JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effect of Undegradable Dietary Protein Level and Plane of Nutrition on Lactation Performance in Crossbred Cattle
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effect of Undegradable Dietary Protein Level and Plane of Nutrition on Lactation Performance in Crossbred Cattle
Kumar, M. Ravi; Tiwari, D.P.; Kumar, Anil;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
An experiment was conducted in order to assess the effect of level of RDP:UDP ratio and level of feeding concentrate on milk yield, milk composition and nutrient utilization in lactating crossbred cattle. Twenty four medium producing (-10 kg/d, 45 to 135 days postpartum) lactating crossbred cows were divided into four groups of six animals each in a 22 factorial completely randomized design. The cows in group 1 were fed concentrate mixture I containing 59:41 RDP:UDP ratio (low UDP) at normal plane (LUDP+NP), in group 2 were fed low UDP ration at 115% of NRC (1989) requirements (LUDP+HP), whereas cows in group 3 were fed concentrate mixture II containing 52:48 RDP:UDP ratio (high UDP) at normal plane (HUDP+NP) and in group 4 were fed high UDP ration at 115% of NRC (1989) requirements (HUDP+HP). Green jowar was fed ad libitum as the sole roughage to all the animals. The experimental feeding trial lasted for 105 days. The total dry matter intake (DMI), DMI/100 kg body weight, DMI/kg , digestibilities of DM, OM, CP, CF, EE and NFE and intakes of TDN and DCP did not differ significantly among the different groups and also due to both UDP level and plane of nutrition and also due to their interaction. The total dry matter intake varied from 145 g in group 1 (LUDP +NP) to 152.57 g/kg in group 2 (LUDP+HP) diet. However, increase in milk yield with increased UDP level and also with increased plane of nutrition was observed consistently throughout the experimental period. The average milk yield was 7.66, 8.15, 8.64 and 9.35 kg in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively and there was no significant difference in milk yield among different groups of cows. The overall daily average milk yields in cows fed with low and high UDP diets were 7.91 and 8.99 kg, respectively and at normal and higher plane of feeding the milk yields were 8.15 and 8.75 kg/day, respectively. Thus, there was 13.65% increase in milk yield due to high UDP level and 7.36% due to higher plane of feeding. The daily 4% FCM yields were 9.20 kg for low UDP diet and 10.28 kg for high UDP diet, whereas it was 9.11 kg at normal plane of feeding and 10.37 kg at higher plane of feeding. Fat yields for the corresponding treatment groups were 0.37, 0.43, 0.41 and 0.48 kg, respectively. The 4% FCM yield and also fat yield did not differ significantly among different dietary treatments and also due to UDP level and plane of nutrition, however, 4% FCM yield was increased by 11.74% with high UDP level and 13.83% with higher plane of feeding. The values for total solids, fat, lactose, solids-not-fat and gross energy contents in milk differed significantly (p<0.05) among the different groups and were significantly (p<0.05) higher in milk of cows fed LUDP+HP diet followed by HUDP+HP diet. Total solids (14.65 and 13.83%), lactose (5.44 and 4.92%), solids-not-fat (9.44 and 8.83%) and gross energy (887 and 838 kcal/kg) of milk decreased significantly (p<0.05) with increased UDP level while total solids (13.84 and 14.64), fat (4.84 and 5.36%) and gross energy (832 and 894 kcal/kg) increased significantly (p<0.05) with increase in plane of feeding. Gross and net energetic efficiencies and also gross and net efficiencies of nitrogen utilization for milk production were not significantly different among different groups and also were not affected significantly due to either UDP levels or plane of feeding. Results of the present study suggest that, increasing UDP level from 41% to 48% of CP in concentrate mixture and also increasing plane of feeding from normal (100%) to 115% of NRC requirements maintain a consistently higher milk production.
 Keywords
Undegradable Dietary Protein;Rumen Degradable Protein;Plane of Nutrition;Milk Yield;Crossbred Cows;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Effect of Feeding Calcium Salts of Palm Oil Fatty Acids on Performance of Lactating Crossbred Cows,;;;

Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2008. vol.21. 3, pp.376-385 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC.

2.
ARC. 1980. The Nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Agricultural Research Council, Farnham Royal Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, UK.

3.
Bedi, S. P. S. and V. K. Vijjan. 1978. Effect of feeding formaldehyde-treated mustard-cake in crossbred calves. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 48(12):870-872.

4.
Bharadwaj, A., B. P. Sengupta and R. K. Sethi. 2000. Effect of feeding rumen protected and unprotected protein on nutrients intake and reproductive performance of lactating buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 70(4):428-430.

5.
Chaturvedi, O. H. and T. K. Walli. 2000. Effect of feeding graded levels of bypass protein on nutrient utilization, nutrient partitioning and on performance of lactating crossbred cows. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 53(1):1-5.

