Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in high-protein feedstuffs commonly used in dairy diets

Paz, Henry A.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Hostetler, Douglas E.; Fernando, Samodha C.; Castillo‐Lopez, Ezequias; Kononoff, P.J.

doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8108

Cited by 41 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research conducted using in vitro or in situ methods has reported intestinal RUP digestibility values for DDGS to be greater than those for canola meal (NRC, 2001;Paz et al, 2014). However using an in vitro technique, Lawrence and Anderson (2018) estimated the intestinal digestibility of CP to be greatest in soybean meal (81%) and, in contrast with Paz et al (2014), reported digestibility to be similar between canola meal (71%) and DDGS (63%). In the current study and according to the in vitro assay used (Ross et al, 2013), the RUP and digestibility of RUP were greatest for low-fat DDGS (94 and 84%, respectively), lower in high-fat DDGS (74 and 77%, respectively), and lowest in canola meal (58 and 72%, respectively).…”

Section: Nutrient Digestibilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

Reynolds

Brown–Brandl

Judy

et al. 2019

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of coproducts as an alternative feed source is a common practice when formulating dairy rations. A study using 12 multiparous (79 ± 16 d in milk; mean ± standard deviation) lactating Jersey cows was conducted over 5 mo to evaluate the effects of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) or canola meal on milk and gas production. A replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design was used to compare 4 dietary treatments. Treatments comprised a control (CON) containing no coproducts, a treatment diet containing 10% (dry matter basis) lowfat DDGS (LFDG), a treatment diet containing 10% high-fat DDGS (HFDG), and a 10% canola meal (CM) treatment. The crude fat content of the LFDG, HFDG, and CM treatments was 6.05 ± 0.379, 10.0 ± 0.134, and 3.46 ± 0.085%, respectively. Coproducts were included in partial replacement for corn and soybean meal. Indirect headbox-style calorimeters were used to estimate heat production. Dry matter intake and milk yield were similar between all treatments, averaging 17.4 ± 0.56 kg/d and 24.0 ± 0.80 kg, respectively. Milk urea N was affected by treatment and was highest in CON (20.6 mg/dL; 18.0, 19.9, and 18.1 ± 0.62 mg/dL in LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). Heat production per unit of metabolic body weight tended to be affected by treatment and was lowest for CON, and diets containing coproducts were not different (192, 200, 215, and 204 ± 5.91 kcal/kg of metabolic body weight for CON, LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). The concentration of metabolizable energy was affected by dietary treatment; specifically, HFDG did not differ from CON but was greater than LFDG and CM (2.58, 2.46, 2.29, and 2.27 ± 0.09 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). The concentration of net energy balance (milk plus tissue) tended to be affected by dietary treatment; HFDG did not differ from either CON or LFDG, but it was higher than CM (1.38, 1.36, 1.14, and 1.06 ± 0.11 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). Results of this study indicate that milk production and dry matter intake were not affected by feeding common coproducts and that differences may result in whole-animal energy use; fat content of DDGS is a major factor affecting this.

show abstract

Section: Nutrient Digestibilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

Reynolds

Brown–Brandl

Judy

et al. 2019

Journal of Dairy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other studies (29) revealed bigger differences between nitrogen degradability of HPDG, of 48.2%, compared to classical distillers' dried grains with solubles, of 84.8% (values uncorrected for particle loss). Higher rumen degradation for low-fat distillers' grains, e.g., of 76.9%, was also reported (45). It has to be mentioned, however, that the general variation of RUP observed in case of classical corn coproducts is rather large, e.g., from 53.6% to 71.7% (46), and the new coproducts may express the same behaviour.…”

