Skip to main content

The AusBeef model for beef production: II. sensitivity analysis

  • H. C. DOUGHERTY (a1), E. KEBREAB (a1), M. EVERED (a2), B. A. LITTLE (a3), A. B. INGHAM (a3), J. V. NOLAN (a4), R. S. HEGARTY (a4), D. PACHECO (a5) and M. J. MCPHEE (a2)...

The present study evaluated the behaviour of the AusBeef model for beef production as part of a 2 × 2 study simulating performance on forage-based and concentrate-based diets from Oceania and North America for four methane (CH4)-relevant outputs of interest. Three sensitivity analysis methods, one local and two global, were conducted. Different patterns of sensitivity were observed between forage-based and concentrate-based diets, but patterns were consistent within diet types. For the local analysis, 36, 196, 47 and 8 out of 305 model parameters had normalized sensitivities of 0, >0, >0·01 and >0·1 across all diets and outputs, respectively. No parameters had a normalized local sensitivity >1 across all diets and outputs. However, daily CH4 production had the greatest number of parameters with normalized local sensitivities >1 for each individual diet. Parameters that were highly sensitive for global and local analyses across the range of diets and outputs examined included terms involved in microbial growth, volatile fatty acid (VFA) yields, maximum absorption rates and their inhibition due to pH effects and particle exit rates. Global sensitivity analysis I showed the high sensitivity of forage-based diets to lipid entering the rumen, which may be a result of the use of a feedlot-optimized model to represent high-forage diets and warrants further investigation. Global sensitivity analysis II showed that when all parameter values were simultaneously varied within ±10% of initial value, >96% of output values were within ±20% of the baseline, which decreased to >50% when parameter value boundaries were expanded to ±25% of their original values, giving a range for robustness of model outputs with regards to potential different ‘true’ parameter values. There were output-specific differences in sensitivity, where outputs that had greater maximum local sensitivities displayed greater degrees of non-linear interaction in global sensitivity analysis I and less variance in output values for global sensitivity analysis II. For outputs with less interaction, such as the acetate : propionate ratio and microbial protein production, the single most sensitive term in global sensitivity analysis I contributed more to the overall total-order sensitivity than for outputs with more interaction, with an average of 49, 33, 15 and 14% of total-order sensitivity for microbial protein production, acetate : propionate ratio, CH4 production and energy from absorbed VFAs, respectively. Future studies should include data collection for highly sensitive parameters reported in the present study to improve overall model accuracy.

