1

Feeding low protein amino acid balanced diets for optimum

production and health.

05-05-2010

Why “balance” dairy cow rations

Obtain genetic potential for milk yield and component concentrationsAchieve good herd health Minimize nutrient wastageMaximize income-over-feed-costs Maximize dairy herd profitability

Ideal protein theory is the basisfor amino acid formulation…

Ideally the amino acid profile of absorbed protein should match animal requirements

Identify the first limiting amino acid – establish the requirement quantitatively (g/day).

Establish the correct ratio of the other essential amino acids to the first limiting amino acid

Feed the smallest “package of protein”to meet the requirements for the 1st limiting AA

Limiting Amino Acid Theory…

0123456789

Lys

% o

f Pro

tein

Milk

Rum. B...

BloodFishSBMCanolaM

eatAlfalfa BrewersCSMSunflowerBarleyGrass SCornW

heatFeatherCorn SDDGCGM

Comparison of lysine in milk, rumen bacterial protein and feedstuffs

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Met

% o

f Pro

tein

Milk

Rum. B...

FishCGMSunflowerCornCanolaDDGBrewersBarleyCSMW

heatCorn SAlfalfa SM

eatSBMBloodGrass SFeather

Comparison of methionine in milk, rumen bacterial protein and feedstuffs

2

Lys and Met are the two first limiting amino acidsin North American rations

Methionine virtually always first limiting :- mixed cereal rations, major protein sources

soybean meal and animal proteins

Lysine closely co-limiting with methionine :- corn based ratons, corn byproducts, brewers grains

Next limiting amino acids are of limited practical significance :- in practical formulation can only meet 90% of LYS/MET requirements

50

75

100

% o

f Req

uire

men

t

LYS

MET

LYS

MET

Comparison of levels of LYS & MET in balanced and non-balanced rations

NonNon--BalancedBalanced BalancedBalanced

Milk Milk -- +1kg+1kgProt % Prot % -- +0.1%+0.1%Fat % Fat % -- +0.1%+0.1%

Max

Improvement in Milk Yield vs. Control

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Milk

(lb

s/co

w/d

ay)

Min Average

0.2

7.5

4.4

Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk yield

Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University.

Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein

Max

Improvement in Milk Protein Content vs. Control

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Milk

Com

pone

nts

(%)

Min Average

0.11

0.160.14

Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk protein

Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University.

Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein

Max

Improvement in Milk Fat Content vs. Control

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Milk

Com

pone

nts

(%)

Min Average

0.08

0.25

0.18

Incorporating MetaSmart as a key ingredient to balance rations for LYS and MET improved milk fat

Summary of 6 trials (early lactation), conducted at INRA Rennes, INRA Nancy, University of New Hampshire and The Ohio State University.

Average production 86 lbs milk, 3.75% fat, 3.10% protein

Milk kg/daykg/day + 0.7

Milk protein %% + 0.16

Milk protein g/dayg/day + 79

Milk fat %% + 0.02

Milk fat g/day + 48

Garthwaite et al. (1998)

Benefits to formulating on an amino acid basis…

+ 2.3

+ 0.09

+ 112

+ 0.10

+ 116

Only postOnly post--calvingcalving Including PreIncluding Pre--freshfresh

Seven trialsSeven trials Six trialsSix trials

3

Defining requirements – Lysine plot (NRC, 2001)(NRC, 2001)

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 10.0

Lys, %MP (Met > 1.95 % MP)

Milk

pro

tein

resp

onse

s, (g

/100

g)

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 10.0

Lys, %MP (Met > 1.95 % MP)

Milk

pro

tein

resp

onse

s, (g

/100

g)

6.80

Defining requirements - Methionine plot (NRC, 2001)(NRC, 2001)

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40Met, % MP (Lys > 6.50 % MP)

Milk

pro

tein

resp

onse

s, (g

/100

g)

2.29

Practical Formulation Levels of LYS and MET as a % of MP – NRC 2001

“Optimum” vs. “practical” levels of Lys and Met in MP

0.751

1.251.5

1.752

2.252.5

2.25 3 3.75 4.5 5.25 6 6.75 7.5

NRC recommendations6.80 Lys, 2.29 Met

Practical recommendations 6.60 Lys, 2.22 MetM

et (%

of M

P)

Lys (% of MP)

2.97 : 1

How should we approach practical ration formulation for amino acids?

