EFFICIENCY OF N UTILIZATION FOLLOWING A DECREASED N SUPPLY IN DAIRY RATIONS : EFFECT OF THE ENERGY SOURCE

Transcription

1 EFFICIENCY OF N UTILIZATION FOLLOWING A DECREASED N SUPPLY IN DAIRY RATIONS : EFFECT OF THE ENERGY SOURCE Cantalapiedra-Hijar G Fanchone A Nozière P Doreau M Ortigues-Marty I Herbivore Research Unit (Theix, FR) Rednex Regional Meeting In Vilnius, Lithuania. June 6th and 7th 2013

2 REDNEX EU PROJECT : INTRODUCTION % Crude Protein DIET Nitrogen Surplus URINE FECES INEFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY MILK Castillo et al., 2001 Kebreab et al., 2002 Zanton and Heinrichs, 2008 Castillo et al., 2001 Kebreab et al., 2002 Innovative and practical management approaches to reduce N excretion by ruminants 1 2 N SUPPLY REDUCTION INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF N UTILIZATION

3 PROTEIN TO ENERGY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING 2.75 French PDI System Vérité and Delaby, 2000 Total N output/milk N Urinary N/Milk N Milk yield/kg DMI Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L

4 PROTEIN TO ENERGY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING French PDI System Vérité and Delaby, 2000 Ideal E profile INRA-Rennes (S. Lemosquet) 2.25 Supply Requirement 1.75 Urinary N/Milk N 1.50 Milk yield/kg DMI Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L

5 PROTEIN TO ENGERY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING French PDI System Vérité and Delaby, 2000 Energy Source INRA-Theix; University of Reading 2.25 STARCH FIBER VS 1.75 Urinary N/Milk N 1.50 Milk yield/kg DMI Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L

6 Starch vs Fiber + Effect No Effect - Effect Sutton et al., 1993 Huhtanen, 1993 Keady et al., 1998 Kebreab, 2000 Leiva et al., 2000 Broderick, 2002 Iparraguerre et al., 2002 Hristov and Ropp, 2003 Van Knegsel et al., 2005 Hall et al., 2013 Higgs et al., 2013 ENERGY SOURCE AND MILK N EFFICIENCY x x x x x x x Differences in energy intake Weak differences in the Energy source Acidosis and digestibility Although significant (P<0.01), the quantitative effects of STARCH and NDF on milk N efficiency were small (0.051 and g/kg DM, respectively). Up to +7% MPY for a standard cow! MY = 40kg/d; Milk Protein = 33.2 g/kg;milk N efficiency = 30%; NDF difference = 180 g/kg DM; Starch difference = 280 g/kg DM

7 ENERGY SOURCE AND N PARTITIONING MODEL PREDICTION N output, g/d Fecal N Urinary N ( ) Milk N ( ) Kebreab et al., 2004 Non fiber carbohydrate, g/kg DM

8 OBJECTIVE TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF DIETARY ENERGY SOURCE (Starch vs Fiber) ON N FLOWS IN DAIRY COWS FED LOW PROTEIN DIETS (20% BELOW RECOMMENDATIONS) N INTAKE RUMINANT DIGESTION DIGESTED METABOLISM ABSORBED FECAL N URINARY N AVAILABLE MILK N

9 EXPERIMENTS Fanchone et al., 2013 Cantalapiedra-Hijar et al., 2013* 1. DIGESTIBILITY STUDY 2. METABOLIC STUDY Animals Diets n=4 n=5 n=5 DIM = 71 DIM = 211 DIM = 78 4 Iso-energetics; 50:50 F:C ratio 2 Levels of CP 2 Energy sources Forage Corn Silage Grass Silage % CP 11.0% vs 14.5% 12.0% vs 16.5% % NDF % Starch 36.0% 49.0% vs 15.0% 31.0% vs 32.0% 49.0% vs 5.0% 34.0% vs 2a. FEEDING TRIAL Intact animals 2b. METABOLIC TRIAL Catheterized animals

10 RESULTS : WHOLE BODY N FLOWS

11 STARCH vs FIBER DIETS: SIMILAR ENERGY INTAKE DM INTAKE, g/d/kg BW dom INTAKE, g/d/kg BW NS NS 30 NS NS 0 LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N STARCH FIBER

