Rdp-udp Protein Seminar

Seminar on

Protein Degradability Concept of Protein Evaluation in Ruminants. By Mayank Tandon Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division, NDRI, Karnal email; [email protected]

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 Wt., Kg

NRC, 1970

ARC, 1965

Metabolizible protein (Burroughs, et al.,1971)

Requi obse differ red, rved ence gm gm

R, gm Obser ved

D

R, gm

O

Differ ence

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 production kg PDI DCP Fattening Young Bull

400

Dairy cows 600

Dairy, 1.2 kg/d

635

645

Beef, 1.4 kg/d

720

740

maintenance

395

360

Last month of 600 pregnancy Lact, 30 kgFCM 1895

600 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

Bacteroides amylophilus Holotrics Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens Isotricha sp. Streptococcus bovis Dasytricha sp. Bacteroides ruminicola

Fungi Niocallimastix frontalis Piromsces sp. Orpinomyces joyonii

(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 (4%fat)

ME (MJ/d)

CP (g/d)

CP provided by Microbes

(8.34xME, (MJ/d))

UDP required (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 For 30-45 min

Chalmers et al., 1954 Bartly & Deyoe,1975

Much of work Under/ over protection

HCHO

1-1.2 g HCHO/ 100g CP

Ferguson et al., 1967 Chatterjee & Walli, 1997

Most studied Cost effective and widely accepted; likely to be phase out

Esophageal Groove Closer

Normal function in young; for liquid Proteins; Salts of Na, Cu, Ag & Zn can effect

Orskov & Fraser, 1969 Not Practicable Orskov et al., 1970

Cont……. Post Ruminal Surgically Fitted Infusion (fistula)

Encapsulation Gelatin capsules Tristearin coat etc. of proteins Amino Acid Analogs

Structural altering of AA, Methionin hydroxy N-acetyl-Dl-Methionin DL-Homocysteine DL-Homocysteine thiolactone-HCL, etc.

Feed Processing

Grinding, Pelleting, etc. (Heat) Disruptution of protein matrix

…….. ……..

Strom & Orskove, 1984

Amos et al., 1974

…… …….

Only for Research, Not Practicable For good BV proteins & AA; Methionin & Lysine, cost For Individual AA Availability at SI Cost

Can either Increase or Decrease UDP

Cont…

↓ Ruminal Protease Activity

Antibiotics can be used

Hogan & weston, 1969

Banned, adverse effect on fibre degradability,

Metal AA Complex

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

Dass, 2003

For individual AA; Better

Plant Secondary compounds

Lignin, Tannin, Terpeniods, Volatile essential oils, Alkaloids etc.

…… ……

Have potential to be used; Toxic effect

↓ Retention time in Rumen

Less stay less egradation,

↑ 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 Degradability %

Intestinal 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 &extended Proteins

0.1-1.5

80

C

N bound to lignin,Mmillard Proteins

Zero

Zero

Composition According to Borate-phosphate Buffer as per CNCPS, (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996) Chemical Composition

Full

Fraction

PBSN

Phosphate Buffer Soluble N Phosphate Buffer Insoluble N Neutral Detergent Insoluble N Acid Detergent Insoluble N ……

A + B1

PBIN NDIN ADIN PBIN - NDIN NDIN – ADIN

……..

100 - PBSN ….. C B2 B3

Protein fraction of some feeds Asper CNCPS (Mondal & Walli, 2003) Ingredients

CP

PD %

PBSN (A+B1)

PBINNDIN (B2)

ADINNDIN (B3)

ADIN ( C)

Mustard Cake

331.8

85.6

76.2

10.5

9.9

3.2

Ground nut Cake

731.9

84.6

74.1

5.3

15.3

5.1

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 G/kg

PD %

PBSN (A+B1)

PBINNDIN (B2)

ADINNDIN (B3)

ADIN ( C)

Deoiled Coconut Cake

255.0

83.2

43.8

12.9

38.1

5.0

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 Meal

79.2

11.6

33.4

46.1

8.7

703.1

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. (kg) 200

DCP (g) 150

TDN (kg) 1.7

ME (Mcal) 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)

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

TDN ( kg) ME (M cal)

(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 Protein ( %) 3.63 3.48 Total solids ( %) 13.55 13.46 GNC, Gingelly C, CSC, Coconut C, Maize, Wheat Bran, MM, Salt; Grass were Fed Adlib

4.64 3.46 13.41

Effect of graded level of UDP feeding on milk Yield and composition (Chaturvedi & Walli, 2001) Attributes T1

a

Diets T2

T3

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

Cows

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 Cows, no. CP (%) TMR CP degradability ( %) Initial Wt (kg) BW change ( kg/d) Milk Yield ( kg/d) Protein ( %) Fat (%)

HD 40 16.7 69 546 0.178 31.8 3.04 3.32

LD 45 16.9 64 564 0.146 33.4 3.06 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 Fat, %

14.1 4.4

15.2 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