Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Protein molecular structure, degradation and availability of canola, rapeseed and soybean meals in dairy cattle diets

  • Tian, Yujia (Department of Animal Science, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Tianjin Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Xuewei (Department of Animal Science, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Tianjin Agricultural University) ;
  • Huang, Rongcai (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Yu, Peiqiang (Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan)
  • Received : 2018.11.02
  • Accepted : 2019.01.14
  • Published : 2019.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aims of this study were to reveal the magnitude of the differences in protein structures at a cellular level as well as protein utilization and availability among soybean meal (SBM), canola meal (CM), and rapeseed meal (RSM) as feedstocks in China. Methods: Experiments were designed to compare the three different types of feedstocks in terms of: i) protein chemical profiles; ii) protein fractions partitioned according to Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System; iii) protein molecular structures and protein second structures; iv) special protein compounds-amino acid (AA); v) total digestible protein and energy values; vi) in situ rumen protein degradability and intestinal digestibility. The protein second structures were measured using FT/IR molecular spectroscopy technique. A summary chemical approach in National Research Council (NRC) model was applied to analyze truly digestible protein. Results: The results showed significant differences in both protein nutritional profiles and protein structure parameters in terms of ${\alpha}-helix$, ${\beta}-sheet$ spectral intensity and their ratio, and amide I, amide II spectral intensity and their ratio among SBM, CM, and RSM. SBM had higher crude protein (CP) and AA content than CM and RSM. For dry matter (DM), SBM, and CM had a higher DM content compared with RSM (p<0.05), whereas no statistical significance was found between SBM and CM (p = 0.28). Effective degradability of CP and DM did not demonstrate significant differences among the three groups (p>0.05). Intestinal digestibility of rumen undegradable protein measured by three-step in vitro method showed that there was significant difference (p = 0.05) among SBM, CM, and RSM, which SBM was the highest and RSM was the lowest with CM in between. NRC modeling results showed that digestible CP content in SBM was significantly higher than that of CM and RSM (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study suggested that SBM and CM contained similar protein value and availability for dairy cattle, while RSM had the lowest protein quality and utilization.

Keywords

References

  1. Hussein HS, Merchen NR, and Fahey Jr, GC. Effects of forage level and canola seed supplementation on site and extent of digestion of organic matter, carbohydrates, and energy by steers. J Anim Sci 1995;73:2458-68. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382458x
  2. Mawson R, Heaney RK, Zdunczyk Z, Kozlowska H. Rapeseed meal-glucosinolates and their antinutritional effects Part 3. Animal growth and performance. Mol Nutr Food Res 1994;38:167-77.
  3. Newkirk RW, Classen HL, Scott TA, Edney MJ. The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals. Can J Anim Sci 2003;83:131-9. https://doi.org/10.4141/A02-028
  4. Collins SA, Desai AR, Mansfield GS, Hill JE, Kessel AGV, Drew MD. The effect of increasing inclusion rates of soybean, pea and canola meals and their protein concentrates on the growth of rainbow trout: concepts in diet formulation and experimental design for ingredient evaluation. Aquaculture 2012;344-349:90-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.02.018
  5. Khajali F, Slominski BA. Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poult Sci 2012;91:2564-75. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02332
  6. Yu P. Novel approach for protein research. New York, USA:Nova Science Publishers; 2008. pp. 207-31.
  7. Samadi, Yu P. Dry and moist heating-induced changes in protein molecular structure, protein subfraction, and nutrient profiles in soybeans. J Dairy Sci 2011;94:6092-102. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4619
  8. Theodoridou K, Yu P. Effect of processing conditions on the nutritive value of canola meal and presscake. Comparison of the yellow and brown-seeded canola meal with the brownseeded canola presscake. J Sci Food Agric 2013;93:1986-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6004
  9. FASS. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. 3rd edition. Champaign, IL, USA: Federation of Animal Science Societies; 2010.
  10. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th rev. ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2001.
  11. Orskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 1979;92:499-503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600063048
  12. Theodoridou K, Yu P. Application potential of ATR-FT/IR molecular spectroscopy in animal nutrition: revelation of protein molecular structures of canola meal and presscake, as affected by heat-processing methods, in relationship with their protein digestive behavior and utilization for dairy cattle. J Agric Food Chem 2013;61:5449-58. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf400301y
  13. AOAC. Official Methods of analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Artington, Virginia, USA: AOAC International; 1990.
  14. Licitra G, Hermandez TM, Van soest PJ. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. 1996; 57:347-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
  15. Roe MB, Snifen CJ, Chase LE. Techniques for measuring protein fractions in feedstuffs. Proceedings of Cornell Nutrition. In: Conference for Feed Manufacturers; 1990. pp. 81-8.
  16. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  17. Sniffen CJ, O'Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, Fox DG, Russell JB. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J Anim Sci 1992;70:3562-77. https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113562x
  18. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, St. Pierre NR. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1992;39:95-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90034-4
  19. Calsamiglia S, Stern MD. A three-step in vitro procedure for estimating intestinal digestion of protein in ruminants. J Anim Sci 1995;73:1459-65. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7351459x
  20. SAS Institute. User's guide statistics, Version 9.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Inst. Inc.; 2008.
  21. Saxton AM. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute;1998. pp. 1243-6.
  22. Maxin G, Ouellet DR, Lapierre H. Ruminal degradability of dry matter, crude protein, and amino acids in soybean meal, canola meal, corn, and wheat dried distillers grains. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:5151-60. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6392
  23. Chamberlain DG, Yeo JM, D'Mello JPF. Effects of amino acids on milk production. In: D'Mello JPF, editor. Amino acids in animal nutrition. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2003. pp. 367-87.
  24. Newkirk R. Canola meal feed industry guide. Winnipeg, Canada:The Canola Council of Canada/Canadian International Grains Institute; 2009.
  25. Piepenbrink MS, Schingoethe DJ. Ruminal degradation, amino acid composition, and estimated intestinal digestibilities of four protein supplements. J Dairy Sci 1998;81:454-61. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75597-3
  26. Mustafa AF, Christensen DA, Mckinnon JJ, Newkirk R. Effects of stage of processing of canola seed on chemical composition and in vitro protein degradability of canola meal and intermediate products. Can J Anim Sci 2000;80:211-4. https://doi.org/10.4141/A99-079
  27. Barth A. Infrared spectroscopy of proteins. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenergetics 2007;1767:1073-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2007.06.004
  28. Yu P. Application of advanced synchrotron radiation-based Fourier transform infrared (SR-FTIR) microspectroscopy to animal nutrition and feed science: a novel approach. Br J Nutr 2004;92:869-85. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041298
  29. Bell JM. Nutrients and toxicants in rapeseed meal: a review. J Anim Sci 1984;58:996-1010. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.584996x
  30. Christen KA, Schingoethe DJ, Kalscheur KF, Hippen AR, Karges KK, Gibson ML. Response of lactating dairy cows to high protein distillers grains or 3 other protein supplements. J Dairy Sci 2010;93:2095-104. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2687

Cited by

  1. Bio‐detoxification of Jatropha curcas L. cake by a soil‐borne Mucor circinelloides strain using a zebrafish survival model and solid‐state fermentation vol.130, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14825
  2. Crude protein fractionation, in situ ruminal degradability and FTIR protein molecular structures of different cultivars within barley, corn and sorghum cereal grains vol.275, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114855