12 STARCH vs FIBER DIETS: SIMILAR NITROGEN INTAKE N INTAKE, g/d/kg BW CP DIGESTIBILITY, % NS NS NS NS LOW N NORMAL N LOW N NORMAL N 0 STARCH FIBER

13 LOW N DIETS DECREASE MILK N SECRETION MILK N YIELD, g/d n = 55 R 2 = 71.7% % (P<0.001) LOW N NORMAL N FEED N INTAKE, g/d

14 STARCH DIETS IMPROVE MILK N SECRETION MILK N YIELD, g/d n = 55 R 2 = 71.7% % (P<0.001) STARCH FIBRE FEED N INTAKE, g/d

15 LOW N DIETS DECREASE URINARY N EXCRETION URINARY N, g/d 200 n = 55 R 2 = 91.1% % (P<0.001) LOW N NORMAL N FEED N INTAKE, g/d

16 STARCH DIETS DO NOT MODIFY URINARY N EXCRETION URINARY N, g/d 200 n = 55 R 2 = 91.1% % (P>0.05) STARCH FIBRE 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d

17 SIMILAR FECAL N EXCRETION ACROSS DIETS FECAL N, g/d 180 n = Holstein cows Study 1 P>0.05 Jersey cows Study 2a P> FEED N INTAKE, g/d 7.65 ± 0.57 g fecal N/kg DM intake (Peyraud et al., 1995; 7.5 g/kg DMI)

18 DIETARY CP CONTENT AND N PARTITIONING MILK PROTEIN YIELD URINARY N EXCRETION FECAL N EXCRETION LOW CP HIGH CP +108 g N N INTAKE LOW N NORMAL N DIGESTION METABOLISM +5 g N FECAL N* +68 g N URINARY N 4% 63% N BALANCE* 19 g N +19g N MILK N 18% * From 2 out 3 studies

19 DIETARY ENERGY SOURCE AND N PARTITIONING MILK PROTEIN YIELD URINARY N EXCRETION FECAL N EXCRETION STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER -3 g N -8 g N N INTAKE DIGESTION METABOLISM FECAL N* -3 g N URINARY N +8 g N N BALANCE* -6 g N MILK N * From 2 out 3 studies

20 THE ORIGIN OF THE MILK N IMPROVEMENT SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY AND DIGESTIBLE NITROGEN INTAKE BETWEEN STARCH AND FIBER IN THE 3 STUDIES WHICH ADAPTATIONS ARE TAKING PLACE TO EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES IN MILK PROTEIN YIELD ACROSS DIETS? 1. DIGESTIBILITY STUDY Cannulated Animals 2. METABOLIC STUDY Catheterized Animals

21 RESULTS : STUDY 1 DIGESTIBILITY TRIAL Fanchone et al., 2013 (Journal of Animal Science)

22 DUODENAL FLOW OF PROTEIN IS IMPROVED BY STARCH MICROBIAL N FLOW (LAB), g/d 350 Starch + 18%;P< DUODENAL PROTEIN FLOW, g/d Starch + 14%;P< LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N STARCH FIBER

23 RUMEN N UTILIZATION IS IMPROVED BY STARCH RUMEN FERMENTABLE OM, kg/d RUMEN AMMONIA, mg/l 10 NS NS Starch - 57%;P< LOW N NORMAL N LOW N NORMAL N RUMEN PROTEIN BALANCE, g/dmi Starch - 85%;P<0.05 LOSS OF N-AMMONIA STARCH FIBER LOW N NORMAL N UREA RECYCLING

24 RESULTS : STUDY 2 METABOLIC TRIAL

25 CONSTANT METABOLIC EFFICIENCY OF UTILIZATION DIGESTION DIGESTED RUMINANT METABOLISM MILK PROTEIN MILK PROTEIN YIELD Constant metabolic efficiency INRA = 0.64 NRC = 0.67 DIGESTED AMINO ACIDS INTAKE ABOVE MAINTENANCE

26 VARIABLE METABOLIC EFFICIENCY OF UTILIZATION DIGESTION DIGESTED RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED AVAILABLE MAMMARY UTILIZATION MILK PROTEIN MILK PROTEIN YIELD????? Interaction with other nutrients? Variable metabolic efficiency NORFOR fx MP DIGESTED AMINO ACIDS INTAKE ABOVE MAINTENANCE

