Abstract #T108
Section: Forages and Pastures
Session: Forages and Pastures II
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Tuesday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
Session: Forages and Pastures II
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Tuesday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
# T108
Accuracy and precision of forage analysis by commercial laboratories.
J. Severe*1, A. J. Young1, 1Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Key Words: laboratory analysis, forage analysis
Accuracy and precision of forage analysis by commercial laboratories.
J. Severe*1, A. J. Young1, 1Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Nutritional analysis of feedstuffs is the foundation of progressive feed management. Feed analysis provides producers with nutritional information needed to optimize animal health and production. Peer review and popular literature indicate widespread perceived differences between feed laboratories. Objectives of this study were to determine variation in feed analysis between US feed laboratories and forage types. Twelve laboratories were selected to analyze 3 hay types: mixed grass (MG), pre-bloom alfalfa (BLA), and pre-bud alfalfa (BDA) in a blind test. Samples were sent 3 times, a month apart, in duplicate, and analyzed for DM, CP, NDF, and ADF. Mean, standard deviation, and range of RFV for MG, BLA, and BDA were: 118, 13.6, 87–161; 141, 13.9, 101–176; and 237, 31.7, 158–290; respectively. CP results were: 10.8, 1.3, 8–15; 24, 1.9, 21–29; and 25, 2.5, 23–29; respectively. ADF results were 32, 3.2, 26–42; 33, 2.1, 27–40; and 22, 2.5, 18–29; respectively. NDF results were 51, 4.3, 40–60; 42, 3.5, 35–54; and 29, 3.8, 22–40; respectively. Out of 216 samples submitted, 7 (3%) returned results that had obvious clerical errors and were corrected before statistical analyses. Significant inter and intra-laboratory differences were found for CP, ADF, and NDF; especially with BDA forage type. About 71% of labs had RFV values with ranges greater than 30 points for BDA; USDA hay quality groupings span 20 points. Before laboratory submissions, DM was determined for all samples by drying for 72 h at 55°C (PDM). For 216 submissions 49% produced negative differences when PDM was subtracted from laboratory-derived DM (LDM), indicating that samples increased moisture content after mailing. Western states laboratories (WSL) averaged positive differences, while eastern states laboratories (ESL) were primarily negative. Differences in humidity between the feed source and laboratory can have effects on forage analysis and laboratories should take steps to control changes. In summary, there can be large variations between and within laboratories that may affect the accuracy of forage analysis and can vary based on forage type.
Key Words: laboratory analysis, forage analysis