1. Formulate for a minimum MP requirement

2. Optimize LYS as a % of MP.

3. Optimize the ratio of LYS : MET

Selection of ration ingredients to meet the constraints of amino acid formulation

maximize microbial protein yield- close to ideal protein profile (LYS rich…)

LYS rich raw materials -- blood meal, soybean, fishmeal

“Rumen Protected” methionine sources- least cost source of the marginal contribution in MET needed to balance rations for MET and LYS

+ 1.7 kg/d milk

+ 0.10% units milk protein

+ 90 g/d milk protein

+ 0.10% units in milk fat

+ 96 g/d milk fat

Summary of Seven Trials - Garthwaite et al. (1998)

Milk performance to balancing MET and LYS (% of MP)

NH3+

CH 3 S CH 2 CH 2 C COO -

HMet

NH3+

NH 3+ CH 2 CH 2 CH 2 CH 2 C COO -

HLys

4

Five good reasons

1. Increase milk protein percent

2. Maximize milk production

3. Improve N efficiency, reduce N excretion4. Reduce metabolic problems

5. Improve energy utilization - favors reproduction

Five good reasons

1. Increase milk protein percent

2. Maximize milk production

3. Improve N efficiency, reduce N excretionImprove N efficiency, reduce N excretion4. Reduce metabolic problems

5. Improve energy utilization - favors reproduction

Features and benefits to formulating on an Features and benefits to formulating on an individual amino acid basisindividual amino acid basis……

Rules of thumb for short term responses toimprovements in MET and LYS supply

MET limiting –each additional g of MET 7g of milk protein

LYS limiting –each additional g of LYS 5g of milk protein

How much protein can really be economized when balancing for Lys and Met?

40 Kg milk obtained with 2800 g of MP (containing 5.7% or more Lys and 1.9% Met), 159 g MP-Lys and 53 g MP-Met

How much MP is needed to produce 40 Kg of milk if MP contains 6.6% Lys and 2.2% Met?

159 g MP-Lys / 6.6% Lys (.066) = 2409 g MP

53 g MP-Met / 2.2% Met (.022) = 2409 g MP

How much MP is saved? 2800 g – 2409 g = 391 g

How much RUP is saved? 391 g / 0.80 = 489 g

How much protein can really be economized when balancing for Lys and Met?

Saving 489 g of RUP means how much less RUP in diet DM?

Assumption: A well-balanced diet containing 10.5% RDP and 7.5% RUP (i.e., 18% CP), at an intake of 25 Kg/d, with 5.7% Lys and 1.9% Met in MP will support 40 kg of milk

Original RUP intake: 25 kg DMI x 0.075 = 1.875 kg

New RUP intake = 1.875 kg – 0.489 kg = 1.386 kg

New RUP in diet DM = 1.386 kg RUP / 25 kg DMI = 5.5%

A: 2.0 percentage units less (7.5% - 5.5%)

Effects of Improved Lys and Met Nutrition on Reducing “MP” Requirements

Chen et al. (2009) fed 5 diets:1) Traditional protein (16.9% CP)2) Low protein (15.7% CP)3) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 40 g dry MetaSmart4) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 15 g Smartamine5) Low protein (15.7% CP) + 15 g Smartamine + 27 g AT88

Randomized complete block design70 Holstein cows (20 primiparous, 50 multiparous)14 blocks of 5 cows by parity and DIM2 wk for covariate periodDiets fed concurrently for 12 wkCows averaged 147 DIM

Diet Composition (Chen et al., 2009)

Ingredient

Traditional protein(TP)

Lowprotein

(LP)LP +

MetaSmartLP +

Smartamine

LP +Smartamine

+ AT88

Alfalfa silage 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4

Corn silage 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7

High moisture corn 14.9 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5

Solvent soybean meal 3.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

Distillers driedgrains 7.6 0 0 0 0

Expeller soybean meal 4.0 0 0 0 0

Premix 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7

5

Nutrient Content of Diet (Chen et al., 2009)

Ingredient

Traditional protein(TP)

Lowprotein

(LP)LP +

MetaSmartLP +

Smartamine

LP +Smartamine

+ AT88

DM, % 45.0 44.8 45.3 45.1 45.2

CP, % DM 16.9 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7

NDF, % DM 29 27 27 27 27

MP-Lys, g/d 160 161 161 161 161

MP-Met, g/d 48 45 54 54 54

Lys:Met ratio 3.3 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0

Effect of Met supplementation on DMI and milk and milk components (Chen et al., 2009)

Item TP LPLP +

MetaSmartLP +

Smartamine

LP +Smartamine

+ AT88P>F

Contrast

DMI, kg/d

24.7 24.9 25.7 24.6 25.1 0.44

Milk, kg/d

41.2 41.8 42.1 41.7 41.7 0.98

Protein, %

3.05b,c 3.03c 3.19a 3.15a,b 3.17a 0.01LP vs. MetHP vs. Met

Fat, % 3.85 3.52 3.93 3.77 3.66 0.08

Protein, kg/d

1.25 1.24 1.30 1.33 1.33 0.09

Fat, kg/d 1.61 1.42 1.60 1.62 1.54 TP vs. LPLP vs. Met

ECM, kg/d 39.4a,b 37.9b 41.0a 40.2a,b 39.0a.b 0.02

Effect of Met supplementation on DMI and milk and milk components (Chen et al., 2009)

