Seminar

on

Protein Degradability Concept of

Protein Evaluation in Ruminants.

By
Mayank Tandon
Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division,
NDRI, Karnal
email; mayanktandon1@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION

India Ranks Ist in Milk Production

91 MT/ annum for 2004-05 (NDDB,2004)

Bovines in India
Cattle 186 million
Buffaloes 97 million (Livestock Census, 2003)
Increasing @ 1% annually.
Shortage of 30-32 % of Feed

Shortage Exist both for

Energy and Protein Feeds.
Good Quality Protein Feeds are Expensive
Lower area under oil seed production
Export of oilseed

Adequate Supply of Protein is Crucial to the

Performance of Dairy Animals.

A Protein Deficiency/ Imbalance of Amino Acids

(AA) have a Dramatic Effect on
Growth
Milk production
And other functions (Walli et al., 2004)
CONCEPTUAL CHANGES IN PROTEIN SYSTEMS

A. Digestible Crude Protein System(DCP)

Starting one, Easy to use, Widely accepted & used till date

“The DCP content of feedstuffs is measure of the

N x 6.25 that has apparently disappeared in the
digestive tract.” (ARC, 1965; NRC, 1970)

B. Metabolizable Protein System (MP)

In USA, (Burroughs, et al.,1971)

“As the quantity of protein digested or absorbed in

the post ruminal portion of the digestive trace of
ruminants.”
 Comparison of Metabolizable Protein (MP) system with
NRC & ARC Digestible Protein ( DCP) systems.
Anim NRC, 1970 ARC, 1965 Metabolizible
Wt., protein (Burroughs,
et al.,1971)
Kg
Requi obse differ R, gm Obser D R, gm O Differ
red, rved ence ved ence
gm gm
150-200 355 453 -22% 348 453 -23% 486 468 +4%

200-250 448 471 -5% 383 471 -19% 469 478 -2%

213-418 555 476 +17% 447 476 -6% 461 444 +4%

213-472 519 638 -20% 512 638 -20% 542 584 -7%

224-451 604 565 +7% 435 565 -23% 433 470 -8%
C. Absorbed True Protein (AP) System
In America, very much similar to
Metabolizible Protein system.

D. Proteins Digestible in Intestine (PDI) System

In France, to replace DCP (Verite et al., 1979)

“It estimate the quantity of amino N x 6.25 absorbed

in the small intestine from the dietary proteins which
has escaped fermentation in the rumen and the
microbial protein arising from that fermentation.”
 Comparison of PDI and DCP Requirements.
(Verite et al., 1979)
Type of Wt. Level of Requirements (g/d)
animal kg production
PDI DCP
Fattening Dairy, 1.2 kg/d 635 645
Young Bull 400 Beef, 1.4 kg/d 720 740
Dairy cows maintenance 395 360
600 Last month of 600 600
pregnancy
Lact, 30 kgFCM 1895 2160
E. Digestible Protein in the Intestine System

The Dutch system; Very much similar to PDI system

“Quantity of Protein Digested in the Intestine.”

F. Crude Protein flow at the Duodenum

The German (Kaufmann,1979)

N x 6.25 flow at the duodenum; provided by
Microbial Protein + Escape Protein

G. ADPLS system
Apparently Digestible Protein Leaving Stomach
In Australia
RDP and UDP System
(Roy et al., 1977; ARC, 1980 & 1984; NRC, 1989)

Ruminants have protein requirement at 2 levels

I. The N needs of rumen microbes.
II. The protein need of the Host.

Dietary protein have 2 parts

RDP & UDP
RDP
Rumen Degradable Protein, part of the
feed protein which degraded in rumen
 Protein Degrading Microbes

Bacteria Protozoa Fungi

Bacteroides amylophilus Holotrics Niocallimastix frontalis
Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens Isotricha sp. Piromsces sp.
Streptococcus bovis Dasytricha sp. Orpinomyces joyonii
Bacteroides ruminicola
(Yokoyama and Johnson, 1988; Lockiuood et al., 1988; Asao et al ., 1993)

Enzymes for Protein Degradation in Rumen

Trypsin like proteinase, Cysteine proteinase, Serine proteinase

Metallo proteinase, Exopeptidase, Aminopeptidase, Deaminase
etc.
UDP
Undegradable Dietary Protein

“Which Escape(Bypass) the Rumen Fermentation

gets digested in the SI to supply AA.”