6.
Chaturvedi, O. H. and T. K. Walli. 2001. Effect of feeding graded levels of undegraded dietary protein on voluntary intake, milk production and economic return in early lactating crossbred cows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14(8):1118-1124.

7.
Chowdhury, S., A. H. Rexroth, C. Kijora and K. J. Peters. 2002. Lactation performance of German fawn goat in relation to feeding level and dietary protein protection. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15(2):222-237.

8.
Christensen, R. A., G. L. Lynch and J. H. Clark. 1993. Influence of amount and degradability of protein on production of milk and milk components by lactating Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3490-3496.

9.
Dean, D., S. N. Parra-de, A. Quintero, S. Melendez and R. Roman. 1999. Effect of meat meal and animal fat addition as sources of bypass protein and energy in multinutritional blocks on the voluntary intake and digestibility in lambs eating low quality hays. Revista-Cientifica, Facultad-de-Clencias-Veterinarias. 9(5):399-404.

10.
Gupta, P. C., V. K. Khatta and A. B. Mandal. 1992. Analytical techniques in Animal Nutrition. CCS HAU, Hissar, p. 46.

11.
Hartwell, J. R., M. J. Cecava and S. S. Donkin. 2000. Impact of dietary rumen undegradable protein and rumen-protected choline on intake, peripartum liver triacylglyceride, plasma metabolites and milk production in transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 83:2907-2917.

12.
Kanjanapruthipong, J. and N. Buatong. 2002. Effect of rumen undegradable protein and minerals proteinate on early lactation performance and ovarian functions of dairy cows in the tropics. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15(6):806-811.

13.
Kawalkar, V. N. and B. R. Patle. 1978. Utilization of nutrients from complete ration by crossbred (Holstein${\times}$Tharparkar) lactating cows. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 48:251.

14.
Kridi, R. T., S. G. Haddad and M. M. Muwalla. 2001. The effect of feeding ruminally undegradable protein on postpartum reproduction of Awassi Ewes. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14(8):1125-1128.

15.
Kumar, A. and D. P. Tiwari. 2003. Final Report of ICAR project entitled, 'Studies on the influence of feeding different rumen degradable protein (RDP) and undegradable dietary protein (UDP) ratio on milk yield in lactating cattle'. G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar.

16.
Lee, M. C., S. Y. Hwang and P. W. S. Chion. 2001. Application of rumen undegradable protein on early lactating dairy goats. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14(11):1549-1554.

17.
Lopez, M. M., J. C. Garmendia and N. Obispo. 1999. Effect of bypass protein from fishmeal on plasma metabolites of Holstein heifers. Zootecnia Trop. 17(1):19-32.

18.
Maiga, H. A. and D. J. Schingoethe. 1997. Optimizing the utilization of animal fat and ruminal bypass proteins in the diets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:343-352.

19.
Newbold, J. R. and S. R. Rust. 1990. Effects of protein degradability and source on rumen function, food intake and growth in Holstein cattle given high-moisture maize grain. Anim. Prod. 50:399-408.

20.
NRC. 1978. Nutrients requirements of dairy cattle. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

21.
NRC. 1989. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 6th ed. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

22.
Ramachandra, K. S. and K. T. Sampath. 1995. Influence of two levels of rumen undegradable protein on milk production performance of lactating cows maintained on paddy straw based ration. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 12 (1):1-6.

23.
Rodriguez, L. A., C. C. Stallings, J. H. Herbein and M. L. McGilliard. 1997. Effect of degradability of dietary protein and fat on ruminal, blood and milk components of Jersey and Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80(2):353-363.

24.
SAS. 1989. SAS/ STAT USER’s Guide: Version 6 Fourth edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary., North Carolina.

25.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. A. Cocharan. 1980. Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, India.

26.
Srivastava, A. and V. Mani. 1995. Nutrient utilization, blood metabolites and milk production in crossbred cows fed soyprotein with or without fat and treatment with formaldehyde. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 12(1):7-12.

27.
Stallings, C. C. 1999. Bypass Protein and Use of Bypass Soybean Meal Products in the United States. Technical Bulletin, American Soybean Association, St. Luis, USA.

28.
Tiwari, D. P. and B. R. Patle. 1983. Utilization of Mahua seed cake by lactating buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 36:394-401.

29.
Tiwari, D. P. and I. S. Yadava. 1994. Effect on growth, nutrient utilization and blood metabolites in buffalo calves fed rations containing formaldehyde-treated mustard-cake. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 64(6):625-630.

30.
Tyrell, H. F. and J. T. Reid. 1965. Prediction of energy value of cow’s milk. J. Dairy Sci. 48:1215-1223.

31.
Wankhede, S. M. and V. H. Kalbande. 2001. Effect of feeding bypass protein with urea treated grass on the performance of Red Kandhari calves. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14(7):970-973.