Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Aug 29;19(8):e0308889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308889

A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for lactating dairy cows

André Soares de Oliveira 1,*, Suziane Rodrigues Soares 1
Editor: Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad2
PMCID: PMC11361663  PMID: 39208299

Abstract

Accurately predicting phosphorous (P) and calcium (Ca) dietary requirements is critical for optimizing dairy cattle performance, and minimizing mineral excretions and ecosystems eutrophication. This study provides a new factorial system to determine net and dietary P and Ca requirements for maintenance and lactation, derived from a meta-regression of mineral trials involving lactating dairy cows. A comprehensive global database was constructed from 57 peer-reviewed articles of mineral balance trials, with a wide range of dietary and animal performance data. We estimated the net requirements for maintenance from the intercept of a nonlinear equation between mineral intake and the sum of total fecal and urinary excretions, which is an estimate of endogenous mineral loss. Mineral secreted in milk was used to obtain net requirements for lactation. The mineral metabolizable coefficient was quantified through observed (treatment means) mineral intake and total fecal and urinary excretions, discounting the estimated endogenous excretions from our proposed models. The nonlinear models of total fecal and urinary mineral excretion were evaluated (observed versus predicted values) using a 5-fold cross validation approach. The models to estimate the sum of endogenous fecal and urinary excretions of P (0.135±0.043 g P/kg BW0.75) and Ca (0.360±0.144 g Ca/kg BW0.75) exhibited suitable precision and accuracy; r = 0.89 and 0.79, concordance correlation coefficient = 0.85 and 0.77, and root mean square prediction error = 24.1 and 20.5% observed means, respectively. Dietary variables (forage level, fiber, starch, crude protein, and ether extract) did not affect the metabolizable coefficient (MC) of P and Ca; therefore, an overall dietary MC of P (0.69±0.01) and Ca (0.65±0.02) were proposed. Our new system estimates lower net and dietary P requirements for lactating dairy cows compared to the NASEM-2021 and NRC-2001 models, but slightly higher Ca requirements than NASEM-2021.This proposed system holds potential to reduce the use of phosphorus in diets for dairy cows, and thus to enhance economic efficiency and environmental sustainability of the dairy industry.

Introduction

Phosphorus (P) and calcium (Ca) are the most abundant minerals in the animal body [1], and two of the more abundant minerals in milk [2]. Inorganic sources of P and Ca represent the most expensive minerals supplemented in dairy cattle diets per animal. Moreover, excessive excretions from P overfeeding can contribute to soil and aquatic ecosystem eutrophication [3, 4]. Therefore, accurately predicting P and Ca requirements is critical for optimizing dairy cattle performance, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability.

Mineral requirements are typically estimated through a factorial approach, and then evaluated or refined through response-dose feeding trials. Dietary requirements of minerals are computed by dividing the total net requirements by the mineral diet true absorption coefficient [5] or retention coefficient [6]. The concept of the true absorption coefficient (AC) is appropriate for minerals when only obtained from total and endogenous fecal excretions [5]. However, when the total and endogenous urinary excretions are also factored into the calculation, we proposed here the term metabolizable coefficient (MC) opposed to AC.

Lactation and maintenance are the major components of the net mineral requirement for lactating dairy cows. The net mineral requirement for lactation represents the amount of mineral secreted in milk, and it is relatively straightforward to obtain. The net mineral requirement for maintenance represents the sum of endogenous fecal and urinary excretions [5, 6]. The stable isotope method [7, 8], mineral-free diet [9], and mineral balance trials [5, 6] have been adopted to estimate endogenous excretions. Endogenous excretion estimated from intravenously injected mineral isotopes [7, 8] is probably the most accurately obtained, but it is an invasive, expensive, and labor-intensive approach. Mineral-free trials [9] may underestimate the endogenous excretion of animals at the production feeding level [10, 11]. Among these, mineral balance trials offer an approach to estimate endogenous excretion by analyzing the intercept of the regression of mineral excretion against intake [1, 5].

The National Academic of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) committee of Dairy Cattle Nutrition [12] proposed a net requirement for maintenance of P calculated as the sum of endogenous fecal and urinary excretions. The endogenous fecal excretion of 1 g P/kg dry matter intake (DMI) was proposed from treatment means of three P balance trials with lactating dairy cows [1315], and it was calculated assuming a true absorption coefficient of 0.80 [12]. The endogenous urinary excretion of 0.0006 g P/kg body weight (BW) was proposed from analysis of treatment means in three studies with lactating dairy cows [12]. The proposed net requirement for maintenance of Ca (0.90 g Ca/kg DMI) by NASEM 2021 [12] was derived from a regression between endogenous fecal excretion and DMI from treatment means of five studies where endogenous fecal excretion was obtained using intravenously injected radioisotopes of Ca [7, 8, 1618], but only one involving lactating dairy cows [8].

Therefore, because of limited dataset used to derive NASEM 2021 models of P and Ca requirements [12], a more comprehensive factorial system to predict P and Ca requirements for lactating dairy cows requires development. Given the abundance of published P and Ca balance trials, we hypothesize that a new model derived from meta-regression of mineral balance trials may provide a robust estimate of endogenous fecal and urinary excretions, and MC of diet for P and Ca in diet.

Our primary objective was to derive a new system for P and Ca requirements for lactating dairy cows and to compare it with existing models of nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, such as National Research Council–NRC (2001) [19] and NASEM (2021) [12]. Specifically, we proposed derived new values for 1) endogenous fecal and urinary excretions (net requirements for maintenance) of P and Ca for lactating dairy cows from meta-regression analysis of mineral balance trials; 2) MC of diet for P and Ca; and 3) milk composition of P and Ca to predict the net requirement for lactation. The proposed P and Ca requirement system will be used as an updated mineral submodel of the NS Dairy Cattle (The Nutrition System for Dairy Cattle; [20]).

Material and methods

Dataset

A systematic review of mineral balance trials published as peer-review articles was performed to build our dataset. Treatment means were used to develop models to estimate P and Ca net requirements for maintenance and lactation, and MC diet for dairy cows. A first systematic review was performed in November 6, 2017 using the terms “dairy cows” and “phosphorus” in the Web of Science and Science Direct databases. A second systematic review was done in March 13, 2024 using the same terms, but included published ≥ 2018 year. A total of 349 peer-reviewed articles were initially found in first review and 78 articles from second review. The studies were selected based on the following criteria: (1) studies conducted with lactating dairy cows; (2) peer-reviewed articles; (3) reported treatment means of P or Ca intake, fecal and urinary excretions, and milk secretions; and (4) reported the standard error of the mean (SEM) or standard error of the difference (SED). When SED was reported in studies analyzed as a fixed model, SEM was calculated as SEM = SED /2. A PRISMA flow chart showing the process of identification, exclusion, and inclusion of peer-reviewed articles to construct the P and Ca requirement model is described in Fig 1.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart showing exclusion and inclusion criteria for selection of the peer-reviewed articles used to derive the phosphorus and calcium requirements system for lactating dairy cows.

Fig 1

A first systematic review was performed in November 6, 2017 (53 articles). The second systematic review was done in March 13, 2024 using the same terms, but included published ≥ 2018 year (n = 4 articles). A total of 57 peer-reviewed articles were included to create our complete dataset [21].

Based on these inclusion criteria, we selected 57 peer-review articles (first systematic review = 53, and second systematic review = 4) to data extraction (76 mineral balance trials (studies); total n = 298 treatment means; Fig 1; Table 1). No procedure to estimate missing data was adopted, except for the SEM of mineral fecal excretion. Data not reported in articles were evaluated as missing data; then, they were not used in final models. The complete dataset in the Excel® file is available in an open research data repository [21], and references used to develop models are available in S1 File.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the complete dataset use to develop the new phosphorus and calcium requirement model for lactating dairy cows.