Later also called as Naturally Protected Proteins

Its Depends Upon

surface area available for microbial attack
chemical nature of proteins
physical consistency of proteins
other dietary components
passage rate from rumen
Determination of Protein Degradability

In vivo, using flow rates (cannulated)

In Situ Nylon Bag Technique

(Mehrez and Orskov, 1977; Orskov and Mcdonald, 1979)

Limitation
Bag size, Pore size, Sample size, Particle size,
Method of washing, etc.
In vitro
single stage technique
double stage technique (Tilley and Terry, 1963)
 Percentage of UDP in some Common Feed and Fodder
( NRC, 1985; Dutta et al., 1997; Negi et al., 1989)
Feed UDP % Feed UDP %
Maize (grain) 65 Blood meal 76 – 82
Barley 21( 11-27) Fish meal 71 – 80
Sorghum 52 Meat meal 53 – 76
Bajra 68 Brewers dried 53
Oat grain 14–20 Corn gluten 53
Wheat grain 20–36 Wheat bread 29
Cotton seed meal 41–50 Corn silage 27
Linseed meal 11–45 Rice straw 63
Ground nut meal 30 Wheat straw 45
Rapeseed meal 23 Para grass, fresh 52
Soybean meal 28 ( 15–45) Cow pea 32 – 45
Sunflower meal 24 Berseem 37 – 52
Subabul 51 – 70 Alfa-Alfa 28
 Nutrient Requirement for Lactating Cow of 400 kg B.Wt.
Producing Milk with 4% Fat (NRC, 1989)
Milk Yield, kg ME CP CP provided by Microbes UDP required
(4%fat) (MJ/d) (g/d) (8.34xME, (MJ/d)) (CP required – RDP)

0 50.44 318 420.66 Nil

1 55.65 408 464.12 Nil

2 60.86 498 507.57 Nil

3 66.07 588 551.02 36.98

4 71.27 678 594.47 83.61

5 76.48 768 637.84 130.16

6 81.7 858 681.37 176.63

7 86.91 948 724.82 223.18

8 92.12 1038 768.27 269.73

9 97.12 1128 811.72 316.28

10 102.54 1218 855.17 362.83

 In general,

Requirement for RDP = 60-65% of CP

Requirement for UDP = 35-40% of CP

( NRC, 1989)
 Various Treatments to Increase UDP Content
in the Feed Stuffs.
Treatments Method Reference Comment

Heat 125-1500 C Chalmers et al., 1954 Much of work

For 30-45 min Bartly & Deyoe,1975 Under/ over protection

HCHO 1-1.2 g HCHO/ Ferguson et al., 1967 Most studied

100g CP Chatterjee & Walli, Cost effective and
1997 widely accepted;
likely to be phase out

Esophageal Normal function Orskov & Fraser, 1969 Not Practicable

in young; for Orskov et al., 1970
Groove liquid Proteins;
Closer Salts of Na, Cu,
Ag & Zn can
effect
Cont……. ……..
Post Ruminal Surgically Fitted …….. Only for Research,
Infusion (fistula) Not Practicable

Encapsulation Gelatin capsules Strom & For good BV proteins

Tristearin coat etc. Orskove, 1984 & AA; Methionin &
of proteins Lysine, cost
Amino Acid Structural altering of For Individual AA
AA, Amos et al., Availability at SI
Analogs
Methionin hydroxy 1974 Cost
N-acetyl-Dl-Methionin
DL-Homocysteine
DL-Homocysteine
thiolactone-HCL, etc.
Feed Grinding, Pelleting, etc. …… Can either
(Heat) Increase or
Processing Disruptution of protein ……. Decrease UDP
matrix
Cont…
↓ Ruminal Antibiotics can be used Hogan & Banned, adverse
Protease weston, 1969 effect on fibre
degradability,
Activity

Metal AA Zn-Methionin, Dass, 2003 For individual AA;

Complex Zn-Lysine, Cu-Lysine Better
Mn-Methionin
Fe-Methionin

Plant Lignin, Tannin, …… Have potential to be

Secondary Terpeniods, Volatile …… used;
essential oils, Alkaloids Toxic effect
compounds etc.