Item TP LPLP +

MetaSmartLP +

Smartamine

LP +Smartamine

+ AT88P>F

Contrast

Milk/DMI 1.67 1.69 1.68 1.69 1.67 0.97

ECM/DMI 1.61a,b 1.54b 1.59a,b 1.63a 1.57a,b 0.04

MUN,mg/dL

13.2a 10.0c 10.2c 11.2b 10.8b,c <0.01TP vs. LP

(<0.01)LP vs. Met

(0.02)TP vs. Met

(<0.01)

Milk N/Feed N, %

30.9 32.7 32.7 34.1 33.2 0.14TP vs. LP

(0.03)TP vs. Met

(<0.01)

Will amino acid balancing of rations help reproduction?

1. There is a negative association between plasma, serum, and milk urea N and conception rates.

2. There is a positive association between “energy balance” and reproductive performance.

PUN/MUN and Conception Rates (CR) in Dairy Cows

30

35

40

45

50

55

CR

, %

< 19 mg/dl > 19 mg/dl

320/650

119/286

Adapted from Butler et al. (1996) and Ferguson et al. (1993)

Higher Higher MUNMUN’’ss are associated withare associated withlower conception rateslower conception rates

Santos 2005Santos 2005

Effect of Dietary Protein on PUN and Uterine pHon d 7 of the Estrous Cycle of Heifers

0

5

10

15

20

25

mg/

dl

PUN, mg/dl

Balanced High RUP High RDP

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

7.0

7.1

7.2

pH

Uterine pH

Balanced High RUP High RDP

P < 0.05 P < 0.05

Elrod et al. (1993)

The negative effect of higher The negative effect of higher PUNPUN’’ss is mediated is mediated through an effect on uterine pHthrough an effect on uterine pH

6

Cows in “poor” conditiontake longer to begin cycling

3.753.252.752.25

40

30

20

10

BCS at 70 DIM

Anov

ulat

ory,

%

2.50 3.00 3.50

35

15

25

BCS at 70 d Postpartum and Rate of Anovulationin Lactating Dairy Cows

Santos et al. (2004) J. Dairy Sci.

N = 840 cows

r2 = 0,93P < 0,02

Corn Silage Grass Silage

Days to first AI

No. AI per conception

Uterineinvolution %

Days to first AI

No. AI per conception

Uterineinvolution %

6864

1.751.60 33

56

71

62

1.801.60

43

53

Robert et al 1996

Influence of fortifying diets in MET on reproductive performance

Improving the amino acid balance of the ration can improve reproduction

7.0 LYS/1.7 MET

6.9 LYS/2.4 MET⎬ % of MP

Prevalence of Subclinical Ketosis in Dairy Cows( N = 423; RHA = 25,600 lb)

0.0 0.5 0.0 1.9

21.2

60.2

50.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-21 -14 -7 calving 7 14 28

Day relative to parturition

subc

linic

al k

etos

is, %

Juchem et al. J. Dairy Sci. (2004)

Will amino acid balancing rations have any positive impactWill amino acid balancing rations have any positive impacton preventing metabolic disorders in the transition cow?on preventing metabolic disorders in the transition cow?

Source INRA THEIX

Influence of LYS and MET concentration in the ration onblood ketone levels during the second week of lactation

Optimizing rations in LYS and MET improved the metabolic status of cows in severe energy deficit in early lactation

6.92 LYS / 1.84 MET6.84 LYS / 2.82 MET

⎬ % of MP

B-hydroxybutyrate

mM

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

Acetonemg/dL

01234567

2,78

1,86

6,1

2,2

Methionine : Central to liver function in the dairy cow

Methionine stimulatesthe secretion of VLDL

The VLDL transportthe triglycerides away from the liver allowing fatty infiltration (steatose)and ketosis to be avoided

Energy deficit

Mobilisation oftriglycerides at the beginning of lactationKetone bodies

StockageSteatose

VLDL

Body StoresTriglycerides

LIVER

Energy available for the dairy cow

Influence on Somatic cell countInfluence on Somatic cell count

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Stage of lactation ( month )

Cel

l cou

nt (

1000

/ m

l )

Control with SmartamineSource : Bulletin des GTV 03 / 04 96, 20 000 résults du C.L.

- 50 000 / ml- 50 000 / ml

Is their any evidence that MET and LYSIs their any evidence that MET and LYSplay a role in immune function?play a role in immune function?

7

First introduction of Smartamine ‘02

Increased in diet March ’05, March ’06 and February ‘07

2.3% MP 2.4% MP

2.2% MP

Long term benefits of feeding an amino acid balanced program are very significant (Mike van Amburgh – Cornell 2009) Amino acid formulation – only way to go

more predictable performance compared to formulating uniquely on MP

better milk components (protein and fat)more efficient use of dietary proteinbetter for the cow (reproduction and health) better for the pocket book