Item1 Mean Median Maximum Minimum SD n 4
Animal
    BW (kg) 564 590 754 316 100 237
    Milk yield (kg/d) 28.3 30.8 52.8 4.50 11.0 255
    Days in milk 115 106 367 13 69 226
    Milk protein (g/kg) 30.8 31.1 41.5 3.2 5.9 148
    Milk fat (g/kg) 38.6 37.1 53.8 14.7 6.03 146
    Milk lactose (g/kg) 47.9 48.2 50.1 44.7 1.31 64
    Milk urea nitrogen (mg/dL) 12.7 12.0 23.5 7.00 3.60 36
    Dry matter (DM) intake (kg/d) 19.2 20.5 29.0 8.70 4.80 236
Diet composition
    Forage (g/kg DM) 586 552 1000 258 155 254
    DM (g/kg as feed) 519 512 923 398 105 64
    CP (g/kg DM) 168 168 258 121 17.9 196
    EE (g/kg DM) 32.3 33.1 47.0 17.4 8.18 64
    NDF (g/kg DM) 338 341 496 260 49.0 190
    NEL (Mcal/kg DM) 1.62 1.63 1.69 1.41 0.06 49
    P (g/kg DM) 3.90 3.80 6.70 1.54 0.93 286
    Ca (g/kg DM) 8.71 7.69 22.5 4.00 3.42 235
P balance
    P milk concentration (g/kg) 0.91 0.92 1.27 0.53 0.13 209
    P intake (g/d) 73.7 72.8 180 21.5 27.7 298
    P intake (g/BW0.75/d)2 0.62 0.58 1.48 0.18 0.22 237
    P fecal (g/d) 43.2 40.4 118.8 10.9 20.5 274
    SEM P fecal (g/d) 2.78 2.55 9.25 0.15 1.57 261
    P urinary (g/d) 0.80 0.47 6.08 0.02 1.05 180
    P fecal + urinary (g/BW0.75/d)3 0.37 0.34 1.00 0.11 0.18 155
    P fecal/total excretion (g/g) 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.89 0.02 155
    P milk (g/d) 23.9 24.2 50.3 1.65 10.2 235
Ca balance
    Ca milk concentration (g/kg) 1.25 1.20 2.24 0.86 0.28 113
    Ca intake (g/d) 142 137 360 46.6 59.9 120
    Ca intake (g/BW0.75/d)B 1.45 1.34 3.68 0.38 0.69 120
    Ca fecal (g/d) 94.0 89.3 212 21.2 42.8 120
    SEM Cal fecal (g/d) 8.28 6.63 34.5 1.00 6.60 106
    Ca urinary (g/d) 2.07 1.46 8.60 0.06 1.90 108
    Ca fecal + urinary (g/BW0.75/d)C 0.98 0.88 2.57 0.22 0.51 108
    Ca fecal/total excretion (g/g) 0.97 0.98 0.999 0.76 0.05 108
    Ca milk (g/d) 26.4 21.5 64.9 5.30 14.7 108

1Ca = calcium; CP = crude protein; DM = dry matter; EE = ether extract; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; NEL = Net energy for lactation; P = phosphorus; SEM = standard error of means.

2Calculated from each treatment mean as follows: mineral intake (g/d)/BW0.75 (kg).

3Calculated from each treatment mean as follows: (mineral fecal excretion (g/d) + mineral urinary excretion (g/d))/BW0.75 (kg). Some studies did not report the complete data of BW, mineral intake, fecal and urinary excretions; therefore, these studies (means treatment) automatically were not used on final model during the statistical analysis.

4Treatment means of 76 balance trials (studies) in 57 peer-review articles (list of reference is available in S1 File). The complete dataset is available in an Excel® file from [21]. Treatment means removed as outliers in finals models: P fecal and urinary excretions (n = 27); Ca fecal and urinary excretions (n = 17); P-MC (n = 8); P milk content (n = 6). A list of observations removed from analysis of studentized residual (outside the range of -2.0 to +2.0) is also available in [21].

Dataset weighting

Each observation (treatment mean) was weighted by normalized inverse of the SEM [22] of mineral fecal excretion (g/d) as follows: Weighting factor = W1/W2, where: weighting factor = normalized inverse of the SEM of mineral fecal excretion (g/d); W1 = 1/SEM mineral fecal excretion (g/d); and W2 = overall mean of W1 across studies. To prevent overweighting of studies with extremely low SEM [23], we truncated (i.e., trimmed) the SEM in 0.35 × overall mean SEM; then SEM < (0.35 × overall mean SEM) was trimmed at 0.35 × overall mean SEM of mineral fecal excretion. This analysis was conducted separately for the studies that adopted mixed and fixed effects models because mixed models tend to have higher SEM [22, 24]. Missing data of SEM of mineral fecal excretion were estimated using observed overall SEM across studies [25].

Net requirement for maintenance

We assumed the net requirement for maintenance as the sum of the endogenous fecal and urinary mineral excretions. The endogenous fecal and urinary excretions of Ca and P were derived as the intercept of the regression between mineral intake (g/kg BW0.75; predictor variable) and the sum of total fecal and urinary excretion (g/kg BW0.75; response variable), using nonlinear meta-regression and adaptive Gaussian quadrature as the integration method, as follows:

Yij=β1×e(mineralintake×β2)+trialj+eij, (1)

where: Yij = sum of total fecal and urinary excretion (g/kg BW0.75) of the treatment means i of the mineral balance trial j; β1 = overall intercept across all studies (fixed effects) and represents the sum of the endogenous fecal and urinary mineral excretion (g mineral/kg BW0.75); β2 = overall nonlinear statistics across all trials (fixed effect), without nutritional significance; trialj = random effect of mineral balance trial; and eij = random error associated with each observation assuming a normal distribution (0, σ2). The coefficients of the nonlinear models were initially defined from an iterative approach using graphic analysis. Observations were removed if the studentized residual was outside the range of -2.0 to +2.0 [21].

Random effect of study, and interaction between study × mineral intake on the sum of mineral fecal and urinary excretion were evaluated by mixed model analysis with variance component structure. The root square of estimated variance due to study (expressed as % mean dependent variable, [26]) was used as a heterogeneity index. We adopted values of square root of estimated variance due to study < 25%, 25–50% and > 50% as indicators of low, moderate, and high between-study heterogeneity [27]. Initially we evaluated the interaction effect of milk yield group (≤ 20 kg/d; 20–30 kg/d; 30–40 kg/d; ≥ 40 kg/d) on intercept and slope between mineral intake and fecal + urinary output (Eq 1). If interaction between milk yield group and intercept or slope was not significant, an overall nonlinear equation was proposed.

Observations were removed if the studentized residual was outside the range of -2.0 to +2.0. The list of removed observations (outliers) on final models is available in [21]. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. Analyses were conducted using the PROC MIXED and PROC NLMIXED procedures [28] of the SAS® On Demand for Academics Analyses. As the WEIGHT statement is not available on PROC NLMIXED procedure, the REPLICATE statement was adopted as a WEIGHT statement when the PROC NLMIXED procedure was used [29]. The dataset used to derivate the net requirement for maintenance models included only studies from the first systematic review. The final dataset, codes and outputs are described in S2.1 and S2.2 in S2 File.

Metabolizable coefficient

The metabolizable coefficient of phosphorus and calcium of each observation (treatment means) was quantified as follows:

MC(0to1)=intakefecalexcretionurinaryexcretion+fecalandurinaryendogenousexcetionintake, (2)

where: intake (g/d) = observed P or Ca intake reported from studies; fecal excretions (g/d) = observed P or Ca total fecal excretion reported from studies; urinary excretion (g/d) = observed P or Ca total urinary excretion reported from studies; and the sum of fecal and urinary endogenous excretions of P and Ca were estimated from Eqs 3 and 4, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Nonlinear mixed regression analysis of sum of total fecal and urinary excretions of phosphorous (PFU) or calcium (CaFU) and mineral intake to obtain the net requirements for maintenance of lactating dairy cows.

Equation number Equation1 Cross validation 5-fold2 n3 Net requirements for maintenance4
(g/d)
r Cb CCC RMSPE
(% observed)
3 PFU (g/BW0.75/d) = 0.1352±0.0427 (P = 0.004) × e(1.4010±0.1863 (P < 0.001) × P Intake (g/BW0.75/d)) 0.89 0.96 0.85 24.1 130 P = 0.1352±0.0427 × BW0.75
4 CaFU (g/BW0.75/d) = 0.3604±0.1438 (P = 0.0251) × e(0.5925±0.1306 (P < 0.001) × Ca Intake (g/BW0.75/d)) 0.79 0.97 0.77 20.5 70 Ca = 0.3604±0.1438 × BW0.75

1 BW = body weight; Ca = calcium; P = phosphorous. No interaction effect of milk yield group on intercept (P = 0.886) and slope (P = 0.886) were observed for P fecal and urinary excretion; and also no interaction effect of milk yield group on intercept (P = 0.918) and slope (P = 0.899) were observed for Ca fecal and urinary excretion.

2 CCC = concordance correlation coefficient; r = correlation coefficient (precision); Cb = bias correction factor (accuracy); and RMSPE = root mean square prediction error. The five folds were previously created by study grouping to guarantee independence between observed and predicted values (Fig 3). Cross validation 5-fold procedure, codes and outputs are described in S2.1 and S2.2 in S2 File.

3Treatment means reported from 39 (P) and 23 (Ca) balance trials used on final models after removed from analysis of studentized residual (Table 1)

4Estimated intercept between PFU or CaFU and mineral intake (fecal + urinary endogenous excretion; Fig 2).

