SHORT COMMUNICATION

 

In situ ruminal degradability of protein feeds with distinct physical forms: a metaanalysis

 

 

M. Busanello^I; J.P. Velho^{II, #}; D.R.M. Alessio^III; I.M.P. Haygert-Velho^II; A.A.C. Tambara^IV; A. Thaler Neto^V

^IPost-Graduate Program in Animal Science and Pastures of the University of São Paulo - School of Agriculture "Luiz de Queiroz" (ESALQ), Piracicaba - SP, Brazil
^IIDepartment of Animal Science and Biological Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM)-Campus Palmeira das Missões. Avenida Independência, 3751, 98300-000, Palmeira das Missões, RS, Brazil
^IIIPost-Graduate Program in Animal Science, University of the State of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Lages - SC. Brazil
^IVFederal Institute Farroupilha, Campus Säo Vicente do Sul, São Vicente do Sul, RS, Brazil
^VDepartment of Animal and Food Production, University of the State of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Lages - SC. Brazil

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

In ruminant livestock, rumen undegradable protein (RUP) derived from the diet and microbial protein synthesized in the rumen are essential for animal survival, maintenance, growth, production, and reproduction. RUP is influenced by diet composition, physical form, and ruminal metabolism. Here, we aimed to evaluate the ruminal degradability of protein feeds with different physical forms (meal versus grain) through a meta-analysis study. A database, composed of 45 treatments from 12 studies carried out in Brazil, was evaluated to compare the degradability of soybean, sunflower, canola, and flaxseed grains with the meal forms of soybean, peanut, sunflower, cottonseed, and corn gluten. The degradation parameters of dry matter did not differ significantly between meals and grains. However, the effective degradability of crude protein at a passage rate of 2% per hour was higher in meals than in grains. Overall, it was concluded that meal protein might be more degradable in the rumen of animals on an energy intake lower than the maintenance.

Keywords: Concentrated feed, metabolism, passage rate, processing, ruminants

---

 

 

In ruminant livestock, the diet needs to provide all the essential nutrients for a healthy metabolism and also to maximize the production of microbial protein in the rumen (Lean et al., 2014). Besides microbial protein, rumen undegradable protein (RUP), primarily found in grains and industrial oil sub-products, is a good source of amino acids, necessary for animal survival, maintenance, growth, production, and reproduction (Van Duinkerken et al., 2011; Zhe et al., 2014). An effective method for increasing RUP is the processing of protein ingredients in order to change their chemical composition and structure. Structural changes are caused by grinding processes (such as browning and extrusion) using heat and steam (Nasri et al., 2008), whereas chemical composition changes are caused by oil extraction processes and/or peeling (Mjoun et al., 2010). For instance, seed decortication that involves controlled breaking, pneumatic vacuuming, banging, and gravimetric separation increases the efficiency of soybean oil extraction, leading to high-protein and less fibrous meal (Baker & Stein, 2009). The use of protein concentrates by microorganisms and ruminants depends on diet components, administration methods, and the ruminal metabolism (Broderick & Reynal, 2009). In Brazil, many studies have evaluated the availability of feed protein in grains (unprocessed products) or meals (processed co-products), since there is a wide range of protein feeds available. In this study, we aimed to evaluate various in situ rumen degradation parameters of protein feeds with distinct physical forms (grain versus meal) through a meta-analysis study.

A database composed of 45 treatments from 12 scientific studies conducted in Brazil and published between January 1998 and December 2013 was evaluated. All these studies, including Beran et al. (2005), Fortaleza et al. (2009), Garcia et al. (2003), Goes et al. (2004), Goes et al. (2010), Goes et al. (2011), Marcondes et al. (2009), Martins et al. (1999), Oliveira et al. (2003), Pereira et al. (1999), Silva et al. (1999), and Zeoula et al. (1999), compared the in situ ruminal degradability of protein in grains, such as soybean (Glycine max), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), canola (Brassica napus), and linseed (Linum usitatissimum), with that in processed meals such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) meal, peanut (Arachis hypogaea) meal, sunflower meal, soybean meal, and corn (Zea mays) gluten. Data were organized in tables on Excel® (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and the assumptions were set as described by Lovatto et al. (2007), namely: definition of objectives, systematization of information, data encoding, data filtering, and data analysis.