↓ Retention Less stay less egradation, ….

time in Rumen ↑ Feed intake, specific .. ….
gravity, partical size,
concentrate : roughage,
salt, water, tempt.
Development of CNCPS system

AA Requirements Addressed (O'Connor et al., 1993)

Conceptual Improvement over RDP/UDP system

AA available by Microbial Protein + UDP

Feed Proteins have 3 Fractions (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996)

A ( Non Protein N)
B (True Protein)
C (Bound protein)
 B is further Fractionated B1 (Readily Degraded in Rumen)
B2 (Slowly Degraded in Rumen)
B3( Hardly Degrade in Rumen )

Composition, Ruminal Degradation and Intestinal

Digestion of Protein Fractions as per CNCPS (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996)
Fraction Composition Rumen Intestinal
Degradability % Digestibility %

A NH3, NO2, AA & Peptides Instantaneous Not reach

B1 Globulines, some Albumins Highly degradable 100

B2 Most Albumins, Glutelins 5-10 100

B3 Prolamins, denaturated 0.1-1.5 80

&extended Proteins
C N bound to lignin,Mmillard Zero Zero
Proteins
 Composition According to Borate-phosphate
Buffer as per CNCPS, (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996)
Chemical Full Fraction
Composition
PBSN Phosphate Buffer A + B1
Soluble N
PBIN Phosphate Buffer 100 - PBSN
Insoluble N
NDIN Neutral Detergent …..
Insoluble N
ADIN Acid Detergent C
Insoluble N
PBIN - NDIN …… B2
NDIN – ADIN …….. B3
 Protein fraction of some feeds Asper CNCPS
(Mondal & Walli, 2003)
Ingredients CP PD PBSN PBIN- ADIN- ADIN
% (A+B1) NDIN NDIN ( C)
(B2) (B3)
Mustard Cake 331.8 85.6 76.2 10.5 9.9 3.2

Ground nut 731.9 84.6 74.1 5.3 15.3 5.1

Cake

Barley 102.5 88.3 51.3 12.1 32.3 4.1

Wheat Bran 135.6 86.2 46,5 30.1 30.3 3.0

Wheat 89.4 85.3 37.8 30.4 27.5 4.1

Conti…..

Ingredients CP PD PBSN PBIN- ADIN- ADIN

G/kg % (A+B1) NDIN NDIN ( C)
(B2) (B3)

Deoiled Coconut 255.0 83.2 43.8 12.9 38.1 5.0

Cake
Sunflower Meal 363.1 67.6 37.7 25.3 31.1 5.8

Soybean Meal 548.1 80.2 41.6 15.9 35.7 6.7

Fish Meal 490.6 81.0 27.8 24.3 44.3 3.5
Maize Grain 125.6 76.5 23.7 57.5 14.7 3.9
Cotton Seed Cake 291.9 78.5 32.1 20.0 41.4 6.3
Maize Gluten 703.1 79.2 11.6 33.4 46.1 8.7
Meal
INDIAN CONTEXT
Indian Dairy cattle & Buffalo have
Lower Basel Metabolic rates then Temperate
Lower maintain requirements
Low producing animals.
NRC & ARC standards; for Animals raised;
Temperate Condition with High Quality Feeds.

Indian ---Tropical--- Low Producing---Poor Quality Feed

In India DCP & TDN System is More Popular

Simple, & Values are Available
 Maintenance Requirements of Adult
Cattle & Buffaloes ( ICAR, 2002)

Bt. Wt. DCP TDN ME

(kg) (g) (kg) (Mcal)
200 150 1.7 6.0

300 200 2.4 8.4

400 250 3.0 10.8

500 300 3.7 13.2

 Requirements of Milch Animals Over and Above
the Maintains Allowance ( per kg or liter of Milk)

% Fat in Milk DCP (g) TDN ( kg) ME (M cal)

3 40 0.27 0.97
4 45 0.315 1.13
5 51 0.370 1.28
6 57 0.410 1.36
7 63 0.460 1.54
8 69 0.510 1.80
9 75 0.550 2.06
10 81 0.600 2.16
(ICAR, 2002)
 In last Decade,