To identify potential dietary factors affecting MC, we initially analyzed the interaction effect of dietary characteristics (forage in diet, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), crude protein (CP), ether extract, and starch) with MC using a bivariable mixed model with unstructured variance and considering the balance trial as a random effect [22]. The root square of estimated variance due to study also was used as a heterogeneity index for proposed MC model as early informed. Observations were removed if the studentized residual was outside the range of -2.0 to +2.0 [21]. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. Analyses were conducted using PROC MIXED [22] of the SAS® On Demand for Academics. The complete dataset used to derivate MC values included studies of first and second systematic review. Final dataset, codes and outputs are described in S2.3 in S2 File.

Model evaluation

The proposed models to predict mineral total excretion (fecal + urinary) were evaluated by linear regression between observed (dependent variable) and predicted (independent variable) values using the 5-fold cross-validation approach [30]. The five folds for each model were previously created by study (mineral balance trial) grouping to guarantee independence between observed and predicted values (external model evaluation). The slope and intercept between observed and predicted MP values were tested to quantify the magnitude of the mean bias and linear bias of models, respectively. Estimates of correlation coefficient (r; precision), bias correction factor (Cb; accuracy), coefficient of concordance correlation (CCC; combined precision and accuracy), and root mean square prediction error (RMSPE; accuracy) were obtained using the metrica Package [31] of the R Software, version 4.3.1. Milk mineral concentration between breeds cows was compared from 95% confidence interval (95% CI) analysis. The dataset used to evaluate the net requirement for maintenance models included only studies of the first systematic review. The dataset, the 5-fold cross-validation procedure, codes and outputs of statistics analysis are described in S2.1 and S2.2 in S2 File.

Results

Dataset

Our complete dataset built to develop our P and Ca requirement system comprised data from 11 countries and represented a wide range of lactating dairy cows performance (milk yield of 4.5 to 52.8 kg/d; BW of 316 to 754 kg; dry matter intake of 8.7 to 29.0 kg/d; 13 to 367 days in milk) and dietary characteristics (258 to 1000 g forage/kg dry matter (DM) diet; 260 to 496 g NDF/kg DM; 1.54 to 6.7 g P/kg DM; 4 to 22.5 g Ca/kg DM) (Table 1). Multiparous cow datasets were reported in 31 studies, primiparous in three studies, multiparous and primiparous cows in eight studies. Parity was not was reported in 34 studies. The United States was the primary country of origin for the studies (67.4%), followed by Canada (7.4%), the UK (6.7%), Sweden (4.7%), and Germany (4.0%). Holstein was the predominant breed (67.9%), followed by Jersey (17.2%). Continuous trials were the most frequently adopted experimental design (67.1%) and TMR was the predominant feeding system (93.7% observations). Fecal and urinary P and Ca excretions were obtained by total collection in 75.6% of observations; other studies (24.4% observations) used ytterbium (6.5% observations), Cr2O3 (5.5%), indigestible NDF or acid detergent fiber 288 h (3.6%), n-alkanes (3.6%), and lignin, TiO2 and other (5.2%) as fecal output markers, and creatinine urine as urinary output marker.

Fecal excretion was the primary pathway excretion of P (98% total excretion) and Ca (97%) (Table 1).

Net requirement for maintenance

No interaction effect of milk yield group on intercept (P = 0.886) and slope (P = 0.886) were observed for P fecal and urinary excretion; and also no interaction effect of milk yield group on intercept (P = 0.918) and slope (P = 0.899) were observed for Ca fecal and urinary excretion (Table 2). Therefore, overall nonlinear equations were used to estimate endogenous excretion of P and Ca.

The estimated net requirement for maintenance for P (g/d) = 0.1352±0.0427 × BW0.75, and Ca (g/d) = 0.3604±0.1438 × BW0.75 (Table 2). The nonlinear mixed models of P (Eq 3) and Ca excretions (Eq 4) to obtain the endogenous excretions (net requirement for maintenance) had a suitable precision (r = 0.89 and 0.79) and accuracy (Cb = 0.96 and 0.97; CCC = 0.85 and 0.77; and RMSPE = 24.1 and 20.5% observed) (Table 2, Figs 2 and 3). No adjustment of maintenance requirement for genotype was proposed due to the predominance of Holstein breed data in our mineral balance dataset. No evidence of mean biases (intercept ≠ zero; P ≥ 0.10) and linear bias (slope ≠ 1; P ≥ 0.10) for P and Ca was observed (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Relationship between the sum of daily phosphorus (P) or calcium (Ca) total fecal and urinary excretion and mineral intake.

Fig 2

The dotted lines are the predicted values from Eqs 3 and 4 (Table 2). n = 130 treatment means reported from 39 P balance trials, and n = 70 treatment means reported from 23 trials Ca balance trials.

Fig 3. Plot of observed versus predicted total phosphorus (PFU) or calcium (CaFU) fecal and urinary excretion (prediction equations are in Table 2).

Fig 3

Predicted values were derived from the 5-fold cross-validation procedure. The five folds were previously created by study grouping to guarantee independence between observed and predicted values. n = 130 treatment means reported from 39 P balance trials, and n = 70 treatment means reported from 23 trials Ca balance trials.

The sum of P total fecal and urinary excretions was affected by random study (P < 0.01), but no effect of study × P intake (P = 0.21) was observed (S3.1 in S3 File). The root squared of study variance (a proxy for between-study heterogeneity) represented 24.8% mean of P total excretion (S3.1 in S3 File). The sum of Ca total fecal and urinary excretions was affected by random study (P < 0.01) and study × Ca intake (P < 0.01), and the root squared of study variance represented 30.2% mean of P total excretion (S3.2 in S3 File).

Metabolizable coefficient and mineral milk concentration

Dietary forage level, CP, ether extract, NDF and starch did not affect MC-P and MC-Ca (Table 3). Therefore, an overall mean (± standard error) estimated diet MC-P = 0.69±0.01 and MC-Ca = 0.65±0.02 were proposed (Fig 4).

Table 3. Effects of the diet composition on estimated diet metabolizable coefficient of phosphorous (MC-P) and calcium (MC-Ca) in lactating dairy cows.

Diet composition3 MC-P1
P-value (n)2
MC-Ca1
P-value (n)2
Forage in diet (g/kg DM) 0.514 (129) 0.479 (70)
Crude protein (g/kg DM) 0.392 (84) 0.267 (31)
Ether extract (g/kg DM) 0.154 (35) -
Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg DM) 0.663 (83) 0.797 (31)
Starch (g/kg DM) 0.837 (26) -

1MC-P and MC-Ca were obtained from Eq 2 (in text).

2Each variable was evaluated from a bivariable mixed model with variance components and weighted by inverse on normalized SEM mineral fecal excretion; n = treatment means reported trials balance (Table 1). Final dataset, codes and outputs are described in S2.3 in S2 File.

3 DM = dry matter.

Fig 4. Box plot of the estimated diet metabolizable coefficient of phosphorus and calcium for lactating dairy cows from Eq 2.

Fig 4

Estimated metabolizable coefficient for phosphorus: mean ± standard error (SE) = 0.69±0.01 and n = 157 treatment means. Estimated metabolizable coefficient for calcium: mean ± SE = 0.65±0.02 and n = 81 treatment means. Final dataset, codes and outputs are described in S2.1 and S2.2 in S2 File.

Mineral (P and Ca) milk concentration of Holsteins was lower (P ≤ 0.05) than Jersey cows (Fig 5). The mean P milk concentration was 0.90 (95% CI; 0.89, 0.92) g/kg for Holstein and 1.00 (95% CI; 0.96, 1.04) g/kg for Jersey, while Ca milk concentration was 1.18 (95% CI; 1.12, 1.23) g/kg for Holstein and 1.38 (95% CI; 1.28, 1.47) g/kg for Jersey (Fig 5). These values were used to quantify the net requirement for lactation in our model (Table 4). A summary of our proposed system of net requirements for maintenance and lactation, and dietary requirements for P and Ca is shown in Table 4. The dietary requirement is the sum of the net requirements for maintenance and lactation divided by the dietary MC.

Fig 5. Box plot of milk phosphorus (P) and calcium (Ca) concentration for Holstein and Jersey cows (complete dataset, Table 1).

Fig 5

Milk P mean (95% confidence interval): 0.90 (0.89, 0.92) g/kg milk (n = 135 treatment means) for Holstein; and 1.00 (0.96, 1.04) g/kg milk for Jersey (n = 41). Milk Ca mean (95% confidence interval): 1.18 (1.12, 1.23) g/kg milk (n = 56 treatment means) for Holstein; and 1.38 (1.28, 1.47) g/kg milk for Jersey (n = 47).

Table 4. Summary of proposed factorial system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for maintenance and lactation of dairy cows.

