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
REDNEX EU PROJECT : INTRODUCTION % Crude Protein 20 18 16 14 12 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
PROTEIN TO ENERGY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING 2.75 French PDI System Vérité and Delaby, 2000 Total N output/milk N 2.50 2.25 1.75 Urinary N/Milk N 1.50 1.25 Milk yield/kg DMI 1.00 80 90 100 110 120 Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L
PROTEIN TO ENERGY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING 2.75 2.50 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 1.25 1.00 80 90 100 110 120 Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L
PROTEIN TO ENGERY RATIO AND N PARTITIONING 2.75 2.50 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 1.25 1.00 80 90 100 110 120 Protein (PDI) / Net Energy (UFL*) * UFL = 1.7 Mcal of NE L
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 -0.028 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
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
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
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
RESULTS : WHOLE BODY N FLOWS
STARCH vs FIBER DIETS: SIMILAR ENERGY INTAKE 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 DM INTAKE, g/d/kg BW dom INTAKE, g/d/kg BW NS NS 30 NS 25 20 15 10 5 NS 0 LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N STARCH FIBER
STARCH vs FIBER DIETS: SIMILAR NITROGEN INTAKE N INTAKE, g/d/kg BW CP DIGESTIBILITY, % 1.2 1 NS NS 80 70 NS NS 0.8 60 50 0.6 40 0.4 0.2 0 30 20 10 LOW N NORMAL N LOW N NORMAL N 0 STARCH FIBER
LOW N DIETS DECREASE MILK N SECRETION MILK N YIELD, g/d 130 120 n = 55 R 2 = 71.7% 110-17% (P<0.001) 100 90 80 70 60 200 250 300 350 400 LOW N NORMAL N 450 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d
STARCH DIETS IMPROVE MILK N SECRETION MILK N YIELD, g/d 130 120 n = 55 R 2 = 71.7% 110 +8.4% (P<0.001) 100 90 80 70 60 STARCH FIBRE 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d
LOW N DIETS DECREASE URINARY N EXCRETION URINARY N, g/d 200 n = 55 R 2 = 91.1% 150-53% (P<0.001) 100 50 0 200 250 300 350 400 LOW N NORMAL N 450 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d
STARCH DIETS DO NOT MODIFY URINARY N EXCRETION URINARY N, g/d 200 n = 55 R 2 = 91.1% 150-3.1% (P>0.05) 100 50 0 200 250 300 350 400 450 STARCH FIBRE 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d
SIMILAR FECAL N EXCRETION ACROSS DIETS FECAL N, g/d 180 n = 36 160 140 120 Holstein cows Study 1 P>0.05 Jersey cows Study 2a P>0.05 100 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 FEED N INTAKE, g/d 7.65 ± 0.57 g fecal N/kg DM intake (Peyraud et al., 1995; 7.5 g/kg DMI)
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
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
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
RESULTS : STUDY 1 DIGESTIBILITY TRIAL Fanchone et al., 2013 (Journal of Animal Science)
DUODENAL FLOW OF PROTEIN IS IMPROVED BY STARCH MICROBIAL N FLOW (LAB), g/d 350 Starch + 18%;P<0.10 300 250 200 150 100 50 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 DUODENAL PROTEIN FLOW, g/d Starch + 14%;P<0.05 0 LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N STARCH FIBER
RUMEN N UTILIZATION IS IMPROVED BY STARCH 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 RUMEN FERMENTABLE OM, kg/d RUMEN AMMONIA, mg/l 10 NS NS Starch - 57%;P<0.01 9 LOW N NORMAL N 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 LOW N NORMAL N 25 20 15 10 RUMEN PROTEIN BALANCE, g/dmi Starch - 85%;P<0.05 LOSS OF N-AMMONIA STARCH FIBER 5 0-5 LOW N NORMAL N -10-15 UREA RECYCLING -20-25
RESULTS : STUDY 2 METABOLIC TRIAL
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
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
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
