Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:30:48.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The partial replacement of soyabean meal and rapeseed meal with feed grade urea or a slow-release urea and its effect on the performance, metabolism and digestibility in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2011

L. A. Sinclair ,
C. W. Blake ,
P. Griffin  and
G. H. Jones
L. A. Sinclair*
Affiliation:
Animal Science Research Centre, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
C. W. Blake
Affiliation:
Animal Science Research Centre, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
P. Griffin
Affiliation:
Animal Science Research Centre, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
G. H. Jones
Affiliation:
Animal Science Research Centre, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*
†E-mail: lsinclair@harper-adams.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to determine the effect of the partial replacement of soyabean meal and rapeseed meal with feed grade urea or a slow-release urea on the performance, metabolism and whole-tract digestibility in mid-lactation dairy cows. Forty-two Holstein–Friesian dairy cows were allocated to one of three dietary treatments in each of three periods of 5 weeks duration in a Latin square design. Control (C) cows were offered a total mixed ration based on grass and maize silages and straight feeds that included 93 g/kg dry matter (DM) soyabean meal and 61 g/kg DM rapeseed meal. Cows that received either of the other two treatments were offered the same basal ration with the replacement of 28 g/kg DM soyabean and 19 g/kg DM rapeseed meal with either 5 g/kg DM feed grade urea (U) or 5.5 g/kg DM of the slow-release urea (S; Optigen®; Alltech Inc., Kentucky, USA), with the content of maize silage increasing. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of dietary treatment on DM intake, which averaged 22.5 kg/day. Similarly, there was no effect (P > 0.05) of treatment on daily milk or milk fat yield but there was a trend (P = 0.09) for cows offered either of the diets containing urea to have a higher milk fat content (average of 40.1 g/kg for U and S v. 38.9 g/kg for C). Milk true protein concentration and yield were not affected by treatment (P > 0.05). Milk yield from forage and N efficiency (g milk N output/g N intake) were highest (P < 0.01) in cows when offered S and lowest in C, with cows receiving U having intermediate values. Cows offered S also tended to have the highest live weight gain (0.38 kg/day) followed by U (0.23 kg/day) and C (0.01 kg/day; P = 0.07). Plasma urea concentrations were higher (P < 0.05) at 2 and 4 h post feeding in cows when offered U and lowest in C, with animals receiving S having intermediate values. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of treatment on whole-tract digestibility. In conclusion, the partial replacement of soyabean meal and rapeseed meal with feed grade urea or a slow-release urea can be achieved without affecting milk performance or diet digestibility, with the efficiency of conversion of dietary N into milk being improved when the slow-release urea was fed.

