Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:38:35.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation of lupin protein degradation in ruminants studied in situ and using chemical protein fractions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2018

N. Titze Open the ORCID record for N. Titze [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Krieg ,
H. Steingass  and
M. Rodehutscord
N. Titze*
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
J. Krieg
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
H. Steingass
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Rodehutscord
Affiliation:
Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 6-10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: inst450@uni-hohenheim.com
Get access

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the variability in in situ CP degradation characteristics of 15 batches lupin grains from nine genotypes in a standardised approach. This study also investigated whether differences in CP degradation can be described by protein fractionation using the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS) and also whether thermal processing of lupins has an effect on CP degradation in the rumen and analysed protein fractions. The rising political and consumer demand for milk products from dairy production systems based on domestic protein sources and the wide range of lupin types and varieties that can be chosen as protein feed in dairy nutrition requires research to determine the variability in CP degradation characteristics in the rumen. For CP degradation measurements, ground grains were incubated in the rumen of three lactating Jersey cows fitted with a ruminal cannula for different times from 2 to 48 h, and the washing loss of non-incubated samples was also measured. Protein fractions were analysed according to CNCPS and used for the estimation of ruminally degraded protein. In situ CP degradation parameters varied widely between untreated samples. The mean value for the washout fraction was 29.3% (from 16.4% to 43.6%). The potentially degradable fraction averaged 70.5% (from 55.6% to 83.7%), hence maximal degradation of CP was close to completeness. Mean degradation rate was 16.6%/h (from 12.6 to 21.0%/h). Variation in estimated parameters led to variation in the effective degradation (ED) averaging 76.6% (from 67.3% to 83.0%) when calculated assuming a ruminal outflow of 8%/h. Thermal treatment of lupins induced changes in degradation characteristics, primarily by lowering degradation rates, and also led to a significant reduction in ED. The ED calculated from analysed protein fractions averaged 10 percentage points higher than ED calculated from in situ parameters for untreated grains. The ED based on protein fractionation was also reduced by heat treatment, but the correlation with in situ based ED was poor. It can be concluded that the variation in ED indicates a potential to increase the amount of rumen undegraded protein without additional chemical or physical treatment and the effect of genetic factors and agronomic practices on ED of lupin grains should be investigated in systematic studies in the future.