All studies used the same parameters for estimating the potential degradation of dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) in situ as described by 0rskov and McDonald (1979):

p = a + b (1 - e^-ct),

where p is the potential degradation at time t;

         a is the readily water-soluble fraction;

         b is the potentially degradable fraction; and

        c is the degradation rate.

Additionally, the effective degradability of DM (EDDM) or CP (EDCP) was estimated as follows:

EDDM or EDCP = a + [(b * c) / (c + k)],

where k is the rate of particle passage in the rumen.

In general, the recommended particle passage rates by the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC, 1993) are 2% per hour for animals with energy consumption lower than the maintenance; 5% per hour for calves, cows, producing less than 15 kg of milk per day, and beef cattle and sheep with energy consumption less than twice the maintenance; and 8% per hour for dairy cows, producing over 15 kg of milk per day or with energy consumption more than twice the maintenance.

The feeds were classified based on protein concentration as suggested by the Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brazil in 2013. Analysis of variance was performed on SAS version 9.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NS, USA, 2002) using the mixed model and considering each article as a random variable. Differences were considered significant at P <0.05.

The processing of protein feeds did not have a significant effect on DM degradation, suggesting that protein degradation parameters were similar in meals and grains (Table 1). This lack of differences could be attributed to the fact that grains were used after grinding, which probably destroyed the protein matrix and facilitated oil separation.

Pereira & Lima (2014) modified the in situ degradability model of ørskov & McDonald (1979), replacing ordinary least squares by weighted least squares and thus, reducing the effect of animals and of measurements at different times. Therefore, the modified model allows the identification of statistical differences in studies evaluating protein degradability, even when the differences are marginal. In the present study, we identified a statistically significant trend (P <0.10) in the effective degradability at a passage rate of 2% DM per hour (Table 1) and the potentially degradable fraction of CP (Table 2). However, the modifications proposed by Pereira & Lima (2014) for the model of ørskov & McDonald (1979) were not used in our analysis, because the data were derived from previous studies, but it can be used in new studies with ruminal degradability.

The potentially degradable fraction of CP in meal (P =0.0965) tended to be higher than that in grain, a difference that could be attributed to processing. It is known that oilseed processing usually increases the proportion of digestible components in meals and yields sub-products that are used as protein supplements for animals (Can et al., 2011).

The effective degradability of CP at a passage rate of 2% per hour was significantly higher (P =0.0274) in meal than in grain, showing that meal protein might be more degradable than grain protein in the rumen of animals with energy consumption lower than the maintenance. These results could be explained by the relatively lower DM intake of animals at maintenance and the relatively higher feed residence time in the rumen, which improves the degradability of feed (Maggioni et al., 2009). Other factors that might affect the degradability of protein could be the presence of lipids and hull in the feed. The hull is the fibrous portion of grain that reduces the degradability of feed, whereas lipids facilitate bacterial degradation (Doreau et ai., 2009) by slowing down the rate of passage of digesta. Additionally, Maia et ai. (2010) reported that biohydrogenation, a process in which some bacteria break the double bonds of unsaturated fatty acids and convert them into saturated fatty acids, prevents the negative effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids. Thus, except for nitrogen and energy, it also increases the production of RUP, which is an important source of amino acids in the intestine (Maxin et al., 2013).

Soybean meal is a typical processed feed product widely used as a protein source in ruminants. The oil extraction process improves protein degradability and favors amino acid intake in the intestine without impairing the availability of nitrogen in the rumen or microbial growth (Castro et al., 2007). Furthermore, microbial protein usually has a better amino acid balance than protein in oilseeds; however, the protein that is derived from diet is an important source of amino acids suitable for post-rumen digestion and intestinal recovery (Wang et al., 2016).