Keywords

ammoniadigestibilitymilkproteinurea
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 920 - 927
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Bartley, EE, Davidovich, AD, Barr, GW, Griffel, GW, Dayton, AD, Deyoe, CW, Bechtle, RM 1976. Ammonia toxicity in cattle. 1. Rumen and blood changes associated with toxicity and treatment methods. Journal of Animal Science 43, 835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA 1991. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration and alfalfa hay quality on chewing, rumen function, and milk-production of dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3140–3151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briceno, JV, Van Horn, HH, JrHarris, B, Wilcox, CJ 1987. Effects of neutral detergent fiber and roughage source on dry matter intake and milk yield and composition of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 70, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brito, AF, Broderick, GA 2007. Effects of different protein supplements on milk production and nutrient utilization in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1816–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castillo, AR, Kebreab, E, Beever, DE, France, J 2000. A review of efficiency of nitrogen utilisation in lactating dairy cows and its relationship with environmental pollution. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 9, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, HR, Baile, CA, Mayer, J 1977. Changing meal patterns and suppression of feed intake with increasing amounts of dietary nonprotein nitrogen in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 60, 1725–1733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currier, TA, Bohnert, DW, Falck, SJ, Bartle, SJ 2004. Daily and alternate day supplementation of urea or biuret to ruminants consuming low-quality forage: 1. Effects on cow performance and the efficiency of nitrogen use in wethers. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1508–1517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galo, E, Emanuele, SM, Sniffen, CJ, White, JH, Knapp, JR 2003. Effects of a polymer coated urea product on nitrogen metabolism in lactating Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2154–2162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombeski, GL, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR, Schingoethe, DJ 2006. Slow-release urea and highly fermentable sugars in diets fed to lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4395–4403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Highstreet, A, Robinson, PH, Robison, J, Garrett, JG 2010. Response of Holstein cows to replacing urea with a slowly rumen released urea in a diet high in soluble protein. Livestock Science 129, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RR, Clemens, ET 1973. Adaptation of rumen microorganisms to biuret as an NPN supplement to low quality roughage rations for cattle and sheep. Journal of Nutrition 103, 494–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köster, HH, Cochran, RC, Titgemeyer, EC, Vanzant, ES, Nagaraja, TG, Kreikemeier, KK, St. Jean, G 1997. Effect of increasing proportion of supplemental nitrogen from urea on intake and utilization of low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage by beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1393–1399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobley, GE, Connell, A, Lomax, MA, Brown, DS, Milne, E, Calder, AG, Farningham, DAH 1995. Hepatic detoxification of ammonia in the ovine liver: possible consequences for amino acid metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition 73, 677–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA, Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. East of Scotland College of Agriculture Bulletin No. 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) 1982. The feeding stuffs (sampling and analysis) regulations statutory instrument no. 1144. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Nolan, JV 1993. Nitrogen kinetics. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. JM Forbes and J France), pp. 123–143. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER, McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, RW, Harding, SA, Murray, DA, Soutar, DM, Baird, DB, Glaser, AI, Welham, SJ, Gilmour, AR, Thompson, R, Webster, R 2010. Genstat Release 13 reference manual. VSN International, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Richardson, JM, Wilkinson, RG, Sinclair, LA 2003. Synchrony of nutrient supply to the rumen and dietary energy source and their effects on the growth and metabolism of lambs. Journal of Animal Science 81, 1332–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, JB, O'Connor, JD, Fox, DG, Van Soest, PJ, Sniffen, CJ 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets. 1. Ruminal fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3551–3561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadeghi, AA, Shawrang, P 2006. The effect of natural zeolite on nutrient digestibility, carcass traits and performance of Holstein steers given a diet containing urea. Animal Science 82, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, FAP, Santos, JEP, Theurer, CB, Huber, JT 1998. Effects or rumen-undegradable protein on dairy cow performance: a 12-year literature review. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 3182–3213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silveira, VA, Lopes, NM, Oliveira, RC, Gonzales, B, Siqueira, AV, Bier, LPP, Zoni, MS, Giardini, W, Almeida, R, Pereira, MN 2010. Partial replacement of soyabean meal by encapsulated urea in commercial dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 93 (suppl. 1), 442.Google Scholar
Sinclair, LA 2008. Rate of nitrogen and energy release in the rumen and effects on feed utilisation and animal performance. In Gut efficiency; the key ingredient in ruminant production (ed. S Andrieu and D Wilde), pp. 61–78. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sinclair, KD, Sinclair, LA, Robinson, JJ 2000. Nitrogen metabolism and fertility in cattle: 1. Adaptive changes in intake and metabolism to diets differing in their rate of energy and nitrogen release in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2659–2669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, LA, Huntington, JA, Wilde, D 2008. Partial replacement of soyabean meal and rapeseed meal with a slow release urea source (Optigen) and its effect on microbial growth and metabolism in vitro. British Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, Scarborough, UK Abstract 228.Google Scholar
Sinclair, LA, Jackson, MA, Huntington, JA, Readman, RJ 2005. The effects of processed and urea-treated whole-crop wheat, maize silage and supplement type to whole-crop wheat on the performance of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 95, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, JD, Cammell, SB, Phipps, RH, Beever, DE, Humphries, DJ 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 2. Ruminal and post-ruminal digestion. Animal Science 71, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symonds, HW, Mather, DL, Collis, KA 1981. The maximum capacity of the liver of the adult dairy cow to metabolize ammonia. British Journal of Nutrition 46, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tedeschi, LO, Baker, MJ, Ketchen, DJ, Fox, DG 2002. Performance of growing and finishing cattle supplemented with a slow-release urea product and urea. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, TA 1977. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C 2004. Feed into milk. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J, Young, BA 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, WR, Murray, RD, White, AR, Rees, EM 1995. The use of blood biochemistry for determining the nutritional status of dairy cows. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. PC Garnsworthy and DJA Cole), pp. 29–51. Nottingham University Press, UK.Google Scholar
Witt, MW, Sinclair, LA, Wilkinson, RG, Buttery, PJ 1999. The effects of synchronising the rate of dietary energy and nitrogen supply to the rumen on the production and metabolism of sheep. Feed characterization and growth and metabolism of ewe lambs fed ad libitum. Animal Science 69, 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar