Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:54:51.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of protein supplementation for growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets: a meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2014

A. Huuskonen ,
P. Huhtanen  and
E. Joki-Tokola
A. Huuskonen*
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
P. Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-90183 Umeå, Sweden
E. Joki-Tokola
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this meta-analysis was to develop empirical equations predicting growth responses of growing cattle to protein intake. Overall, the data set comprised 199 diets in 80 studies. The diets were mainly based on grass silage or grass silage partly or completely replaced by whole-crop silages or straw. The concentrate feeds consisted of cereal grains, fibrous by-products and protein supplements. The analyses were conducted both comprehensively for all studies and also separately for studies in which soybean meal (SBM; n=71 diets/28 studies), fish meal (FM; 27/12) and rapeseed meal (RSM; 74/35) were used as a protein supplement. Increasing dietary CP concentration increased (P<0.01) BW gain (BWG), but the responses were quantitatively small (1.4 g per 1 g/kg dry matter (DM) increase in dietary CP concentration). The BWG responses were not different for bulls v. steers and heifers (1.4 v. 1.3 g per 1 g/kg DM increase in dietary CP concentration) and for dairy v. beef breeds (1.2 v. 1.7 g per 1 g/kg, respectively). The effect of increased CP concentration declined (P<0.01) with increasing mean BW of the animals and with improved BWG of the control animals (the lowest CP diet in each study). The BWG responses to protein supplementation were not related to the CP concentration in the control diet. The BWG responses increased (P<0.05) with increased ammonia N concentration in silage N and declined marginally (P>0.10) with increasing proportion of concentrate in the diet. All protein supplements had a significant effect on BWG, but the effects were greater for RSM (P<0.01) and FM (P<0.05) than for SBM. Increasing dietary CP concentration improved (P<0.01) feed efficiency when expressed as BWG/kg DM intake, but decreased markedly when expressed as BWG/kg CP intake. Assuming CP concentration of 170 g/kg BW marginal efficiency of the utilisation of incremental CP intake was only 0.05. Increasing dietary CP concentration had no effects on carcass weight, dressing proportion or conformation score, but it increased (P<0.01) fat score. Owing to limited production responses, higher prices of protein supplements compared with cereal grains and possible increases the N and P emissions, there is generally no benefit from using protein supplementation for growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets, provided that the supply of rumen-degradable protein is not limiting digestion in the rumen.

Keywords

protein supplementationgrowing cattlemeta-analysisgrowthcarcass characteristics
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1653 - 1662
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

