Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T14:11:46.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review: Converting nutritional knowledge into feeding practices: a case study comparing different protein feeding systems for dairy cows – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2018

H. Lapierre ,
M. Larsen ,
D. Sauvant ,
M. E. Van Amburgh  and
G. Van Duinkerken

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Corrigendum
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Supplement s2: 10th International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores: Herbivore nutrition supporting sustainable intensification and agro-ecological approaches 2–6th September 2018, Clermont-Ferrand, France , December 2018 , pp. s467
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food 2018 

Within the original article table 2 contained incorrect data. The correct representation of table 2 is shown here.

Table 2

Distribution of the requirement and the supply of digestible protein (g/day) for one example cowFootnote 1

1 Average cow of Study 1 producing 38.3 kg of milk at 3.09% true protein, 3.27% fat, eating 23 kg/day of dry matter of the 16.5% CP diet (Olmos Colmenero and Broderick, 2006), at 120 days in milk, not changing BW (589 kg) and not gestating.

2 CNCPS=Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System, v 6.5 (van Amburgh et al., 2015); DVE=Dutch protein evaluation system, DVE-1991 (Tamminga et al., 1994) and DVE-2007 (VanDuinkerken et al., 2011); INRA (2018); NRC (2001); NorFor (2011).

3 In DVE, the metabolic faecal is not included in the requirement and is excluded from the supply, as it is considered to be a consequence of the diet and not the animal. For comparison purpose with the other feeding systems, this fraction has been added to the requirements and not removed from the supply in the current table.

4 Duodenal endogenous flow.

The authors apologise for the error.

References

Lapierre, H , Larsen, M , Sauvant, D , Van Amburgh, ME and Van Duinkerken, G 2018. Review: Converting nutritional knowledge into feeding practices: a case study comparing different protein feeding systems for dairy cows. Animal, first published online 24 August 2018. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118001763.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 2 Distribution of the requirement and the supply of digestible protein (g/day) for one example cow1