford, et al. 38. The CCC is a measure of agreement that encompasses both precision and accuracy, along with corresponding 95% bias accelerated and corrected (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals. For comparative purposes we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient which only reflects precision. Both correlation coefficients range from −1.0 to 1.0 and we interpreted values ≥ 0.80 as indicating strong positive agreement/correlation. Next, we regressed the actual percentages on the predicted percentages using linear regression. Perfect prediction corresponds to the estimated regression line having an intercept of zero and a slope of 1.0. We then partitioned the mean square error (MSE) of the predicted (from Eq. (3), not the above linear regression) versus actual percentages as described in Rice and Cochran 39. This partitioning entails calculating the proportion of MSE attributable to three sources of error: the difference in mean predicted and actual values (mean component, denoted “MC”), the error resulting from the slope of the above linear regression deviating from 1.0 (slope component, denoted “SC”), and random error (random component, denoted “RC”). The results from the above analyses were examined to identify subgroups whose predictions were sufficiently good to warrant hypothesis testing. In this context “good” means that the predicted percentages were strongly correlated with the actual percentages and the magnitudes of the predicted percentages were similar to the actual percentages. The objective of the hypothesis testing was to formally evaluate whether dietary proportions could be directly predicted from Eq. (3) (in contrast to generating predictions using the equation from regressing actual dietary percentages on the predicted percentages from Eq. (3)). Paired two one-sided test (TOST) equivalence tests were conducted for the selected subgroups with α = 0.0540. These tests are formulated such that the null hypothesis is “non-equivalence” and the alternative hypothesis is “equivalence”. An input parameter to the test is the equivalence region, a range for which we consider the mean actual minus predicted difference to be unimportant (“equivalent”) from a practical standpoint. For each equivalence test we also computed the 90% confidence interval for the mean actual minus predicted difference which we refer to as the “minimum equivalence region”. Based on the structure of TOST equivalence tests, to reject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level, the equivalence region specified for the test must completely contain the minimum equivalence region. For example, if the pre-specified equivalence region is (−15%, 15%) and the computed minimum equivalence region is (−16%, −6%) the null hypothesis would not be rejected. Finally, we re-ran all of the analyses described above for the selected subgroups where, prior to analysis, predicted percentages outside of the valid range were assigned the appropriate boundary value (i.e., predicted percentages < 0% were assigned a value of 0% and those > 100% were assigned a value of 100%).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