27 METABOLIC STUDY: CATHETERIZED ANIMALS Digested Absorbed Liver Utilization Mammary Utilization Available Milk Protein A-V difference method Net flux Nitrogenous nutrients Energetic nutrients Hormones Blood gaz Tracer study Metabolic use of Leu and Phe

28 LITERATURE : ONLY HALF OF THE N SURPLUS IS ABSORBED AS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/h/kg BW n=45 R 2 =83.0%; P<0.001 Y= X C. Loncke PhD E. Dominguez Master student Database: FLORA (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) Variability not explained by N intake? N INTAKE, g N/h/kgBW

29 STUDY 2b : LESS THAN HALF OF THE N SURPLUS IS ABSORBED AS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/d n=19 R 2 =69.4%; P<0.001 Y= X LOW N NORMAL N N INTAKE, g N/d

30 STUDY 2b : STARCH DIETS INCREASED THE ABSORPTION OF DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/d n=19 R 2 =69.4%; P<0.001 Y= X Starch+8%; P<0.05 STARCH FIBRE N INTAKE, g N/d

31 DIGESTION AND METABOLIC STUDIES : COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM DIGESTED ABSORBED 0.8 DIGESTED, g/g CP intake 0.8 ABSORBED, g/g CP intake 0.7 P= P= STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER 0.3 LOW N NORMAL N 0.3 LOW N NORMAL N

32 ENERGY SOURCE MODIFIES THE PROFILE OF ABSROBED NUTRIENTS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM FEED INTAKE ABSORBED NUTRIENTS STARCH FIBER GLUCOSE ABSORPTION, mmol/h P<0.05 EMISSION ACETATE ABSORPTION, mmol/h P< UTILIZATION LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N

33 STARCH DIETS IMPROVE THE ABSORPTION OF AND GLUCOSE = N and dom INTAKE DIGESTION DIGESTED RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED and GLUCOSE

34 LITERATURE : UP TO 60% OF THE ABSORBED ARE UPTAKEN BY THE LIVER DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol C/h/kg BW n=32 R 2 =73.1%; P<0.001 Y= X 4 C. Loncke PhD L. Bahloul PhD Student Database: FloRa (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) ABSORPTION, mmol C/h/kg BW

35 HALF OF THE EXTRA ABSROBED ARE UPTAKEN BY THE LIVER DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h n=16 R 2 =79.5%; P<0.001 Y= X LOW N NORMAL N ABSORPTION, mmol/h

36 STARCH DECREASE THE LIVER UPTAKE AT A GIVEN ABSORPTION DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h n=16 R 2 =79.5%; P<0.001 Y= X Starch -10%; P=0.09 STARCH FIBRE ABSORPTION, mmol/h

37 LITERATURE : UP TO 60% OF THE ABSORBED ARE TAKEN UP BY THE LIVER DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol C/h/kg BW n=32 R 2 =73.1%; P<0.001 Y= X C. Loncke PhD L. Bahloul PhD Student Variability not explained by N intake? Database: FloRa (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) ABSORPTION, mmol C/h/kg BW 6

38 LITERATURE : DIETARY STARCH DECREASES THE LIVER UPTAKE VARIATIONS IN LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h/kg BW n = 18 R 2 = 65.6%; P< STARCH CONCENTRATION, g/kg DM Database: FLORA (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 )

39 LESS THAN ONE FOURTH OF THE N SURPLUS IS METABOLICALLY AVALAIBLE DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE AVAILABLE POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d n=16 R 2 =67.7%; P<0.001 Y= X N INTAKE, g N/d LOW N NORMAL N

40 STARCH INCREASES THE POST-HEPATIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE AVAILABLE POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d n=16 R 2 =67.7%; P<0.001 Y= X Starch +22%; P< N INTAKE, g N/d STARCH FIBRE

41 80% OF THE POST-HEPATIC FLOW OF -N IS FOUND IN MILK DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM AVALAIBLE MILK N MILK N YIELD, g /d n=16 R 2 =76.0%; P<0.001 Y= X POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d

42 STARCH DIETS IMPROVE THE N UTILIZATION AT SEVERAL LEVELS DIGESTION +18% $ MICROBIAL N FLOW +22%* DIGESTED RUMINANT ABSORBED +11% NS METABOLISM -10% $ LIVER UTILIZATION +22%* AVAILABLE URINARY N -3% NS MILK N +8.4%*