LITERATURE : ONLY HALF OF THE N SURPLUS IS ABSORBED AS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/h/kg BW 0.5 0.4 n=45 R 2 =83.0%; P<0.001 Y=-0.014+0.492X C. Loncke PhD E. Dominguez Master student Database: FLORA (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Variability not explained by N intake? N INTAKE, g N/h/kgBW
STUDY 2b : LESS THAN HALF OF THE N SURPLUS IS ABSORBED AS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/d 220 200 180 n=19 R 2 =69.4%; P<0.001 Y= 18.4+0.4432X 160 140 120 100 200 250 300 350 LOW N NORMAL N 400 450 N INTAKE, g N/d
STUDY 2b : STARCH DIETS INCREASED THE ABSORPTION OF DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE ABSORBED AMINO ACIDS ABSORPTION, g N/d 220 200 n=19 R 2 =69.4%; P<0.001 Y= 18.4+0.4432X 180 160 140 120 100 Starch+8%; P<0.05 STARCH FIBRE 200 250 300 350 400 450 N INTAKE, g N/d
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=0.07 0.7 P=0.12 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER 0.5 0.4 STARCH FIBER STARCH FIBER 0.3 LOW N NORMAL N 0.3 LOW N NORMAL N
ENERGY SOURCE MODIFIES THE PROFILE OF ABSROBED NUTRIENTS DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM FEED INTAKE ABSORBED NUTRIENTS STARCH FIBER 100 80 60 40 20 0 GLUCOSE ABSORPTION, mmol/h P<0.05 EMISSION 1600 1400 1200 1000 ACETATE ABSORPTION, mmol/h P<0.05-20 -40-60 -80-100 UTILIZATION 800 600 400 200-120 LOW N NORMAL N 0 LOW N NORMAL N
STARCH DIETS IMPROVE THE ABSORPTION OF AND GLUCOSE = N and dom INTAKE DIGESTION DIGESTED RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED and GLUCOSE
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 7 6 5 n=32 R 2 =73.1%; P<0.001 Y=0.465+0.592X 4 C. Loncke PhD L. Bahloul PhD Student Database: FloRa (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ABSORPTION, mmol C/h/kg BW
HALF OF THE EXTRA ABSROBED ARE UPTAKEN BY THE LIVER DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h 225 200 175 n=16 R 2 =79.5%; P<0.001 Y= -72.2+0.521X 150 125 100 75 50 LOW N NORMAL N 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 ABSORPTION, mmol/h
STARCH DECREASE THE LIVER UPTAKE AT A GIVEN ABSORPTION DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM ABSORBED LIVER UTILIZATION LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h 225 200 n=16 R 2 =79.5%; P<0.001 Y= -72.2+0.521X 175 150 125 100 75 50 Starch -10%; P=0.09 STARCH FIBRE 200 250 300 350 400 450 ABSORPTION, mmol/h 500 550
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 7 6 5 n=32 R 2 =73.1%; P<0.001 Y=0.465+0.592X C. Loncke PhD L. Bahloul PhD Student 4 3 2 Variability not explained by N intake? Database: FloRa (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 ) 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ABSORPTION, mmol C/h/kg BW 6
LITERATURE : DIETARY STARCH DECREASES THE LIVER UPTAKE VARIATIONS IN LIVER UPTAKE, mmol/h/kg BW 3.0 2.5 n = 18 R 2 = 65.6%; P<0.001 2.0 1.5 1.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 STARCH CONCENTRATION, g/kg DM Database: FLORA (Vernet and Ortigues, 2006 )
LESS THAN ONE FOURTH OF THE N SURPLUS IS METABOLICALLY AVALAIBLE DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE AVAILABLE POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d 140 130 120 110 100 90 n=16 R 2 =67.7%; P<0.001 Y= 28.3+0.239X 80 70 60 200 250 300 350 N INTAKE, g N/d LOW N NORMAL N 400 450
STARCH INCREASES THE POST-HEPATIC AVAILABILITY OF DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM N INTAKE AVAILABLE POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d 140 130 120 110 100 90 n=16 R 2 =67.7%; P<0.001 Y= 28.3+0.239X 80 70 60 200 Starch +22%; P<0.05 250 300 350 N INTAKE, g N/d STARCH FIBRE 400 450
80% OF THE POST-HEPATIC FLOW OF -N IS FOUND IN MILK DIGESTION RUMINANT METABOLISM AVALAIBLE MILK N MILK N YIELD, g /d 130 120 110 n=16 R 2 =76.0%; P<0.001 Y= 17.9+0.806X 100 90 80 70 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 POST-HEPATIC FLOW, g N/d
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%*