Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T22:23:35.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation of in situ rumen degradation of crude protein and amino acids and in vitro digestibility of undegraded feed protein in rapeseed meals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2013

H. Steingass ,
G. Kneer ,
G. Wischer  and
M. Rodehutscord
H. Steingass*
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
G. Kneer
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
G. Wischer
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Rodehutscord
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In this study, 10 samples of rapeseed meal (RSM) from 10 different oil plants in Germany were examined. In situ rumen degradation of CP was determined by incubation over 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 72 h in duplicate per time point using three rumen fistulated dry cows. Degradation kinetics were estimated by an exponential model and effective CP degradation was calculated. Degradation was corrected for small particle loss as the difference between washing loss and water-soluble fraction. Amino acid analysis was carried out in the samples and in the residues after 8 and 16 h of incubation in situ and degradation of individual amino acids was calculated for these incubation times. In vitro pepsin–pancreatin digestibility of CP (IPD) was determined in the samples as well as in the 8 and 16 h residues. Effective CP degradation for a rumen outflow rate of 8%/h (ED8) averaged 54.3% with a considerable variation among samples ranging from 44.3% to 62.7%. A multiple regression equation containing acid detergent insoluble N, total glucosinolates and petroleum ether extract as independent variables predicted ED8 with satisfying accuracy (R2 = 0.74; RSD = 6.4%). Degradation of amino acids was different from that of CP for most amino acids studied, especially after 8 h of incubation. Compared with CP, degradation of essential amino acids was predominantly lower while degradation of non-essential amino acids was higher in most cases. However, for lysine and methionine no distinct difference with CP degradation was found. Degradation of individual amino acids was predicted from CP degradation with high accuracy using linear regression equations. Average IPD of RSM was 79.8 ± 2.6%. IPD was lower in the incubation residues and decreased with longer incubation time and increasing rumen degradation, respectively.