Lots of work has been done on RDP/UDP

Including Various Treatment to Increase UDP Values

Feed Industry has Adopted Heat & HCHO Treatment

Recently Work is going on CNCPS system

Protein degradability Concept

At Present Most in Use

DCP; RDP/UDP & CNCPS

RDP/ UDP system is Mostly Followed

World Wide ( NRC, 1989)
Response of Dairy Animals to RDP/UDP
System Feeding

Or

Work Done by Various Scientist on

Degradability Concept
Effects of RDP on ruminal fermentation

pH: no change or decrease

Ammonia : reduces

Total free AA: reduces

TVFA/ IVFA : no change

(Hristov et al., 2004)
 Effect of feeding concentrate mixtures with Varying
levels of RDP to UDP on the yield and composition
of milk in crossbred cows ( Kabande & Thomas, 1999)
Particular Concentrate Mixtures
A B C
Animals 6 6 6
RDP : UDP 37 : 63 52 : 48 70 : 30
Milk yield (kg/d) 10.1 7.18 6.32
Fat ( %) 4.68 4.63 4.64
Protein ( %) 3.63 3.48 3.46
Total solids ( %) 13.55 13.46 13.41
GNC, Gingelly C, CSC, Coconut C, Maize,
Wheat Bran, MM, Salt; Grass were Fed Adlib
 Effect of graded level of UDP feeding on milk
Yield and composition (Chaturvedi & Walli, 2001)
Attributes Diets
a
T1 T2 T3
Cows 5 5 5
RDP : UDP 71 : 29 58 : 42 44 : 56
DMI ( kg/d) 11.54 10.66 11.18
Milk Yield ( kg/d) 9.81 9.87 10.09
4%, FCM (kg/d) 9.68 9.81 10.47
Fat (% ) 3.93 4.01 4.27
Protein ( %) 3.48 3.5 3.57
SNF ( %) 8.91 8.96 8.99
Total Solids ( %) 12.83 12.96 13.19

Wt. 460 kg; Maize fodder & wheat straw

Barley,GNC, CSC, MGM, WB, MM, Salt
 Performance of milk yielding cows on different
degradable diets (Aharoni et al., 1993)

Parameters HD LD
Cows, no. 40 45
CP (%) TMR 16.7 16.9
CP degradability ( %) 69 64
Initial Wt (kg) 546 564
BW change ( kg/d) 0.178 0.146
Milk Yield ( kg/d) 31.8 33.4
Protein ( %) 3.04 3.06
Fat (%) 3.32 3.66
 Effect of High & Low RUP Diets on Milk Yield
& Composition in Dairy Cows ( Dunlap et al., 2000)
Attributes Dietary Treatments
High RUP Low RUP
Cows , no. 30 30
CP % of Diet 16 16
RUP ( % of CP) 35.4 28.6
DMI (kg/d) 21.3 21.4
Milk yield kg/d 32.6 32.2
3.5 % FCM (kg/d) 33.9 33.8
Fat ( %) 4.31 4.39
Protein ( %) 3.35 3.34
Milk yield, fat & protein % on feeding 1 kg bypass
protein supplement ( Garg et al., 2002)

Parameters Control Experiment

Cows, No 8 8
Milk yield, kg 14.1 15.2
Fat, % 4.4 4.6
Protein, % 3.2 3.5

Maize Fodder, Paddy Straw & Oat Silage

1 kg procted ( HCHO) Sunflower Meal,
CP 28%, UDP 74% of CP
 Nutritional facts for RDP/UDP

Good Utilization of Microbial Protein Synthesis

Additional Supply of AA/EAA at SI

Low Ammonia Production in Rumen

Low Urea Synthesis in Liver

Energy Savings

Excess AA go for Gluconeogenesis

Some Researchers have Reported Increased Milk
Productions when Fed Higher Levels of UDP
while others have not Observed any Significant
Increase in Milk Yield

(Sampath et al., 2003)

Naturally Protected Protein are often reported to have

Methionine & Lysine as Limiting A A
 Indian condition really need
UDP ( Bypass proteins) ?!

Maintenance
Low producing Animals

Mid Producer – Naturally Protected

High producing – treatments

Methionine & Lysine

– Microbial Protein (Strom & Orskove, 1989)
- Naturally protected
 Better Utilization of Protein Resources

Total Protein Available from Concentrate in India

is estimated to be around 8.5-9 million tones

Which can Support production of only 0.45 million

tonnes of Milk Proteins by the present mode of its
Utilization

Studies showed that when Protein Degradation in Rumen

is controlled and it is made to Bypass, the same can
support the production of 1.72 million of Milk Proteins
( Sharma, K. 2003)
Conclusion

Increases DMI
Increase in milk production ( 10-15%)
Increase in B. W. Gain
EAA reach to SI
Microbial Protein Synthesis; is Energy dependent
Process
Use of NPN should be Optimized
RDP/ UDP ratio should be Optimized