## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Sample Composition  
Nine chemical parameters, nine individual FAs, and three FA classes were analysed for each TMR sample. The results of the descriptive analysis (mean, range, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation) are presented in Table 3 for the TMR chemical composition and in Table 4 for the FA content, and they are presented separately for the calibration and validation sets. Buffalo ratings in this study were inherently more fibrous and had a distinct nutrient profile compared to those formulated for cattle or other buffalo rations [41; 42]. A wide variability was observed in the chemical composition of the TMRs in both the calibration and validation sets (Table 3), particularly for starch, crude fibre, and ADL with C.V. \(>\) 18%, while in the validation set, only starch exceeded this value (C.V. = 20.1%). Conversely, the lowest variability (<13%) was noted for DM, Ash, aNDF, and ADF in both the calibration and validation sets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & **RPD** & **RER** & **Classification** & **Application** \\ \hline \(<\)0.80 & \(<\)2.0 & \(<\)7 & Very poor & Not recommended \\  & 2.0 to 2.5 & & Poor & Rough screening \\
0.80 to 0.90 & 2.5 to 3.0 & \(<\)10 & Fair & Screening \\  & 3.0 to 3.5 & \(>\)10 & Good & Quality control \\
0.90 to 0.95 & 3.5 to 4.0 & & Very good & Process control \\ \(>\)0.95 & \(>\)4.0 & \(>\)20 & Excellent & Any application \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* R\({}^{2}\) = coefficients of determination; RPD = Residual Predictive Deviation (S.D./SEC); RER = Range of Reference Values (S.D./range).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Classification and success levels based on R\({}^{2}\), RPD, and RER as per references [39; 40]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Calibration Set (168)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Independent Set for Validation (72)**} \\ \hline
**\%** & **Mean** & **Range** & **S.D.** & **C.V.** & **Mean** & **Range** & **S.D.** & **C.V.** \\ \hline DM * & 52.33 & 25.48 & 5.65 & 10.80 & 52.34 & 22.04 & 5.73 & 10.95 \\ Ash & 6.76 & 3.69 & 0.79 & 11.75 & 6.83 & 3.81 & 0.85 & 12.40 \\ CP & 12.08 & 9.31 & 1.58 & 13.09 & 12.59 & 9.57 & 1.82 & 14.45 \\ EE & 2.50 & 2.45 & 0.39 & 15.64 & 2.45 & 2.03 & 0.42 & 17.10 \\ CF & 28.96 & 24.54 & 5.26 & 18.16 & 30.08 & 21.61 & 4.97 & 16.52 \\ aNDF & 44.72 & 25.72 & 5.01 & 11.21 & 46.56 & 23.49 & 5.16 & 11.08 \\ ADF & 30.40 & 15.63 & 3.35 & 11.02 & 31.38 & 17.22 & 3.70 & 11.78 \\ ADL & 6.45 & 5.95 & 1.18 & 18.31 & 6.97 & 5.82 & 1.20 & 17.26 \\ Starch & 14.50 & 12.85 & 2.73 & 18.80 & 13.18 & 12.05 & 2.65 & 20.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* S.D. = standard deviation; C.V. = coefficient of variation (S.D./Mean \(\times\) 100); range (max value-minor value);
* = expressed as % of TMR; DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; EE = ether extract; CF = crude fibre; aNDF = Neutral Detergent fibre; ADF = Acid Detergent Fibre; ADL = Acid Detergent Lignin.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of the chemical composition (% of DM) of Total Mixed Rations (TMRs) from both the calibration (n = 168) and validation (n = 72) sets. The FAs present in the TMRs are derived from both concentrate sources (corn, soya, barley, and field bean), fodder sources (green forage, hays, and silage), and some supplements, such as Linomix, providing significant sources of 18:3 n-3. As a result, there is considerable variability in the FA composition of the TMRs (Table 4). For 18:3 n-3 and 18:3 n-6, the C.V. exceeds 35%. In contrast, the lowest variability (<10%) was observed for 18:1 cis-9 and 18:1 cis-11, 18:2 n-6, for the FA classes (SFA, MUFA, and PUFA), and for 16:0 in the validation set. Although several studies have explored various chemical characteristics of TMRs for dairy buffalo, few authors have specifically examined the FA profiles. This makes it difficult to directly compare our findings with previous research.