Keywords

protein evaluationruminantspredictiondegradationpepsin–pancreatin solubility
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1119 - 1127
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Boila, RJ, Ingalls, JR 1995. Prediction of rumen undegradable amino acids that are digested post-ruminally. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 583–592.Google Scholar
Boisen, S, Fernández, JA 1995. Prediction of the apparent ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in feedstuffs and feed mixtures for pigs by in vitro analyses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 51, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal veevoederbureau (CVB) 2000. Veevoedertabel 2000. Gegevens over chemische sammenstelling, verteerbaarheid, en voederwaarde van voedermiddelen. Centraal veevoederbureau, Lelystad, NL.Google Scholar
Čerešňáková, Z, Sommer, A, Chrenková, M, Dolešová, P 2002. Amino acid profile of escaped feed protein after rumen incubation and their intestinal digestibility. Archives of Animal Nutrition 56, 409–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Dakowski, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T 1996. The effect of temperature during processing of rapeseed meal on amino acid degradation in the rumen and digestion in the intestine. Animal Feed Science and Technology 58, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (EC) 1990. Oilseeds – determination of glucosinolates – high performance liquid chromatography. Official Journal of the European Communities L170 33, 27–34.Google Scholar
Foreign Agricultural Service/United States Department of Agriculture (FAS/USDA). Oilseeds: World market and trade. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.fas.usda.gov/cots/oilseeds.aspGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie (GfE) 2001. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder. DLG Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
Homolka, P, Harazim, J, Třináctý, J 2007. Nitrogen degradability and intestinal digestibility of rumen undegraded protein in rapeseed, rapeseed meal and extracted rapeseed meal. Czech Journal of Animal Science 52, 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristov, AN, Price, WJ, Shafii, B 2005. A meta-analysis on the relationship between intake of nutrients and body weight with milk volume and milk protein yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2860–2869.Google Scholar
Kendall, EM, Ingalls, JR, Boila, RJ 1991. Variability in the rumen degradability and postruminal digestion of the dry matter, nitrogen and amino acids of canola meal. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 739–754.Google Scholar
Krishnamoorthy, U, Muscato, TV, Sniffen, CJ, Van Soest, PJ 1982. Nitrogen fractions in selected feedstuffs. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 217–225.Google Scholar
Lardy, GP, Catlett, GE, Kerley, MS, Paterson, JA 1993. Determination of the ruminal escape value and duodenal amino acid flow of rapeseed meal. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3096–3104.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM, Van Soest, PJ 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR, Bertilsson, J, Olsson, I, Spörndly, R, Harstad, OM, Volden, H, Tuori, M, Varvikko, T, Huhtanen, P, Olafsson, BL 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants. A revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science (Suppl. 19), 1–37.Google Scholar
Moshtagi Nia, SA, Ingalls, JR 1995. Evaluation of moist heat treatment of canola meal on digestion in the rumen, small intestine, large intestine and total tract of steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 279–283.Google Scholar
Moss, AR, Givens, DI 1994. The chemical composition, digestibility, metabolisable energy content and nitrogen degradability of some protein concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 47, 335–351.Google Scholar
Newkirk, RW, Classen, HL, Scott, TA, Edney, MJ 2003. The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER, McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein disappearance in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Prestløkken, E 1999. In situ ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of dry matter and protein in expanded feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 77, 1–23.Google Scholar
Rodehutscord, M, Kapocius, M, Timmler, R, Dieckmann, A 2004. Linear regression approach to study amino acid digestibility in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science 45, 85–92.Google Scholar
Rulquin, H, Vérité, R, Guinard-Flament, J 2001. Acides aminés digestible dans l′intestin. Le système AADI et les recommandations d'apport pour la vache laitière. INRA Productions Animales 14, 265–274.Google Scholar
Sadik, MS, Huber, JT, King, K, Wanderley, R, DeYoung, D, Al-Dehneh, A, Dudas, C 1990. Comparison of nitrogen-15 and diaminopimelic acid for estimating bacterial protein synthesis of lactating cows fed diets of varying protein degradability. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 694–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses and fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL.Google Scholar
Schöne, F, Rudolph, B, Kirchheim, U, Knapp, G 1997. Counteracting the negative effects of rapeseed and rapeseed press cake in pig diets. British Journal of Nutrition 78, 947–962.Google Scholar
Tan, SH, Mailer, RJ, Blanchard, CL, Agboola, SO 2011. Canola proteins for human consumption: extraction, profile, and functional properties. Journal of Food Science 76, 16–28.Google Scholar
Tripathi, MK, Mishra, AS 2007. Glucosinolates in animal nutrition: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132, 1–27.Google Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV, Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.Google Scholar
Union zur Förderung von Oel- und Proteinpflanzen (UFOP): Produktion, Einfuhr und Ausfuhr von Ölschroten in 1.000 t. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from http://www.ufop.de/3805.phpGoogle Scholar
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 2006. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA Methodenbuch), Band III: Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, MR, Bhargava, PK, Hvelplund, T, Madsen, J 1990. Anvendelse af nedbrydningsprofiler i fodermiddelvurderingen, Report No. 679. National Institute of Animal Science, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T, Hellberg, S, Olsson, S, Sanne, S 1996. Effective rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of individual amino acids in different concentrates determined in situ. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, VB, Moloney, AP, O'Mara, FP 2003a. The nutritive value of concentrate feedstuffs for ruminant animals. Part II. In situ ruminal degradability of crude protein. Animal Feed Science and Technology 110, 131–143.Google Scholar
Woods, VB, Moloney, AP, Calsamiglia, S, O'Mara, FP 2003b. The nutritive value of concentrate feedstuffs for ruminant animals. Part III. Small intestinal digestibility as measured by in vitro or mobile bag techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 110, 145–157.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T, Długołęcka, Z, Pajak, JJ, Korczyński, W 1997. Rumen degradability of concentrate protein, amino acids and starch, and their digestibility in the small intestine of cows. Journal of Animal and Feed Science 6, 451–470.Google Scholar