Effects of partial or full replacement of soybean meal with urea or coated urea on intake, performance, and plasma urea concentrations in lactating dairy cows.
Rainer Rauch, Kelly Nichols, Isabela P C de Carvalho, Jean-Baptiste Daniel, Javier Martín-Tereso, Jan Dijkstra
{"title":"Effects of partial or full replacement of soybean meal with urea or coated urea on intake, performance, and plasma urea concentrations in lactating dairy cows.","authors":"Rainer Rauch, Kelly Nichols, Isabela P C de Carvalho, Jean-Baptiste Daniel, Javier Martín-Tereso, Jan Dijkstra","doi":"10.1111/jpn.14034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We expected mitigation of the hypophagic effects of urea (U) with a coated urea (CU) product that aimed to partially shift urea supply to the post-ruminal gastrointestinal tract. Ruminal release and post-ruminal digestibility of CU was evaluated in vitro, followed by a randomised complete block experiment (54 Holstein-Friesian cows; 177 ± 72 days in milk). Soybean meal (SBM) was partially (PR) or fully (FR) replaced on an isonitrogenous basis by beet pulp and U or CU. Urea sources were included at 12 (U-PR, CU-PR) and 19 (U-FR, CU-FR) g/kg dietary dry matter (DM). Hypophagic effects were similar for U-PR and CU-PR (-11% vs. -7%), and for U-FR and CU-FR (-13% vs. -12%) compared with SBM (average 25.8 kg DM intake/d). Compared with SBM, U-PR and CU-PR reduced yields of milk (-8%) and protein (-12%), U-PR reduced yield of fat (-9%) and fat- and protein-corrected-milk (FPCM; -9%), and CU-PR tended to reduce FPCM yield (-5%). Compared with SBM, U-FR and CU-FR respectively reduced yields of milk (-21%, -22%), protein (-25%, -26%), fat (both -14%), lactose (-20%, -21%), and FPCM (-17%, -19%), and lowered N (-15%, -12%) and feed (-8%, trend, -9%) efficiency. Human-edible protein efficiency approximately doubled with U-PR and CU-PR and approximately tripled with U-FR and CU-FR compared with SBM. Milk composition and plasma urea concentration were similar between U and CU, except for a trend for a greater plasma urea concentration with U-PR compared with CU-PR. Dry matter intake patterns differed for CU-PR compared with U-PR and for CU-FR compared with U-FR, suggesting effects of urea release rate or location on feeding behaviour. Overall, replacing SBM with U or CU reduced DM intake and milk production and affected nutrient efficiencies. Coated urea influenced DM intake pattern but did not affect total DM intake or milk production compared with U.</p>","PeriodicalId":14942,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.14034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We expected mitigation of the hypophagic effects of urea (U) with a coated urea (CU) product that aimed to partially shift urea supply to the post-ruminal gastrointestinal tract. Ruminal release and post-ruminal digestibility of CU was evaluated in vitro, followed by a randomised complete block experiment (54 Holstein-Friesian cows; 177 ± 72 days in milk). Soybean meal (SBM) was partially (PR) or fully (FR) replaced on an isonitrogenous basis by beet pulp and U or CU. Urea sources were included at 12 (U-PR, CU-PR) and 19 (U-FR, CU-FR) g/kg dietary dry matter (DM). Hypophagic effects were similar for U-PR and CU-PR (-11% vs. -7%), and for U-FR and CU-FR (-13% vs. -12%) compared with SBM (average 25.8 kg DM intake/d). Compared with SBM, U-PR and CU-PR reduced yields of milk (-8%) and protein (-12%), U-PR reduced yield of fat (-9%) and fat- and protein-corrected-milk (FPCM; -9%), and CU-PR tended to reduce FPCM yield (-5%). Compared with SBM, U-FR and CU-FR respectively reduced yields of milk (-21%, -22%), protein (-25%, -26%), fat (both -14%), lactose (-20%, -21%), and FPCM (-17%, -19%), and lowered N (-15%, -12%) and feed (-8%, trend, -9%) efficiency. Human-edible protein efficiency approximately doubled with U-PR and CU-PR and approximately tripled with U-FR and CU-FR compared with SBM. Milk composition and plasma urea concentration were similar between U and CU, except for a trend for a greater plasma urea concentration with U-PR compared with CU-PR. Dry matter intake patterns differed for CU-PR compared with U-PR and for CU-FR compared with U-FR, suggesting effects of urea release rate or location on feeding behaviour. Overall, replacing SBM with U or CU reduced DM intake and milk production and affected nutrient efficiencies. Coated urea influenced DM intake pattern but did not affect total DM intake or milk production compared with U.
期刊介绍:
As an international forum for hypothesis-driven scientific research, the Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition publishes original papers in the fields of animal physiology, biochemistry and physiology of nutrition, animal nutrition, feed technology and preservation (only when related to animal nutrition). Well-conducted scientific work that meets the technical and ethical standards is considered only on the basis of scientific rigor.
Research on farm and companion animals is preferred. Comparative work on exotic species is welcome too. Pharmacological or toxicological experiments with a direct reference to nutrition are also considered. Manuscripts on fish and other aquatic non-mammals with topics on growth or nutrition will not be accepted. Manuscripts may be rejected on the grounds that the subject is too specialized or that the contribution they make to animal physiology and nutrition is insufficient.
In addition, reviews on topics of current interest within the scope of the journal are welcome. Authors are advised to send an outline to the Editorial Office for approval prior to submission.