Section: Feeding Value and Effects On Rumen Metabolismmentioning

confidence: 89%

Novel coproducts from corn milling and their use in ruminants’ nutrition

Dragomir¹,

Rinne²,

Yáñez-Ruíz³

2015

Turk J Vet Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The valorisation of corn coproducts as feedstuffs relies not only on the large available quantities but also on their special feeding characteristics (1-3). Corn processing supplies the feed market with a broad range of coproducts from the production of alcohol, starch, oil, sweeteners, etc. (4), which favours better adaptability of the feeding strategies to various practical situations (5). Moreover, the new processing techniques (6,7) aim to extract as much as possible from the raw materials, especially fractions with high economic value such as starch, fructose, oil, coatings, textiles, adhesives, etc. (8,9), and to fractionate the raw materials into high-, mid-, and low-value components that can be used for targeted markets and specific uses (6,10). This continuously generates novel or updated coproducts available for farm animal feeding; however, these coproducts are often marketed under misleading or incorrect names or they have variable quality and nutritive values (11,12), which impairs their efficient use in animal nutrition.Coproducts from corn milling have been extensively studied in the last decades from various angles: the nutritive value and its variability, the processing conditions, the inclusion in various feeding strategies, and the effects on animal performance, digestibility of fibre fractions, quality of proteins (dynamics of rumen degradability, amino acids), etc., such that most of them are well described in the literature (4,11,13). On the other hand, certain changes in the processing techniques led to coproducts that significantly differ from the classical ones in terms of nutritive value, effects on rumen metabolism and animal performances, their use in feeding strategies, etc. (12,14).Of these emerging coproducts, two were selected for this review based on their novelty, the critical mass of scientific knowledge, and the issues raised by their valorisation in ruminant feeding: high-protein distillers' grains (HPDG) and reduced-fat distillers' grains (RFDG). Although reported in the recent literature, these feeds are not yet included in publicly available feeding tables such as Feedipedia, Norfor, etc., and they clearly differ from

show abstract

“…Many studies have shown that the AA profile of PDI varies widely depending on diet during rumen exposure (Erasmus, Botha, Cruywagen, & Meissner, 1994;Paz et al, 2014;Von Keyserlingk, Shelford, Puchala, Swift, & Fisher, 1998). However, this variation is still a widely debatable notion, as many other studies have found no differences in AA profiles (Messman, Weiss, & Erickson, 1992;Varvikko, Lindberg, Setälä, & Syrjälä-Qvist, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amino acid profiles of rumen undegradable protein: a comparison between forages including cereal straws and alfalfa and their respective total mixed rations

Wang

Jiang

2017

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimizing the amino acid (AA) profile of rumen undegradable protein (RUP) can positively affect the amount of milk protein. This study was conducted to improve knowledge regarding the AA profile of rumen undegradable protein from corn stover, rice straw and alfalfa hay as well as the total mixed ratio diets (TMR) based on one of them as forage source [forage-to-concentrate ratio of 45:55 (30% of corn stover (CS), 30% of rice straw (RS), 23% of alfalfa hay (AH) and dry matter basis)]. The other ingredients in the three TMR diets were similar. The RUP of all the forages and diets was estimated by incubation for 16 hr in the rumen of three ruminally cannulated lactating cows. All residues were corrected for microbial colonization, which was necessary in determining the AA composition of RUP from feed samples using in situ method. Compared with their original AA composition, the AA pattern of forages and forage-based diets changed drastically after rumen exposure. In addition, the extent of ruminal degradation of analysed AA was not constant among the forages. The greatest individual AA degradability of alfalfa hay and corn stover was Pro, but was His of rice straw. A remarkable difference was observed between microbial attachment corrected and uncorrected AA profiles of RUP, except for alfalfa hay and His in the three forages and TMR diets. The ruminal AA degradability of cereal straws was altered compared with alfalfa hay but not for the TMR diets. In summary, the AA composition of forages and TMR-based diets changed significantly after ruminal exposure, indicating that the original AA profiles of the feed cannot represent its AA composition of RUP. The AA profile of RUP and ruminal AA degradability for corn stover and rice straw contributed to missing information in the field.

show abstract

Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in high-protein feedstuffs commonly used in dairy diets

Cited by 41 publications

References 43 publications

Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

Novel coproducts from corn milling and their use in ruminants’ nutrition

Amino acid profiles of rumen undegradable protein: a comparison between forages including cereal straws and alfalfa and their respective total mixed rations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About