Keywords

legumesvarietyfeed evaluationdairy cowprotein fractionation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , April 2019 , pp. 709 - 717
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Food and Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants: an advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Graviou, D, Melcion, J and Demarquilly, C 2001. Degradation in the rumen of lupin (Lupinus albus L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) seed proteins. Effect of heat treatment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 92, 215–236.Google Scholar
Beyer, H, Schmalenberg, AK, Jansen, G, Jürgens, HU, Uptmoor, R, Broer, I, Huckauf, J, Dietrich, R, Michel, V, Zenk, A and Ordon, F 2015. Evaluation of variability, heritability and environmental stability of seed quality and yield parameters of L. angustifolius . Field Crops Research 174, 40–47.Google Scholar
Calabrò, S, Cutrignelli, MI, Lo Presti, V, Tudisco, R, Chiofalo, V, Grossi, M, Infascelli, F and Chiofalo, B 2015. Characterization and effect of year of harvest on the nutritional properties of three varieties of white lupine (Lupinus albus L.). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 95, 3127–3136.Google Scholar
Cazzato, E, Laudadio, V, Stellacci, AM, Ceci, E and Tufarelli, V 2012. Influence of sulphur application on protein quality, fatty acid composition and nitrogen fixation of white lupin (Lupinus albus L.). European Food Research and Technology 235, 963–969.Google Scholar
Chiofalo, B, Presti, VL, Chiofalo, V and Gresta, F 2012. The productive traits, fatty acid profile and nutritional indices of three lupin (Lupinus spp.) species cultivated in a Mediterranean environment for the livestock. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 230–239.Google Scholar
Chrenková, M, Čerešňáková, Z, Weisbjerg, MR, Formelová, Z, Poláčiková, M and Vondráková, M 2014. Characterization of proteins in feeds according to the CNCPS and comparison to in situ parameters. Czech Journal of Animal Science 59, 288–295.Google Scholar
Cowling, WA and Tarr, A 2004. Effect of genotype and environment on seed quality in sweet narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55, 745–751.Google Scholar
Cros, P, Moncoulon, R, Bayourthe, C and Vernay, M 1992. Effect of extrusion on ruminal and intestinal disappearance of amino acids in white lupin seed. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72, 89–96.Google Scholar
de Jonge, LH, Spek, JW, van Laar, H and Dijkstra, J 2009. Effects of pH, temperature and osmolality on the level and composition of soluble N in feedstuffs for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 153, 249–262.Google Scholar
Fox, DG, Tylutki, TP, Tedeschi, LO, van Amburgh, ME, Chase, LE, Pell, AN, Overton, TR and Russell, JB 2003. The net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. CNCPS version 5.0. Model documentation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Gdala, J, Jansman, AJM, Van Leeuwen, P, Huisman, J and Verstegen, MWA 1996. Lupins (L. luteus, L. albus, L. angustifolius) as a protein source for young pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62, 239–249.Google Scholar
Goelema, JO, Spreeuwenberg, M, Hof, G, van der Poel, A and Tamminga, S 1998. Effect of pressure toasting on the rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of whole and broken peas, lupins and faba beans and a mixture of these feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 76, 35–50.Google Scholar
Kibelolaud, AR, Vernay, M, Bayourthe, C and Moncoulon, R 1993. Effect of extruding on ruminal disappearance and lower gastrointestinal tract digestion of white lupin seeds. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73, 571–579.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.Google Scholar
Madsen, J and Hvelplund, T 1994. Prediction of in situ protein degradability in the rumen. Results of a European ringtest. Livestock Production Science 39, 201–212.Google Scholar
Moss, AR, Deaville, E and Givens, D 2001. The nutritive value for ruminants of lupin seeds from determinate and dwarf determinate plants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 94, 187–198.Google Scholar
Moss, AR, Givens, DI, Grundy, HF and Wheeler, K 1997. The nutritive value for ruminants of lupin seeds from determinate plants and their replacement of soya bean meal in diets for young growing cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 68, 11–23.Google Scholar
Murphy, SR and McNiven, MA 1994. Raw or roasted lupin supplementation of grass silage diets for beef steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46, 23–35.Google Scholar
Niwinska, B 2001. The nutritive value of Polish-grown lupin cultivar seeds for ruminants. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 10, 91–101.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Rémond, D, Le Guen, MP and Poncet, C 2003. Degradation in the rumen and nutritional value of lupin (Lupinus albus L.) seed proteins effect of extrusion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 105, 55–70.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH and McNiven, MA 1993. Nutritive value of raw and roasted sweet white lupins (Lupinus albus) for lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43, 275–290.Google Scholar
Schroeder, GE, Erasmus, LJ, Leeuw, KJ and Meissner, HH 1996. The use of acid detergent insoluble nitrogen to predict digestibility of rumen undegradable protein of heat processed plant proteins. South African Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 49–52.Google Scholar
Singh, CK, Robinson, PH and McNiven, MA 1995. Evaluation of raw and roasted lupin seeds as protein supplements for lactating cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 52, 63–76.Google Scholar
Sniffen, CJ, O’Connor, JD, Van Soest, PJ, Fox, DG and Russell, JB 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.Google Scholar
Sujak, A, Kotlarz, A and Strobel, W 2006. Compositional and nutritional evaluation of several lupin seeds. Food chemistry 98, 711–719.Google Scholar
Vanzant, ES, Cochran, RC and Titgemeyer, EC 1998. Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2717–2729.Google Scholar
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 2006. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs-und Untersuchungsmethodik Bd. III: Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
White, CL, Staines, VE and Staines, MV 2007. A review of the nutritional value of lupins for dairy cows. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 58, 185–202.Google Scholar
White, CL, Young, P, Phillips, N and Rodehutscord, M 2000. The effect of dietary protein source and protected methionine (Lactet) on wool growth and microbial protein synthesis in Merino wethers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51, 173–183.Google Scholar
Yu, P, Egan, AR and Leury, BJ 1999. In sacco evaluation of rumen protein degradation characteristics and in vitro enzyme digestibility of dry roasted whole lupin seeds (Lupinus albus). Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 12, 358–365.Google Scholar
Zaman, MS, McNiven, MA, Grimmelt, B and MacLeod, JA 1995. Effects of roasting of lupins (Lupinus albus) and high protein variety of soybeans (AC Proteus) on chemical composition and in situ dry matter and nitrogen disappearance in dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 51, 329–335.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Titze et al. supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Titze et al. supplementary material(File)
File 39.2 KB