Corresponding author
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed:
Hide All
Baldwin R. L. (1995). Modeling Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Baldwin R. L. & Black J. L. (1979). Simulation of the Effects of Nutritional and Physiological Status on the Growth of Mammalian Tissues: Description and Evaluation of A Computer Program. Animal Research Laboratories Technical Paper 6. Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization.
Baldwin R. L., France J. & Gill M. (1987a). Metabolism of the lactating cow. I. Animal elements of a mechanistic model. Journal of Dairy Research 54, 77105.
Baldwin R. L., Thornley J. H. M. & Beever D. E. (1987b). Metabolism of the lactating cow. II. Digestive elements of a mechanistic model. Journal of Dairy Research 54, 107131.
Baldwin R. L., France J., Beever D. E., Gill M. & Thornley J. H. M. (1987c). Metabolism of the lactating cow. III. Properties of mechanistic models suitable for evaluation of energetic relationships and factors involved in the partition of nutrients. Journal of Dairy Research 54, 133145.
Bateman H. G. II, Hanigan M. D. & Kohn R. A. (2008). Sensitivity of two metabolic models of dairy cattle digestion and metabolism to changes in nutrient content of diets. Animal Feed Science & Technology 140, 272292.
Boadi D. A., Wittenberg K. M. & McCaughey W. P. (2002). Effects of grain supplementation on methane production of grazing steers using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 151157.
Brown M. S., Ponce C. H. & Pulikanti R. (2006). Adaptation of beef cattle to high-concentrate diets: performance and ruminal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 84, E25E33.
Dewhurst R. J., Davies D. R. & Merry R. J. (2000). Microbial protein supply from the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85, 121.
Dijkstra J., Neal H. D., Beever D. E. & France J. (1992). Simulation of nutrient digestion, absorption and outflow in the rumen: model description. Journal of Nutrition 122, 22392256.
Dougherty H. C., Kebreab E., Evered M., Little B. A., Ingham A. B., Hegarty R. S., Pacheco D. & McPhee M. J. (2017). The AusBeef model for beef production: I. Description and evaluation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge.
Eckard R. J., Grainger C. & De Klein C. A. M. (2010). Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science 130, 4756.
Ehle F. R., Murphy M. R. & Clark J. H. (1982). In situ particle size reduction and the effect of particle size on degradation of crude protein and dry matter in the rumen of dairy steers. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 963971.
FAO (2015). Towards A Water and Food Secure Future. Critical Perspectives for Policy-Makers. Rome, Italy: FAO. Available online from: (accessed 31 May 2017).
Gabel G., Aschenbach J. R. & Müller F. (2002). Transfer of energy substrates across the ruminal epithelium: implications and limitations. Animal Health Research Reviews 3, 1530.
Gerber P. J., Mottet A., Opio C. I., Falcucci A. & Teillard F. (2015). Environmental impacts of beef production: review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Science 109, 212.
Greenwood P. L., Siddell J. P., Walmsley B. J., Geesink G. H., Pethick D. W. & McPhee M. J. (2015). Postweaning substitution of grazed forage with a high-energy concentrate has variable long-term effects on subcutaneous fat and marbling in Bos taurus genotypes. Journal of Animal Science 93, 41324143.
Gregorini P., Beukes P. C., Waghorn G., Pacheco D. & Hanigan M. (2015). Development of an improved representation of rumen digesta outflow in a mechanistic and dynamic model of a dairy cow, Molly. Ecological Modelling 313, 293306.
Hanigan M. D., Palliser C. C. & Gregorini P. (2009). Altering the representation of hormones and adding consideration of gestational metabolism in a metabolic cow model reduced prediction errors. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 50435056.
Hanigan M. D., Appuhamy J. A. D. R. N. & Gregorini P. (2013). Revised digestive parameter estimates for the Molly cow model. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 38673885.
Hegarty R. S. (2016). Impacts of CFI Methodologies on Whole-Farm Systems. Final Report. Filling the Research Gap Program. Canberra, Australia: Department of Agriculture, University of New England. Available online at: (accessed 30 June 2017).
Herrmann N. (2013). AusFarm – a Tutorial Version 1.8. Available online from: (accessed 27 June 2017).
Jonker A., Muetzel S., Molano G. & Pacheco D. (2016). Effect of fresh pasture forage quality, feeding level and supplementation on methane emissions from growing beef cattle. Animal Production Science 56, 17141721.
Lascano G. J. & Heinrichs A. J. (2009). Rumen fermentation pattern of dairy heifers fed restricted amounts of low, medium and high concentrate diets with and without yeast culture. Livestock Science 124, 4857.
Leng R. A. (1991). Application of Biotechnology to Nutrition of Animals in Developing Countries. Rome, Italy: FAO.
McAllister T. A., Okine E. K., Mathison G. W. & Cheng K.-J. (1996). Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76, 231243.
Mills J. A. N., Dijkstra J., Bannink A., Cammell S. B., Kebreab E. & France J (2001). A mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation and application. Journal of Animal Science 79, 15841597.
Nafikov R. A. & Beitz D. C. (2007). Carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in farm animals. The Journal of Nutrition 137, 702705.
Nagorcka B. N. (2004a). AUSBEEF: a decision support system for cattle feedlots and the PGLP (Premium Grains for Livestock Program). Lethbridge, Canada: Canadian Beef Research Center Seminar, July 2004. (accessed 27 June 2017).
Nagorcka B. N. (2004b). A description of AUSBEEF ruminant model highlighting the differences with the current models CNCPS and MOLLY. Faculty of Animal Science, University of California Seminar, August, 2004, University of California. (accessed 27 June 2017).
Nagorcka B. N. & Zurcher E. J. (2002). The potential gains achievable through access to more advanced/mechanistic models of ruminants. Animal Production in Australia: Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 24, 455461.
Nagorcka B. N., Gordon G. L. R. & Dynes R. A. (2000). Towards a more accurate representation of fermentation in mathematical models of the rumen. In Modelling Nutrient Utilization in Farm Animals (Eds McNamara J. P., France J. & Beever D.), pp. 3748. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Newbold C. J., De La Fuente G., Belanche A., Ramos-Morales E. & McEwan N. R. (2015). The role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 1313. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01313.
Pujol G., Iooss B., Janon A., Boumhaout K., Da Veiga S., Delage T., Fruth J., Gilquin L., Guillaume J., Le Gratiet L., Lemaitre P., Nelson B. L., Monari F., Oomen R., Ramos B., Roustant O., Song E., Staum J., Touati T. & Weber F. (2016). Package ‘Sensitivity’: Global Sensitivity Analysis of Model Outputs. The R Project. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online from: (accessed 23 April 2017).
R Core Team (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online from: (accessed 23 April 2017).
Saltelli A. & Annoni P. (2010). How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software 25, 15081517.
Saltelli A., Ratto M., Andres T., Campolongo F., Cariboni J., Gatelli D., Saisana M. & Tarantola S. (2008). Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Sayre N. F., Carlisle L., Huntsinger L., Fisher G. & Shattuck A. (2012). The role of rangelands in diversified farming systems: innovations, obstacles and opportunities in the USA. Ecology and Society 17, 43.
Soetaert K. & Petzoldt T. (2015). A Flexible Modelling Environment for Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity, Identifiability and Monte Carlo Analysis. The R Project. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online from: (accessed 2 June 2017).
Thompson V. A., Sainz R. D., Strathe A. B., Rumsey T. R. & Fadel J. G. (2014). The evaluation of a dynamic, mechanistic, thermal balance model for Bos indicus and Bos Taurus. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 152, 483496.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012). Global Anthropogenic non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2030. Washington, DC, USA: US EPA. Available online at: (accessed 31 May 2017).
Van Lingen H. J., Plugge C. M., Fadel J. G., Kebreab E., Bannink A. & Dijkstra J. (2016). Thermodynamic driving force of hydrogen on rumen microbial metabolism: a theoretical investigation. PLoS ONE 11, e0161362.
Veira D. M. (1986). The role of ciliate protozoa in nutrition of the ruminant. Journal of Animal Science 63, 15471560.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Agricultural Science
  • ISSN: 0021-8596
  • EISSN: 1469-5146
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 45 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 90 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 3rd August 2017 - 25th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.