Item Phosphorus1
(mean ± SE)
Calcium1
(mean ± SE)
Net requirement for maintenance (NRM, g/d) 0.1352±0.0427 × BW0.75 0.3604±0.1438 × BW0.75
Net requirement for lactation (NRL, g/d) Holstein = 0.90±0.01 × MY
Jersey = 1.00±0.02× MY
Holstein = 1.18±0.03 × MY
Jersey = 1.38±0.05 × MY
Metabolizable coefficient (MC)2 0.69 ± 0.01 0.65 ± 0.02
Dietary intake requirement (DIR, g/d) (NRM + NRL)/MC (NRM + NRL)/MC
Dietary requirement (g/kg DM) DIR/DMI DIR/DMI

1BW = body weight; DMI = dry matter intake (kg/d); MY = milk yield (kg/d); SE = standard error.

2Actual MC of diets should preferably be used if accurately know.

Discussion

Our primary objective was to establish a new factorial P and Ca requirements system for maintenance and lactation from a meta-regression of a comprehensive mineral balance trials database. Our dataset represented a wide range of animal performance, including dairy cows with low to very high milk yield (4.5 to 52.8 kg/d; BW of 316 to 754 kg), which is aligned with our objective of deriving a comprehensive requirement system. It is noteworthy that we addressed potential outliers arising from factors such as milk yield, mineral intake and/or excretion ensuring their remotion from analysis based on studentized residual. Furthermore, the suitable precision and accuracy, and the absence of significant prediction biases in models indicates that the estimation of the endogenous fecal and urinary excretion (net mineral requirement for maintenance) from intercept between excretion and mineral intake was unbiased [32, 33]. In addition, as we previously created the folds by mineral balance trial grouping to guarantee independence between model development (train) and evaluation (test), our models of mineral excretion were evaluated using an external model evaluation approach.

Although we observed random effect of study on P and Ca excretions, the root squared of study variance (a proxy for between-study heterogeneity) of the sum of fecal and urinary excretions of P (24.8% mean) and Ca (30.2% mean) can be considered low and moderate [27, 34]. These results indicate the effects of mineral intake on the sum of total fecal and urinary excretion were consistent across studies. Moreover, as our models were adjusted for the random effect of study, the between-study variance was captured in the final model.

Our non-linear model of mineral excretion (fecal + urinary) from mineral intake also allowed to capture homeostasis mechanisms involved in absorption of P and Ca. Diets with more than approximately 0.8 g P/kg BW0.75 and 1.7 g Ca/kg BW0.75 seemingly increase the rate of excretion of P and Ca, respectively (Fig 2). These changes may be a result of the animal downregulating the efficiency of transcellular intestinal mineral absorption when diets exceed the body mineral requirements [35]. Although our dataset also contains observations with high P and Ca intakes, we reiterate that: 1) discrepant observations were removed from model based on the analysis of studentized residuals, 2) the exponential model of P and Ca excretion from mineral intake exhibited low to moderate between-study variance (heterogeneity), and 3) most importantly, the models exhibited suitable precision and accuracy and no significant prediction biases were observed.

In this study, we introduced the term “metabolizable coefficient” for minerals, replacing the term “absorption coefficient” since MC was obtained from fecal and urinary excretion. The term “absorption coefficient” is more appropriate when derived solely from fecal excretion. The concept of mineral metabolizability aligns with the mineral retention coefficient [6]. Our study indicates that P and Ca urinary excretion accounted for less than 3% of the total excretion (Table 1), confirming previous findings that urinary excretion of Ca and P is quantitatively negligible in dairy cows [3638]. Therefore, in practical terms, the MC and AC are quantitatively similar for lactating dairy cows.

The higher milk P and Ca concentrations of Jersey compared to Holstein in our study can be attributed to the higher milk solid content of Jersey cows, particularly the milk casein content [39, 40]. On average, 70% of Ca and 50% of inorganic phosphate are located in the casein micelle [39]. The milk Ca concentration value of our study is higher than that adopted by NASEM (2021, [12]) of 1.03 and 1.17 g/kg for Holstein and Jersey cows, but it is similar to obtained values in some herd-level studies [4143] and is closer to NRC (2001, [19]). However, when mineral in milk is feasibly measured in commercial herds, we suggested to use the actual P and Ca milk concentration to calculate the net requirement for lactation.

Our second objective was to compare the proposed model with the NASEM (2021) model [12]. The NRC (2001) model [19] also was compared because it has been adopted for predicting P and Ca requirement in several other dairy cattle nutrition models [44, 45]. Our model for Ca and P net and dietary requirements was developed using a different approach and a larger and more comprehensive dataset than that adopted by the NASEM (2021) committee [12]. We estimated the endogenous fecal and urinary (net requirements for maintenance) from the intercept of a nonlinear equation between mineral intake and the sum of total fecal and urinary excretions, using 130 means treatment from 39 balance trials of lactating dairy cows for the P model, and 70 means treatment from 23 balance trials for Ca the model.

The NASEM (2021) committee [12] also proposed accounting for the net requirement for maintenance of P as the sum of endogenous fecal and urinary excretions. The endogenous fecal excretion of 1 g P/kg DMI was proposed based on treatments mean from only three P balance trials with lactating dairy cows [1315]. This value was calculated assuming a true absorption coefficient of 0.80 [12]. The endogenous urinary excretion of 0.0006 g P/kg BW was proposed based on the analysis of treatment means in three studies with lactating dairy cows [12]. The proposed net requirement for maintenance of Ca (0.90 g Ca/kg DMI) by NASEM (2021) was derived from a regression between endogenous fecal excretion and DMI of treatment means in five studies where the endogenous Ca fecal excretion was obtained by intravenously injected radioisotopes of Ca [7, 8, 1618], but only one study involving lactating dairy cows [8]. Therefore, our proposed system of P and Ca requirements for lactating dairy cows is based on a different approach and a larger size scope of dataset than that adopted in NASEM (2021 [12].

Our model predicts net P requirements (maintenance plus lactation) 12% lower than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 4% lower than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations for a 500 kg BW dairy cow producing 10 kg milk per day (Fig 6). For cows producing 50 kg milk per day (700 kg BW), our model predicts net P requirements 17% lower than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 14% lower than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations. Similarly, predicted P dietary requirement of our model was 6% lower than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 8% lower than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations for a 500 kg BW dairy cow producing 10 kg milk per day (Fig 6). For cows producing 50 kg milk per day (700 kg BW), our model predicts P dietary requirements 13% lower than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 16% lower than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Estimated net and dietary requirements of phosphorus and calcium for lactating dairy cows from our proposed system (Table 4), NASEM (2021, [12]) and NRC (2001, [19]) models.

Fig 6

NASEM (2021) P requirement: maintenance (g P /d) = 1 × dry matter intake (DMI; kg/d) + 0.0006 × body weight (BW; kg); lactation (g P/d) = 0.90 × milk yield (kg/d); overall absorption coefficient (default) = 0.72; estimated DMI for multiparous cows with 60 days in milk, three points of body condition score, and milk energy of 0.73 Mcal/kg. NASEM (2021) Ca requirement: maintenance (g Ca/d) = 0.9 × DMI (kg/d); lactation (g P/d) = 1.03 × milk yield (kg/d); absorption coefficient = 0.60 for concentrate and 0.40 for forage; assuming forage in diet of 800, 600, 500, 450 and 400 g/dry matter (DM) for 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 kg/d of milk yield, respectively. NRC (2001) P requirement: maintenance (g P /d) = 1 × DMI (kg/d) + 0.0002 × BW (kg); lactation (g P/d) = 0.90 × milk yield (kg/d); absorption coefficient = 0.70 for concentrate and 0.64 for forage. NRC (2001) Ca requirement: maintenance (g Ca/d) = 0.031 × BW (kg); lactation (g Ca/d) = 1.22 × milk yield (kg/d); absorption coefficient = 0.60 for concentrate and 0.30 for forage; assuming forage in diet of 800, 600, 500, 450 and 400 g/DM for 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 kg/d of milk yield, respectively.

As our proposed MC-P (0.69) is similar to overall absorption coefficient adopted by NASEM (2021; 0.72) and NRC (2001; 0.70 for concentrate and 0.64 for forage), the lower P net requirements (mainly maintenance) in our model explains the lower P dietary requirements. Phosphorus is the most expensive macromineral supplemented in dairy cattle diets, sourced from nonrenewable minerals. Excessive excretions from P overfeeding can contribute to soil and aquatic ecosystem eutrophication [3, 4]. Therefore, our proposed model may contribute to elaborate more profitable and environmentally sustainable diets for dairy cows, if our model does not result in P underfeeding.

Our model estimated total dietary requirements of 63 to 92 g P/cow/d for cows producing 30 to 50 kg milk/d (Fig 6). Therefore, assuming predicted DMI of 20.7 and 27.0 kg/cow/d (NASEM, 2021), our model estimates total dietary requirements of 3.0 to 3.4 g P/kg DM diet for cows producing 30 to 50 kg milk/d, respectively. Wu et al. (2000) [46] reported no effect on milk yield, reproductive performance and health records of lactating cows (overall lactation milk yield of 35 to 37 kg/d) fed diet with 3.1, 4.0 or 4.9 p P/kg DM. No effect on milk yield of cows producing about 35 kg milk/d fed diets with 3.3 or 4.2 g P/kg DM [47], or cows producing 43 kg/d fed diets with 3.2 or 4.4 g P/kg DM [48] were also reported. A long term feeding trial (two lactations) of limited dietary P supply (3.3, 2.8 and 2.4 g P/kg DM diet) indicated that dietary P had no effect on reproductive performance, but intake and milk yield were reduced with 2.4 g P/kg DM, suggesting that the diets with 2.8 g P/kg DM was sufficient to meet the P requirement of dairy cows producing approximately 9000 kg of milk per lactation [49]. Keanthao et al. (2021) [50] reported that a reduction of dietary P from 3.8 to 2.9 g/kg during first eight weeks after calving improved plasma Ca levels without compromising diet intake and milk production (mean = 43.3 kg milk/d). Therefore, based on these limited number of dose response experiments, our model seems to adequately estimate P requirements for high production dairy cows.

In contrast with P model, our model predicts a net Ca requirement (maintenance plus lactation) 117% higher than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 79% higher than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations for a 500 kg dairy cows producing 10 kg milk per day (Fig 6). For a cow producing 50 kg milk per day (700 kg BW), our model predicts a net Ca requirements 42% higher than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 30% higher than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations. However, due to the higher MC-Ca in proposed model than the absorption coefficient for Ca adopted by NASEM (2021) and NRC (2001), the differences in dietary Ca requirements between our model and NASEM (2021) and NRC (2001) recommendations were smaller than the net Ca requirements (Fig 6). Our model predicts a dietary Ca requirement 45% higher than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 15% higher than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations for a 500 kg dairy cows producing 10 kg milk per day. For cows producing 50 kg milk per day (700 kg BW), our model predicts a dietary Ca requirement 14% higher than the NASEM (2021) [12] and 8% higher than the NRC (2001) [19] recommendations (Fig 6). Due to the positive relationship between MC and endogenous excretion (Eq 2), the higher value of MC in proposed model than the absorption coefficient for Ca adopted by NASEM (2021, [12]) and NRC (2001, [19]) may partially explain the higher Ca endogenous excretion in our model.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, the endogenous excretion (maintenance requirement) was obtained from a mathematical extrapolation for zero balance. By definition, zero balance represents the intake required to maintain an existing pool size and not necessarily “the requirement” for a mineral element [11]. Therefore, estimated endogenous excretion from balance trial represents an approximation of mineral requirement for maintenance, and it depends of the amount and bioavailability of the mineral under study [11].

Second, although fecal and urinary P and Ca excretions were obtained by total collection in most studies in our dataset, we also included studies that used external (Cr2O3, TiO2, and Ytterbium) and internal (indigestible NDF or ADF, n-alkanes, and lignin) fecal markers output, and urine creatinine as urinary output marker from spot sampling. Although there is evidence that these external and internal fecal markers can accurately estimates fecal output [5154], and that urine creatinine can be an accurate maker for volume and minerals urinary output [55, 56], the variance is potentially higher than total collection. Therefore, the use of treatment means of mineral excretion obtained from fecal and urinary markers can partially explain the between-study heterogeneity of ours models.

Third, although our nonlinear equation to estimate P and Ca endogenous excretion exhibited suitable precision and accuracy, no significant prediction biases, and low to moderate between-study variance (heterogeneity), other factors can are involved in endogenous fecal losses, as such mineral saliva secretion, rumen microbial mineral outflow, and DMI [36, 57]. Fourth, we proposed fixed values to predict dietary MC-P and MC-Ca. However, intestinal absorption of P and Ca may be affected by source, mineral antagonism, physiology stage, 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D status, and mineral homeostasis [12, 35, 58]. Therefore, when actual MC feeds or diets are accurately known, they should be used to replace our proposed true MC for predicting dietary requirements. Finally, although the proposed equations to estimate endogenous excretions were independently evaluated from a 5-fold cross-validation approach [30], the adequacy of our proposed system for predicting dietary P and Ca requirements for dairy cows and other models, as well NRC (2001) [19] and NASEM (2021) [12] models still needs to be further evaluated through independent response-dose feeding experiments.

Conclusions

We have established a new factorial system for accounting net and dietary P and Ca requirements for maintenance and lactation based on a meta-regression of mineral trials involving lactating dairy cows. The estimation of endogenous fecal and urinary (net requirements for maintenance) was derived from intercept of a nonlinear equation between mineral intake and the sum of total fecal and urinary excretions. Our proposed model provided a suitable precision and accuracy for predicting endogenous fecal and urinary excretions through of a 5-fold cross-validation analysis. An overall metabolizable coefficient of dietary P and Ca were proposed.

Our new system estimates lower net and dietary requirements of P for lactation dairy cows compared to the NASEM (2021) and NRC (2001) models, but higher Ca requirement than NASEM (2021) and NRC (2001). Therefore, our P model may contribute to elaborate more profitable and environmentally sustainable diets for dairy cows. However, the adequacy of our proposed system predicting dietary P and Ca requirements and other models, such as the NASEM (2021) and NRC (2001), still requires further evaluation through independent response-dose feeding experiments. In addition, our model can likely be improved through future studies that evaluate dietary, animal and environmental variables affecting mineral endogenous excretions and metabolizable coefficients.

Supporting information

S1 File. Publications used to development the phosphorus and calcium requirement system for lactating dairy cows.

(DOCX)

pone.0308889.s001.docx (45.2KB, docx)
S2 File. Final dataset, codes used to derive the P excretion nonlinear model, quantify study variance, and cross-validation procedure (S2.1), Final dataset, codes used to derive the Ca excretion nonlinear model, quantify study variance, and cross-validation procedure (S2.2), and Final dataset, and codes used to derive Phosphorous and Calcium Metabolizable Coefficient (S2.3).

(DOCX)

pone.0308889.s002.docx (234.3KB, docx)
S3 File. Relationship between the sum of daily phosphorus (P) total fecal and urinary excretion and P intake (S3.1), and Relationship between the sum of daily phosphorus (Ca) total fecal and urinary excretion and Ca intake (S3.2).

(DOCX)

pone.0308889.s003.docx (32.7KB, docx)
S4 File. The PRIMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0308889.s004.docx (33.1KB, docx)