Highly balanced proteins are often found in meals produced under high temperature conditions (Doiron et al., 2009), such as in toasted soybean meal, or by the use of tannins (Oliveira & Berchielli, 2007; Andrade-Montemayor et al., 2009). Mezzomo et al. (2015) reported that the use of soybean meal treated with tannin in beef cattle reduced the consumption rate, but improved the feed conversion rate, increasing the amount of muscle and decreasing the amount of fat without any change in carcass weight. These results were attributed to the increased amount of RUP and the consequent increase in the amount of metabolizable protein. However, the use of tannins increases the production cost and requires a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

In summary, our meta-analysis revealed that the degradability of DM was not affected by the processing of protein-rich ingredients. However, the effective degradability of CP at a passage rate of 2% per hour was influenced by processing, suggesting that meal protein is more degradable than grain protein in the rumen of animals with energy intake lower than the maintenance.

 

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) of the Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (MCT) through the Public Call MCT/FINEP/CT-INFRA-CAMPI REGIONAL-01/2010.

Authors' contributions

MB, JPV and AACT idealized the study and wrote the manuscript. DRMA performed the statistical analysis. DRMA, IMPH and ATN did the scientific review of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

All the authors of this study declare that they do not have any type of conflict of interest.

 

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC). Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 1993. 159 p.         [ Links ]

Andrade-Montemayor, H., Gasca, T.G. & Kawas, J., 2009. Ruminal fermentation modification of protein and carbohydrate by means of roasted and estimation of microbial protein synthesis. R. Bras. Zootec. 38(suplemento especial), 277-291.         [ Links ]

Baker, K.M. & Stein, H.H., 2009. Amino acid digestibility and concentration of digestible and metabolizable energy in soybean meal produced from conventional, high-protein, or low-oligosaccharide varieties of soybeans and fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 87(7), 2282-2290.         [ Links ]

Beran, F.H.B., Silva, L.D.F., Ribeiro, E.L.A., Castro, V.S., Correa, R.A., Kagueyama, E. & Rocha, M.A., 2005. Degradabilidade ruminal in situ da matéria seca, matéria orgänica e proteína bruta de alguns suplementos concentrados usados na alimentação de bovinos. Semin., Ciênc. Agrár. 26(3), 405-418 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Broderick, G.A. & Reynal, S.M., 2009. Effect of source of rumen-degraded protein on production and ruminal metabolism in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92(6), 2822-2834.         [ Links ]

Can, A., Hummel, J., Denekc, N. & Südekum, K.-H., 2011. Effects of non-enzymatic browning reaction intensity on in vitro ruminal protein degradation and intestinal protein digestion of soybean and cottonseed meals. Ani. Feed Sci. Technol. 163(2-4), 255-259.         [ Links ]

Castro, S.I.B., Phillip, L.E., Lapierre, H., Jardon, P.W. & Berthiaume, R., 2007. Ruminal degradability and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in treated soybean meal products. J. Dairy Sci. 90(2), 810-822.         [ Links ]

Doiron, K., Yu, P., McKinnon, J.J. & Christensen, D.A., 2009. Heat-induced protein structure and subfractions in relation to protein degradation kinetics and intestinal availability in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92(7), 3319-3330.         [ Links ]

Doreau, M., Aurousseau, E. & Martin, C., 2009. Effects of linseed lipids fed as rolled seeds, extruded seeds or oil on organic matter and crude protein digestion in cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 150(1), 187-196.         [ Links ]

Fortaleza, A.P.S., Silva, L.D.F., Ribeiro, E.L.A., Barbero, R.P., Massaro Júnior, F.L., Santos, A.X., Castro, V.S. & Castro, F.A.B., 2009. Degradabilidade ruminal in situ dos componentes nutritivos de alguns suplementos concentrados usados na alimentação de bovinos. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. Londrina 30(2), 481-496 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Garcia, J., Alcalde, C.R., Jobim, C.C., Zambom, M.A., Damasceno, J.C. & Santos, V.C., 2003. Degradabilidade in situ de alimentos concentrados e do capim Brachiaria decumbens Stapf. em diferentes crescimentos vegetativos. Acta Sci. Ani. Sci. 25(2), 387-395 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Goes, R.H.T.B., Mancio, A.B., Valadares Filho, S.C. & Lana, R.P., 2004. Degradação ruminal da matéria seca e proteína bruta, de alimentos concentrados utilizados como suplementos para novilhos. Ciênc. agrotec. 28(1), 167-173 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Goes, R.H.T.B., Souza, K.A., Nogueira, K.A.G., Pereira, D.F., Oliveira, E.R. & Brabes, K.C.S., 2011. Degradabilidade ruminal da matéria seca e proteína bruta, e tempo de colonização microbiana de oleaginosas, utilizadas na alimentação de ovinos. Acta Sci. Ani. Sci. 33(4), 373-378 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Goes, R.H.T.B., Souza, K.A., Patussi, R.A., Cornelio, T.C., Oliveira, E.R. & Brabes, K.C.S., 2010. Degradabilidade in situ dos gräos de crambe, girassol e soja, e de seus coprodutos em ovinos. Acta Sci. Ani. Sci. 32(3), 271-277 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Lean, I.J., Golder, H.M. & Hall, M.B., 2014. Feeding, evaluating, and controlling rumen function. Vet. Clin. N Am.: Food A. 30(3), 539-575.         [ Links ]

Lovatto, P.A., Lehnen, C.R., Andretta, I., Carvalho, A.D. & Hauschild, L., 2007. Meta-análise em pesquisas científícas- enfoque em metodologias. R. Bras. Zootec. 36(suplemento especial), 285-294 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Maggioni, D., Marques, J.A., Rotta, P.P., Zawadzki, F., Ito, R.H. & Prado, I.N., 2009. Ingestão de alimentos. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 30(4), 963-974 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Maia, M.R.G., Chaudhary, L.C., Bestwick, C.S., Richardson, A.J., McKain, N., Larson, T.R., Graham, I.A. & Wallace, R.J., 2010. Toxicity of unsaturated fatty acids to the biohydrogenating ruminal bacterium, Butyrivibrio fibrisoivens. BMC Microbiology 10(1), 1-10.         [ Links ]

Marcondes, M.I., Valadares Filho, S.C., Detmann, E., Valadares, R.F.D., Silva, L.F.C. & Fonseca, M.A., 2009. Degradação ruminal e digestibilidade intestinal da proteína bruta de alimentos para bovinos. R. Bras. Zootec. 38(11), 2247-2257 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Martins, A.S., Zeoula, L.M., Prado, I.N., Martins, E.N. & Loyola, V.R., 1999. Degradabilidade ruminal in situ da matéria seca e proteína bruta das silagens de milho e sorgo e de alguns alimentos concentrados. R. Bras. Zootec. 28(5), 1109-1117(in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Maxin, G., Ouellet, D.R. & Lapierre, H., 2013. Ruminal degradability of dry matter, crude protein, and amino acids in soybean meal, canola meal, corn, and wheat dried distillers grains. J. Dairy Sci. 96(8), 5151-5516.         [ Links ]

Mezzomo, R., Paulino, P.V.R., Detmann, E., Teixeira, C.R.V., Alves, L.C. & Assunção, R.N., 2015. Tannin on non-degradable digestible protein from proteic sources in cattle rumen. Acta Sci. Ani. Sci. 37(4), 389-395.         [ Links ]

Mezzomo, R., Paulino, P.V.R., Detmann, E., Valadares Filho, S.C., Paulino, M.F., Monnerat, J.P.I.S., Duarte, M.S., Silva, L.H.P. & Moura, L.S., 2011. Influence of condensed tannin on intake, digestibility, and efficiency of protein utilization in beef steers fed high concentrate diet. Livest. Sci. 141(1), 1-11.         [ Links ]

Mjoun, K., Kalscheur, K.F., Hippen, A.R. & Schingoethe D.J., 2010. Ruminal degradability and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in soybean and corn distillers grains products. J. Dairy Sci. 93(9), 4144-4154.         [ Links ]

Narsi, M.H.F., France, J., Mesgaran, M.D. & Kebreab, E., 2008. Effect of heat processing on ruminal degradability and intestinal disappearance of nitrogen and amino acids in Iranian whole soybean. Livest. Sci. 113(1), 43-51.         [ Links ]

Oliveira, M.V.M., Vargas Junior, F.M., Sanchez, L.M.B., Paris, W., Frizzo, A., Haygert, I.P., Montagner, D., Weber, A. & Cerdótes, L., 2003. Degradabilidade ruminal e digestibilidade intestinal de alimentos por intermédio da técnica in situ associada ä do saco de náilon móvel. R. Bras. Zootec. 32(6), 2023-2031 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Oliveira, S.G. & Berchielli, T.T., 2007. Potencialidades da utilização de taninos na conservação de forragens e nutrição de ruminantes. Revisão. Arch. Vet. Sci. 12(1), 1-9 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

ørskov, E.R. & McDonald, I., 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agr. Sci. 92(2), 499-503.         [ Links ]

Pereira, A.P.M.S. & Lima, C.G., 2014. Ajuste do modelo de Orskov & McDonald (1979) a dados de degradabilidade ruminal in situ utilizando mínimos quadrados ponderados. Científica 42(1), 39-45 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Pereira, J.C., Gonzalez, J., Oliveira, R.L. & Queiroz, A.C., 1999. Cinética de degradação ruminal do bagaço de cevada submetido a diferentes temperaturas de secagem. R. Bras. Zootec. 28(5), 1125-1132 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

SAS INSTITUTE. SAS user's guide: statistics, version 9.0. Cary: SAS Institute, 2002.         [ Links ]

Silva, L.D.F., Ezequiel, J.M.B., Azevedo, P.S., Barbosa, J.C., Cattelan, J.W., Resende, F.D., Seixas, J.R.C. & Carmo, F.R.G., 1999. Degradabilidade ruminal in situ da materia seca, materia orgänica e da proteína bruta de alguns alimentos em novilhos. Semin., Ciênc. Agrár. 20(1), 25-30 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Van Duinkerken, G., Blok, M.C., Bannink, A., Cone, J.W., Dijkstra, J., Van Vuuren, A.M. & Tamminga, S., 2011. Update of the Dutch protein evaluation system for ruminants: the DVE/OEB2010 system. J. Agr. Sci. 149(3), 351-367.         [ Links ]

Wang, Y., Jin, L., Wen, Q.N., Kopparapu, N.K., Liu, J., Liu, X.L. & Zhang, Y.G., 2016. Rumen degradability and small intestinal digestibility of the amino acids in four protein supplements. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 29(2), 241249.         [ Links ]

Zeoula, L.M., Martins, A.S., Alcalde, C.R., Branco, A.F., Prado, I.N. & Santos, G.T., 1999. Solubilidade e degradabilidade ruminal do amido de diferentes alimentos. R. Bras. Zootec. 28(5), 898-905 (in Portuguese with English abstract).         [ Links ]

Zhe, S., Ying, L., Hong-bao, P. & Xue-jun, G., 2014. Application of protein feed processed by microbial fermentation to dairy cow. J. Northeast Agric. Univ. 21(1), 39-44.         [ Links ]

 

 

Received 16 April 2016
Accepted 26 December 2016
First published online 28 December 2016

 

 

# Corresponding author: velhojp@ufsm.br