ARC 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Aronen, I 1990. Barley protein and rapeseed meal as protein supplements for growing cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 40, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronen, I 1992. Quality of supplementary feed protein for growing cattle. PhD, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Aronen, I and Vanhatalo, A 1992. Heat-moisture treatment of rapeseed meal: effect on diet digestion, voluntary grass silage intake and growth of Ay-bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 42, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronen, I, Toivonen, V, Ketoja, E and Öfversten, J 1992. Beef production as influenced by stage of maturity of grass for silage and level and type of supplementary concentrates. Agricultural Science in Finland 1, 441–460.Google Scholar
Belsley, DA, Kuh, E and Welsch, RE 1980. Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley and Sons Inc., NewYork, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, NA, Greene, LW, McCollum, FT, Montgomery, T and McBride, KW 2003. Influence of oscillating dietary crude protein concentration on performance, acid-base balance, and nitrogen excretion of steers. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2660–2668.Google Scholar
Dou, Z, Ferguson, JD, Fiorini, J, Toth, JD, Alexander, SM, Chase, LE, Ryan, CM, Knowlton, KF, Kohn, RA, Peterson, AB, Sims, JT and Wu, Z 2003. Phosphorus feeding levels and critical control points on dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3787–3795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC 2006. Council regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of the European Union L 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
Geay, Y 1984. Energy and protein utilization in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58, 766–778.Google Scholar
Griswold, KE, Apgar, GA, Bouton, J and Firkins, JL 2003. Effects of urea infusion and ruminal degradable protein concentration on microbial growth, digestibility, and fermentation in continuous culture. Journal of Animal Science 81, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagemeister, H, Lüpping, W and Kaufmann, W 1980. Microbial protein synthesis and digestion in the high-yielding dairy cow. In Recent advances in animal nutrition – 1980 (ed. W Haresign), pp. 67–84. Butterworths, London, UK.Google Scholar
Herva, T, Huuskonen, A, Virtala, A-M and Peltoniemi, O 2011. On-farm welfare and carcass fat score of bulls at slaughter. Livestock Science 138, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Näsi, M and Khalili, H 1989. By-products from integrated starch-ethanol production from barley in the diets of growing cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 61, 451–462.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Nousiainen, J and Rinne, M 2006. Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 293–323.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2008. Effects of silage soluble N components on metabolizable protein concentration: a meta-analysis of dairy cow production experiments. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1150–1158.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Hetta, M and Swensson, C 2011. Evaluation of canola meal as a protein supplement for dairy cows: a review and a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 529–543.Google Scholar
Hussein, HS and Jordan, RM 1991. Fish meal as a protein supplement in ruminant diets: a review. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2147–2156.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2009a. Concentrate feeding strategies for growing and finishing dairy bulls offered grass silage-based diets. PhD, University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2009b. The effect of cereal type (barley versus oats) and rapeseed meal supplementation on the performance of growing and finishing dairy bulls offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Science 122, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2011. Effects of barley grain compared to commercial concentrate or rapeseed meal supplementation on performance of growing dairy bulls offered grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 20, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2013. Performance of growing dairy bulls offered diets based on whole-crop barley with or without protein supplementation relative to grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 424–434.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Khalili, H and Joki-Tokola, E 2007. Effects of three different concentrate proportions and rapeseed meal supplement to grass silage on animal performance of dairy-breed bulls with TMR feeding. Livestock Science 110, 154–165.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Khalili, H and Joki-Tokola, E 2008. Need for protein supplementation in the diet of growing dairy bulls fed total mixed ration based on moderate digestible grass silage and barley. Agricultural and Food Science 17, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakkola, S, Huhtanen, P and Vanhatalo, A 1990. Fermentation quality of grass silage treated with enzymes or formic acid and nutritive value in growing cattle fed with or without fish meal. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 40, 403–414.Google Scholar
Jonker, JS, Kohn, RA and High, J 2002. Dairy herd management practices that impact nitrogen utilization efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1218–1226.Google Scholar
Klevesahl, EA, Cochran, RC, Titgemeyer, EC, Wickersham, TA, Farmer, CG, Arroquy, JI and Johnson, DE 2003. Effect of a wide range in the ratio of supplemental rumen degradable protein to starch on utilization of low-quality grass hay by beef steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 105, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, BP and Heinrichs, AJ 2000. The response of altering the ratio of dietary protein to energy on growth, feed efficiency, and mammary development in rapidly growing prepubertal heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 977–983.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW and Wolfinger, RD 1996. SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Neilson, DR and Hunter, EA 1985. The effect of growth promoters of fattening cattle: growth, intake and carcass composition. Animal Production 40, 538.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR, Bertilsson, J, Olsson, I, Spörndly, R, Harstad, OM, Volden, H, Tuori, M, Varvikko, T, Huhtanen, P and Olafsson, BL 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants. A revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science (suppl. 19), 3–37.Google Scholar
MAFF 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants (Reference book 433). Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Marini, JC and Van Amburgh, ME 2003. Nitrogen metabolism and recycling in Holstein heifers. Journal of Animal Science 81, 545–552.Google Scholar
Martineau, R, Quellet, DR and Lapierre, H 2013. Feeding canola meal to dairy cows: a meta-analysis on lactational responses. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 1701–1714.Google Scholar
Martín-Orue, SM, Balcells, J, Vicente, F and Castrillo, C 2000. Influence of dietary rumen-degradable protein supply on rumen characteristics and carbohydrate fermentation in beef cattle offered high-grain diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 88, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, M 2005. Recent developments in feeding beef cattle on grass silage-based diets. In Silage production and utilization (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge). Proceedings of 14th International Silage Conference, July, Belfast, Northern Ireland, pp. 51–64. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Moloney, AP 1991. Growth, digestibility and nitrogen retention in young Friesian steers offered grass silage and concentrates which differed in protein concentration and degradability. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, 9–14 June, Herning, Denmark, pp. 342–344.Google Scholar
MTT 2014. Feed tables and nutrient requirements. MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.mtt.fi/feedtables Google Scholar
Nousiainen, J, Rinne, M and Huhtanen, P 2009. A meta-analysis of feed digestion in dairy cows. 2. The effects of feeding level and diet composition on digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5031–5042.Google Scholar
Olsson, I 1987. Effect of protein supply on the performance of intensively reared bulls. Evaluation of the DCP and the Nordic AAT-PBV protein evaluation system. PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ondersteijn, CJM, Beldman, ACG, Daatselaar, CHG, Giesen, GWJ and Huirne, RBM 2002. The Dutch mineral accounting system and the European nitrate directive: implications for N and P management and farm performance. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesonen, M, Honkavaara, M, Kämäräinen, H, Tolonen, T, Jaakkola, M, Virtanen, V and Huuskonen, A 2013. Effects of concentrate level and rapeseed meal supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and valuable cuts of Hereford and Charolais bulls offered grass silage-barley-based rations. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 151–167.Google Scholar
Rouzbehan, Y, Galbraith, H, Topps, JH and Rooke, J 1996. Response of growing steers to diets containing big bale silage and supplements of molassed sugar beet pulp with and without white fish meal. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollan, ND, Sargeant, A, McAllan, AB and Dhanoa, MS 2001. Protein supplementation of grass silages of differing digestibility for growing steers. Journal of Agricultural Science 136, 89–98.Google Scholar
Shingfield, K, Vanhatalo, A and Huhtanen, P 2003. Comparison of heat-treated rapeseed expeller and solvent-extracted soya-bean meal protein supplements for dairy cows given grass silage-based diets. Animal Science 77, 305–317.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1988a. Factors affecting the utilisation of grass silage for beef production. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. J Frame), pp. 129–139. British Grassland Society, Maidenhead, UK.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1988b. The effect of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of beef cattle to protein supplementation of silage-based diets. Animal Production 47, 21–28.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1991. The effect of level of protein supplementation on the performance and carcass composition of young bulls given grass silage ad libitum . Animal Production 52, 465–475.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1992. A comparison of soya-bean meal, fish meal and maize gluten feed as protein sources for calves offered grass silage ad libitum . Animal Production 54, 333–339.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1996. Effects of protein supplementation of grass silage on the performance and carcass quality of beef cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 127, 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ and Moore, CA 1988. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 47, 29–37.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ and Moore, CA 1989. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets, and the effects of protein supplementation of a silage-based diet for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 49, 233–240.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Invited review. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.Google Scholar
Titgemeyer, EC and Löest, CA 2001. Amino acid nutrition: demand and supply in forage-fed ruminats. Journal of Animal Science 79 (E suppl.), E180–E189.Google Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV and Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of the protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.Google Scholar
Veira, DM, Petit, HV, Proulx, JG, Laflamme, L and Butler, G 1995. A comparison of five protein sources as supplements for growing steers fed grass silage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 567–574.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Flux, DS and Ulyatt, MJ 1987. Effects of dietary protein and energy intakes on growth hormone, insulin, glucose tolerance and fatty acid synthesis in young wether sheep. Animal Production 44, 143–152.Google Scholar
Wheeler, JS, Lalman, DL, Horn, GW, Redmon, LA and Lents, CA 2002. Effects of supplementation on intake, digestion, and performance of beef cattle consuming fertilized, stockpiled bermudagrass forage. Journal of Animal Science 80, 780–789.Google Scholar
Zinn, RA, Borquez, JL and Plascenia, A 1994. Influence of levels of supplemental urea on characteristics of digestion and growth performance of feedlot steers fed a fat-supplemented high-energy finishing diet. Professional Animal Scientist 10, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinn, RA, Barrajas, R, Montano, M and Ware, RA 2003. Influence of dietary urea level on digestive function and growth performance of cattle fed steam-flaked barley-based finishing diets. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2383–2389.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit

Download Supplementary material(File)
File 44.5 KB