Data Availability

The data are held in a public repository. The complete dataset file is available from the Mendeley Data database (Soares, Suziane Rodrigues; Oliveira, André Soares de (2024), “Complete dataset of phosphorus and calcium balance trials used to develop the mineral requirement submodel of The Nutrition System for Dairy Cattle. Dairy Cattle Research Lab, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Campus Sinop, Brazil.”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/8t6f7229r4.2; https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/8t6f7229r4/2) All other relevants data and the inputs/codes/ioutputs of the statistical analysis are with the manuscript and its Supporting Information Files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES; Brazil; scholarship of master’s degree in Animal Science for Suziane Rodrigues Soares at the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso – Campus Sinop; 2016-2018), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil; Number: 309450/2019-5) and Ministério Público do Estado de Mato Grosso (Fundação Uniselva/UFMT. Brazil; Number SEI 23108.066569/2023-30). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Agricultural Research Council. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough, England: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Castillo AR, St-Pierre NR, Silva del Rio N, Weiss WP. Mineral concentrations in diets, water, and milk and their value in estimating on-farm excretion of manure minerals in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013. May;96(5):3388–98. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Profile of the Agricultural Livestock Production Industry. 2000. Online. Available: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044373.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carpenter SR. Eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems: bistability and soil phosphorus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005. Jul 19;102(29):10002–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503959102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Myers ZH, Beede DK. Evaluating estimates of phosphorus maintenance requirement of lactating Holstein cows with different dry matter intakes. J Dairy Sci. 2009. Feb;92(2):708–19. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1582 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Costa e Silva LF, Valadares Filho Sde C, Engle TE, Rotta PP, Marcondes MI, Silva FA, et al. Macrominerals and Trace Element Requirements for Beef Cattle. PLoS One. 2015. Dec 14;10(12):e0144464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Visek WJ, Monroe RA, Swanson EW, Comar CL. Determination of endogenous fecal calcium in cattle by a simple isotope dilution method. J Nutr. 1953. May;50(1):23–33. doi: 10.1093/jn/50.1.23 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Martz FA, Belo AT, Weiss MF, Belyea RL, Goff JP. True absorption of calcium and phosphorus from alfalfa and corn silage when fed to lactating cows. J Dairy Sci. 1990. May;73(5):1288–95. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78794-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Petersen GI, Stein HH. Novel procedure for estimating endogenous losses and measurement of apparent and true digestibility of phosphorus by growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2006. Aug;84(8):2126–32. doi: 10.2527/jas.2005-479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Suttle NF. Mineral nutrition of livestock. 4th ed. 2011. Oxfordshire: CAB International. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mertz W. Use and misuse of balance studies. J Nutr. 1987. Nov;117(11):1811–3. doi: 10.1093/jn/117.11.1811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.NASEM. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 8th rev. ed. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 2021. 10.17226/25806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Spiekers H, Brintrup R, Balmelli M, Pfeffer E. Influence of dry matter intake on faecal phosphorus losses in dairy cows fed rations low in phosphorus. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 1993; 69:37–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.1993.tb00788.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Valk H, Sebek LB, Beynen AC. Influence of phosphorus intake on excretion and blood plasma and saliva concentrations of phosphorus in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2002. Oct;85(10):2642–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74349-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Puggaard L, Kristensen NB, Sehested J. Effect of decreasing dietary phosphorus supply on net recycling of inorganic phosphate in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2011. Mar;94(3):1420–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3582 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hansard SL, Comar CL, Plumlee MP. The effect of age upon calcium utilization and maintenance requirements in the bovine. J Dairy Sci. 1954; 13:25–36. 10.2527/jas1954.13125x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hansard SL, Comar CL, Luke WA. The biological availability of calcium in feeds for cattle. J Dairy Sci. 1957; 16:437–443. 10.2527/jas1957.162437x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Martz FA, Belo AT, Weiss MF, Belyea RL. True absorption of calcium and phosphorus from corn silage fed to nonlactating, pregnant dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1999. Mar;82(3):618–22. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75275-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. 2001. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Oliveira AS. The Nutrition System for Dairy Cattle (NS Dairy Cattle): A Model of Energy and Nutrients Requirements and Diet Evaluation for Dairy Cattle. 1th edition”, Mendeley Data, 2019, V4, doi: 10.17632/hvc7smjjb7.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Soares SR, Oliveira AS. Complete dataset of phosphorus and calcium balance trials used to develop the mineral requirement submodel of The Nutrition System for Dairy Cattle. Dairy Cattle Research Lab, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Campus Sinop, Brazil.”, Mendeley Data, 2024, V2, doi: 10.17632/8t6f7229r4.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.St-Pierre NR. Invited review: Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. J Dairy Sci. 2001. Apr;84(4):741–55. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74530-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Elliott MR. Model Averaging Methods for Weight Trimming. J Off Stat. 2008. Dec 1;24(4):517–540. ; PMCID: PMC2783643. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Littell RC, Henry PR, Ammerman CB. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. J Anim Sci. 1998. Apr;76(4):1216–31. doi: 10.2527/1998.7641216x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Silva HMD, Oliveira AS. A new protein requirement system for dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2023. Mar;106(3):1757–1772. doi: 10.3168/jds.2022-22348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boerman JP, Firkins JL, St-Pierre NR, Lock AL. Intestinal digestibility of long-chain fatty acids in lactating dairy cows: A meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Dairy Sci. 2015. Dec;98(12):8889–903. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002. Jun 15;21(11):1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O. SAS for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. 2006. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.SAS Institute Inc. 2015. SAS/STAT® 14.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/141/nlmixed.pdf). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. 1995. In Mellish C.S(Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ronnyk/accEst.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Correndo AA, Rosso LHM, Schwalbert R, Hernandez CH, Bastos LM, Nieto L, et al. metrica: an R package to evaluate prediction performance of regression and classification point-forecast models. J. Open Source Softw. 2022; 7:4655–, 10.21105/joss.04655 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.St-Pierre N.R. 2003. Reassessment of biases in predicted nitrogen flows to the duodenum by NRC 2001. J Dairy Sci 86:344–350. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73612-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Oliveira AS. Meta-analysis of feeding trials to estimate energy requirements of dairy cows under tropical condition. Anim Feed Sci. Technol. 2015; 210:94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003. Sep 6;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Goff JP. Invited review: Mineral absorption mechanisms, mineral interactions that affect acid-base and antioxidant status, and diet considerations to improve mineral status. J Dairy Sci. 2018. Apr;101(4):2763–2813. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bravo D, Sauvant D, Bogaert C, Meschy F. II. Quantitative aspects of phosphorus absorption in ruminants. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2003. May-Jun;43(3):271–84. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2003020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Weiss WP, Wyatt DJ. Macromineral digestion by lactating dairy cows: estimating phosphorus excretion via manure. J Dairy Sci. 2004. Jul;87(7):2158–66. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)70035-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Alvarez-Fuentes G, Appuhamy JA, Kebreab E. Prediction of phosphorus output in manure and milk by lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2016. Jan;99(1):771–82. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bijl E, van Valenberg HJ, Huppertz T, van Hooijdonk AC. Protein, casein, and micellar salts in milk: current content and historical perspectives. J Dairy Sci. 2013. Sep;96(9):5455–64. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Klop G, Ellis JL, Bannink A, Kebreab E, France J, Dijkstra J. Meta-analysis of factors that affect the utilization efficiency of phosphorus in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013. Jun;96(6):3936–49. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.van Hulzen KJ, Sprong RC, van der Meer R, van Arendonk JA. Genetic and nongenetic variation in concentration of selenium, calcium, potassium, zinc, magnesium, and phosphorus in milk of Dutch Holstein-Friesian cows. J Dairy Sci. 2009. Nov;92(11):5754–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2406 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chassaing C, Sibra C, Verbič J, Harstad OM, Golecký J, Martin B, et al. Mineral, vitamin A and fat composition of bulk milk related to European production conditions throughout the year. Dairy Sci Technol. 2016; 96:715–733. doi: 10.1007/s13594-016-0300-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Stocco G, Summer A, Malacarne M, Cecchinato A, Bittante G. Detailed macro- and micromineral profile of milk: Effects of herd productivity, parity, and stage of lactation of cows of 6 dairy and dual-purpose breeds. J Dairy Sci. 2019. Nov;102(11):9727–9739. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16834 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Volder H. NorFor—The Nordic feed evaluation system. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2011. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-718-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.INRA feeding system for ruminants. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2018. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-292-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wu Z, Satter LD, Sojo R. Milk production, reproductive performance, and fecal excretion of phosphorus by dairy cows fed three amounts of phosphorus. J Dairy Sci. 2000. May;83(5):1028–41. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74967-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wu Z, Tallam SK, Ishler VA, Archibald DD. Utilization of phosphorus in lactating cows fed varying amounts of phosphorus and forage. J Dairy Sci. 2003. Oct;86(10):3300–8. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73931-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wu Z. Utilization of phosphorus in lactating cows fed varying amounts of phosphorus and sources of fiber. J Dairy Sci. 2005. Aug;88(8):2850–9. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72966-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Valk H, Sebek LB. Influence of long-term feeding of limited amounts of phosphorus on dry matter intake, milk production, and body weight of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1999. Oct;82(10):2157–63. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75459-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Keanthao P, Goselink RMA, Dijkstra J, Bannink A, Schonewille JT. Effects of dietary phosphorus concentration during the transition period on plasma calcium concentrations, feed intake, and milk production in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2021. Nov;104(11):11646–11659. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Owens FN, Hanson CF. External and internal markers for appraising site and extent of digestion in ruminants. J Dairy Sci. 1992. Sep;75(9):2605–17. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78023-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Huhtanen P, Kaustell K, Jaakkola S. The use of internal markers to predict total digestibility and duodenal flow of nutrients in cattle given six different diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1994;(48):211–227. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(94)90173-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Titgemeyer EC, Armendariz CK, Bindel DJ, Greenwood RH, Löest CA. Evaluation of titanium dioxide as a digestibility marker for cattle. J Anim Sci. 2001. Apr;79:1059–63. doi: 10.2527/2001.7941059x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Velásquez AV, da Silva GG, Sousa DO, Oliveira CA, Martins CMMR, Dos Santos PPM, et al. Evaluating internal and external markers versus fecal sampling procedure interactions when estimating intake in dairy cows consuming a corn silage-based diet. J Dairy Sci. 2018. Jul;101:5890–5901. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chizzotti ML, Valadares Filho SC, Valadares RFD, Chizzotti FHM, Tedeschi LO. Determination of creatinine excretion and evaluation of spot urine sampling in Holstein cattle. Livest Sci. 2008; 113:218–225. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.03.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tebbe AW, Weiss WP. Evaluation of creatinine as a urine marker and factors affecting urinary excretion of magnesium by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2018. Jun;101:5020–5032. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bravo D, Sauvant D, Bogaert C, Meschy F. III. Quantitative aspects of phosphorus excretion in ruminants. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2003. a; 43:285–300. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2003021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wilkens MR, Muscher-Banse AS. Review: Regulation of gastrointestinal and renal transport of calcium and phosphorus in ruminants. Animal. 2020. Mar;14(S1):s29–s43. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119003197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

25 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-09154A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for dairy cowsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Dear Authors, 

Reviewers has reviewed the manuscript and all of the 3 reviewers suggested minor revision. Therefore, I would like to invite you for minor revision that are mainly related to English language and grammar mistakes. please carefully address other issues related to your manuscript in the revised version of the manuscript

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This study was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES; Brazil; scholarship of master’s degree in Animal Science for Suziane Rodrigues Soares at the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso – Campus Sinop; 2016-2018), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil; Number: 309450/2019-5) and Ministério Público do Estado de Mato Grosso (Fundação Uniselva/UFMT. Brazil; Number SEI 23108.066569/2023-30). The funders were not involved in data or paper preparation."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Reviewers has reviewed the manuscript and all of the 3 reviewers suggested minor revision. Therefore, I would like to invite you for minor revision that are mainly related to English language and grammar mistakes. please carefully address other issues related to your manuscript in the revised version of the manuscript

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: L34-35: perhaps reword to “We estimated the net requirements of P and Ca for maintenance from the intercept of a nonlinear equation between mineral intake and the sum of fecal and urinary excretions, which is an estimate of endogenous P and Ca losses.”

L40: “… ) using a 5-fold cross validation approach.”

L43: “… means, respectively.”

L46: “were” or “are”?

L46: “… for lactating dairy…”

L49: “… sustainability of the dairy…”

L62: define AC here at first use.

L64-66: “…, we propose here the term metabolizable coefficient as opposed to AC.”

L71: “… adopted to estimate endogenous…”

L91-92: abbreviate to MC

L98: abbreviate to MC

L107: delete one of the “P and Ca”

L109: this meta-analysis focused on P and Ca, but you only used search terms of “dairy cows” and “phosphorus”? Why wasn’t “calcium” used as a search term?

L110: was the second systematic review done using the same search terms?

L112: “review” instead of “revision” in all instances that it is used similarly.

L126: “reported in studies”

L126: “were” instead of “are”

L150: missing a period

L186: hasn’t MC already been defined?

L188-189: I recommend entering this equation using the “Equation” functionality of Microsoft word (under “Insert” and then “Equation”)

L198: should this be “studentized residual”?

L206: should this be “… using the 5-fold cross-validation approach…”?

L224: “genotype” or “breed”?

L226-227: was urine P and Ca exclusively measured by total collection? Did not all studies measure urine output by total collection? Why would they measure urine output by total collection and then use markers to assess fecal output in the same study?

L244-245: Did you describe in the methods how mean and slope biases were assessed? Also, I don’t know if slope being not different from 1 necessarily indicates linear bias. St-Pierre (2003; DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73612-1) suggests regressing residuals (obs – predicted) against mean centered predicted values, then the intercept of this regression is mean bias, and the slope is slope bias.

L307-308: was this a significant difference between Jersey and Holsteins? The standard errors make it seem as if they would not be statistically different.

L351: “… introduced the term…”

L354: “… the concept of metabolizable mineral aligns…”

L356-358: If MC and AC are so similar, what is the benefit of using MC over AC?

L364-365: “… is feasibly measured in a commercial…”

L424 “Keanthao et al. [50] reported…”

L427: “… to adequately estimate P…”

L434: “highlighted”

L436: “NASEM”

L436-437: reword.

L439: delete “be”

Reviewer #2: This meta-analysis developed and evaluated models to estimate Ca and P requirements for lactating dairy cattle using NL mixed models. Overall, the methodology is adequate, and the manuscript is well-written. The limitations of this study were well-discussed and justified. The parameter estimates had low standard errors, and cross-evaluation indicated opportunities for practical applications. Additionally, the authors recognized that an additional model evaluation using independent studies is recommended. For this reviewer, the major issue is to clarify if growing animals or late gestation animals were used in this study. If yes, the authors need to justify why they did not explore those requirements. Therefore, please find below some comments for consideration

Title: Use "A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for lactating dairy cows"

L33: Use “articles or studies” instead of “papers” across the entire manuscript.

L33: Please describe the database used in the abstract (breed, averages for DMI and milk yield x±xx).

L37: Use “treatment means”.

L40: “.. using a 5-fold cross-validation approach…” instead of “...from the..”.

L46: “lactating” instead of “lactation”.

L93: Remove the word "system" and use "model."

L107: Rewrite this sentence, something like: “A systematic review of mineral balance trials published as peer-review publications (xx studies) was performed. Treatment means were used to develop models to estimate P and Ca requirement for lactating dairy cows”.

L124: Remove this sentence “...(53 from previous review and four from new 124 revision).."

L126: Clarify this sentence “Data not reported on studies were evaluated as missing data; then, they are

subsequently excluded from the final model.” How was the evaluation conducted? Do the authors mean summarized using descriptive statistics?

Table 1: Confirm if that is the final database used to develop the models, if not, please describe only the final database used for model fitting. Also, describe the frequency for parity (primiparous, multiparous, or both) and fecal collection methods (total or estimated using markers) using the final database.

L139: Describe how many treatment means were dropped as outliers.

L149: Describe the N or % of treatment means that did not report SEM in your database. Include in the discussion section the methods used as weight in meta-analysis and why did the authors use SEM instead of other methods (i.e. N of animals / trt).

L153: What is the mature BW for each breed used in this database? Based on the minimum BW and maximum DIM, the authors need to discuss if some cows had growth/pregnancy requirements for Ca and P which were not explored in this study. If yes, include it in the limitation of study.

L159: Describe how the initial values for parameters of the NL mixed models were identified. Describe it.

L162: Check if the intercept β1 is significant in this model, include it in the results section.

L159: Explain why a nonlinear exponential mixed model was chosen over other models (i.e., linear mixed models with linear or quadratic terms, did you test it or that was due to data visualization?).

L140 and L177: Delete redundant information.

L66/98/186/L194: Revise abbreviation use for metabolizable coefficient (MC) across the entire manuscript.

L221: Clarify if some animals were growing in this database (316 to 754 kg).

L221: Add the DMI range.

L236: Remove the space before the comma.

L244: Use "slope bias" instead of “slop”.

L331: Include a discussion about outliers in meta-analysis here. Also, is the low milk yield due the diet? For example, treatment means from the pasture system had lower milk. Discuss it.

L334: Include a discussion about internal and external model evaluation. Also, discuss the % of the data (treatment means) that was from early, middle and late lactation. Also, the authors need to discuss the methods used to estimate Ca and P excretion in feces and their limitations (markers)..

L395: Include a period in this phrase “… ecosystems [3, 4]. Our…”.

L416-424: Fix parenthesis.

L436: Fix a typo “NSAEM (2021)”

L448/449: Explain the main limitations of cross-validation in terms of model evaluation.

Reviewer #3: Peer review - A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for dairy cows

Overall, this study has merit as it aims to develop a new model for predicting the calcium and phosphorous requirements of dairy cows. Previous requirements (NASEM and NRC) were predicted from equations derived from a rather small sample size which this study aims to overcome by including a far larger sample size in their regression analysis and subsequent prediction equations. It is not clear to the reader whether the studies used to create the NASEM and NRC predictions are also included in the present study (after checking the reference list and excel file, it seems they are (?)) – this should be highlighted as it adds merit and credibility to the present study.

I have answered No to question number 4 as the current manuscript requires English language editing to avoid ambiguities and improve understanding. Additionally, there are a number of typos throughout the manuscript that should be corrected before publishing e.g. L46, “lactation” should read “lactating”, L47, “requirement” should read “requirements”, L49, should read “in the dairy industry”… etc.

The introduction is well thought out and lays a solid foundation for the study. The discussion requires reformulation and rewriting.

Please find my specific comments below:

Comments:

The title does not adequately describe the manuscript. Consider revising. e.g. “A new system to predict phosphorous and calcium requirements in dairy cows”

The authors should ensure that any studies published after 6 November 2017 but before 1 January 2018 have not been accidently overlooked due to the nature of the follow up search term. I suggest that the year 2017 be included in the search term instead of the year 2018 and any duplicated studies in 2017 be removed.

Figure 1: Instead of using the headings “Identification of previous studies via databases” and “Identification of new studies via databases”, I would suggest the authors refer to these searches as initial and follow up searches. Dates could be included to avoid any ambiguity. Double check the use of brackets and spacings in Figure 1.

Please double-check the numbers in the screening section of the PRISMA diagram, there seem to be some inconsistencies?

The number of mineral balance trials included is not clear as the text and Table 1 state 76 trials however, there are only 72 trials included in the Excel file containing the complete dataset (reference 21), please clarify.

Figure 2: Please update this figure to include the word excretion in the y axis label e.g. Total P excretion… and Total Ca excretion… to avoid any confusion.

Figure 3: Please update this figure to include the word excretion in the x and y axes labels e.g. Observed total P excretion… and Observed total Ca excretion… to avoid any confusion. In Figure 3 it is stated that 5 folds were created by study grouping to guarantee independence between observed and predicted values. According to S2, the folds were created on Monday 6 September 2023 but the follow up literature search was conducted in March 2024 – I imagine that no new studies were published and included in the meta-analysis between these dates, however, this should be explicitly stated (in the text rather than in the figure legend) for clarity.

Table 2: Please include the word “analysis” in the heading for clarity i.e. Nonlinear mixed regression analysis…

S3: Please double check that these graphs are correct? If so, please label with a term other than “dotted lines” to improve clarity, I do not see any dotted lines(?).

Figure 4: What does the X mean in Figure 4? Please add to the figure legend for clarity.

Figure 5: Include the meaning of X for clarity i.e. X represents the mean concentration. Label Holstein and Jersey on the x axis to avoid any confusion.

Discussion

Figure 6: These are nice graphs that help the reader to visualize requirements predicted by different entities. Since the equations and absorption coefficients have been included for the other models, I suggest including the same for the authors proposed model. It is not entirely clear when looking at the figure that the authors are referring to 10kg milk yield/ 20/ 30 etc. Please include “milk” or “milk yield” or an abbreviation e.g. “MY” in the figure.

Lines 393 – 395: This is a repetition from the introduction as it is, however, it is a good point and should be expanded upon in the discussion.

Lines 415 – 416: This may be correct, however, it is not deducible from Figure 6 as there is no indication of DMI or the equation used to derive these values related to Figure 6? Please clarify either in the figure, the legend or in the text.

Line 421: When referring to dietary phosphorous or calcium intake, add the word “dietary” before P (or Ca) e.g. “dietary P” to avoid any ambiguity. Please check this throughout the manuscript.

Line 426: Are there really so few dose-response relationship studies on Ca and P in dairy cows? If so, I would make this very apparent in the introduction and then build on this in the discussion (as the authors have done to a certain degree), however, more compelling wording and insight is required for an improved discussion.

Lines 428 – 430: Please recalculate these percentages, there seems to be an error. Additionally, it would make it easier for the reader if the authors referred to a specific milk yield and then another e.g. “Our proposed model predicts a net calcium requirement 117% higher than the NASEM and 79% higher than the NRC recommendations for a 500kg dairy cow producing 10kg of milk per day. For cows producing 50kg (700kg) of milk a day, our model predicts….”

Lines 432 – 433: To enhance clarity rewrite in the same fashion as suggested above.

Lines 434 – 437 need to be rewritten to provide clarity.

Line 449 – 450: Mention which other factors are involved in endogenous fecal losses for completeness.

Line 453: Use “actual” for known MC instead of specific true

References:

Please use the same referencing style throughout. See references 10, 12, 16, 17 (I have not been through all the references) for examples where the referencing style deviates from the majority.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Matthew R. beck

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

1 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-09154R1A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for lactating dairy cowsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Dear Authors with the reviewer comments, please also improve conclusion and provide recommendation for further research/meta-analysis in mineral in nutrition  Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author

Please address the reviewer comments and improve you conclusion and provide recommendations for further research/meta-analysis in mineral nutrition for lactating cows.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I believe that this revised manuscript has adequately addressed my previous minor suggestions. I feel that all analysis and interpretations of their results are adequate.

Reviewer #2: Different statistical approaches, animal genotypes, climate, and research protocols change over time. All meta-analyses have limitations, but we need to clearly state them (statistical methods, software used, and data availability). One interesting discussion during the 2024 ADSA meeting this year was about variation in NDF analysis due to differences in lab analysis. I believe that this type of discussion is important for mineral nutrition too.

Over time, several research groups have been discussing how to improve our Dairy Science or Modeling Science. This reviewer made some points about methods for weighting studies in meta-analysis (SEM), nonlinear mixed-effects models, cross-validation, and other aspects to encourage the authors to discuss ways to improve our meta-analysis approach. Discussing the limitations and benefits of current meta-analysis methods and data available can prompt readers to think about these challenges, how this can affect the results, and address them in future research. A popular method widely used in meta-analysis doesn’t mean it cannot be improved.

This reviewer respectfully disagrees with SEM being considered a gold-standard method, although it is widely used in Animal Science meta-analysis. SE from GLM and Mixed models are fitted differently; SE from GLM is largely underestimated. If not evaluated carefully, this can cause under- or over-weighting in the model (see the discussion by Hanigan et al., 2021, 2024: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19672 , https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24230 ). This reviewer agrees that this type of discussion is more appropriate for a statistical methods paper. However, if the authors choose to use this method, they need to justify it.

This reviewer appreciates the biology discussion, framework description, and codes, which are acceptable in science. The major questions for the conclusion section are: do we need a new system or do we need recent/new studies in mineral nutrition for lactating dairy cows? The authors can discuss the N of papers published in the last 5 years in their database. Also, please include recommendations for further research/meta-analysis.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, thank you for addressing my previous concerns to a large extent, however, there a still quite a few small grammatical errors that need to be addressed before publication. I’ve made a list of the most obvious ones below but please have a native English speaker go through your manuscript once again. I’ve advised to accept your manuscript once these minor issues have been addressed. Thank you for an interesting read.

L45: Add the word “the” before “metabolizable coefficient”

L71: Should read “mineral balance” instead of “balance mineral” trials…

L88: “model of” should read “models for”

L90: Use “requires development” instead of “is still necessary to be developed”

L94: “of” P and Ca… should read “for”

L95: “nutrients” should be singular

L109: “requirement” should be plural

L118 and L121: “peer review” should read “peer reviewed”

L218: Add the word “an” before “iterative approach”

L236: “of” should be “from”

L270: Remove the word “cows” from this sentence

L272: “of” should read “from”

L281: “cow” should be singular and “dataset” plural

L282-283: Do you mean the parity was not reported in 34 studies? If so, please change the wording of this sentence.

Table 3: Do you mean “Dietary starch” by “Starch diet?” If you use “Dietary starch” or simply “Starch”

L390: The fullstop (period) should be a comma in this sentence

L407: “mechanism” should be plural

L419: Here “metabolizable” should read “metabolizability”

L427: “the” should read “that”

L499: “to adequately” instead of “adequately to”

L501: “requirements” should be singular

L502: remove “of Ca”

L503: First “cows” should be singular

L509: “requirements” should be singular

L512: “requirements” should be singular

L513: Replace “Because od” with “Due to the”

L527: “sampling spot” should read “spot sampling”

L527: “are evidences” should read “is evidence”

L529: “to” should read “for”

L530: “collect” should read “collection”

Figure 1: Missing opening brackets for “Phosphorus”. Missing closing bracket in first box. Please revise.

Figure 4 has not been updated. My previous comment: Figure 4: What does the X mean in Figure 4? Please add to the figure legend for clarity.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

1 Aug 2024

A new system of phosphorus and calcium requirements for lactating dairy cows

PONE-D-24-09154R2

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors

Thanks for considering the comments of reviewers. Good Luck

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

20 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-09154R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aziz ur Rahman Muhammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Publications used to development the phosphorus and calcium requirement system for lactating dairy cows.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308889.s001.docx (45.2KB, docx)
    S2 File. Final dataset, codes used to derive the P excretion nonlinear model, quantify study variance, and cross-validation procedure (S2.1), Final dataset, codes used to derive the Ca excretion nonlinear model, quantify study variance, and cross-validation procedure (S2.2), and Final dataset, and codes used to derive Phosphorous and Calcium Metabolizable Coefficient (S2.3).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308889.s002.docx (234.3KB, docx)
    S3 File. Relationship between the sum of daily phosphorus (P) total fecal and urinary excretion and P intake (S3.1), and Relationship between the sum of daily phosphorus (Ca) total fecal and urinary excretion and Ca intake (S3.2).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308889.s003.docx (32.7KB, docx)
    S4 File. The PRIMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308889.s004.docx (33.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0308889.s005.doc (83KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0308889.s006.doc (48.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data are held in a public repository. The complete dataset file is available from the Mendeley Data database (Soares, Suziane Rodrigues; Oliveira, André Soares de (2024), “Complete dataset of phosphorus and calcium balance trials used to develop the mineral requirement submodel of The Nutrition System for Dairy Cattle. Dairy Cattle Research Lab, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Campus Sinop, Brazil.”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/8t6f7229r4.2; https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/8t6f7229r4/2) All other relevants data and the inputs/codes/ioutputs of the statistical analysis are with the manuscript and its Supporting Information Files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES