Effect of feeding undegradable protein with energy on nutrient utilization, milk yield and milk composition of crossbred goats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

Effect of feeding undegradable protein with energy on nutrient utilization, milk yield and milk composition of crossbred goats B. Sahoo ∗ , T.K. Walli National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132001, India Received 21 December 2005; received in revised form 17 June 2007; accepted 19 July 2007 Available online 4 September 2007

Abstract Twenty lactating cross-bred goats (Sannen × Beetal and Alpine × Beetal) were assigned to four treatments of five animals each in a 2 × 2 factorial design on the basis of body weight (31.5 ± 1.97), days of post-partum (21.5 ± 1.83) and average daily milk yield (1.3 kg ± 0.21). Two types of concentrate mixture (CM-I and CM-II) being isonitrogenous (20.6% CP) and isocaloric (73.2% TDN) nature were fed to treatments: 1 (LUP) & 2 (LUPM) and 3 (HUP) & 4 (HUPM), respectively. The two concentrate mixture was similar in composition with only difference in RDP:UDP ratio (CM-I, 72:28; CM-II, 58:42) due to replacement of untreated mustard cake (25%) as in CM-I, by formaldehyde treated mustard cake in CM-II, as undegradable protein. Molasses as energy source was additionally supplemented at the rate of 8% of concentrate mixture on DM basis to animals in LUPM and HUPM. The animals were fed concentrate and roughage (Berseem:wheat straw = 2:1) in 50:50 ratio. In a 120 days feeding trial a metabolism trial was conducted at the end of trial which revealed higher DM intake in molasses supplemented animals due to better palatability of concentrate mixture. Feeding higher UDP content in diet had no significant effect on DM intake. The CP and TDN intake in different groups was also not affected due to similar intake and digestibility of nutrients. The digestibility and nutritive value of all the four diets were similar except CP% which was decreased due to energy supplementation in animals of LUPM and HUPM. Energy supplementation irrespective of feeding undegradable protein decreased (P < 0.01) the urea concentration in milk. The average milk yield and 4% FCM yield were not influenced either by higher undegradable protein or additional energy supplementation. Milk composition was also not influenced by feeding undegradable protein regardless supplementation of molasses. However, lower concentration (mg/100 ml) of milk urea in higher undegradable protein and energy fed animals reflects better protein and energy utilization. It was concluded that increasing UDP level in diet from 28 to 42% in concentrate mixture through formaldehyde treatment of mustard cake is not beneficial in augmenting milk production and composition. Additional supplementation of molasses with or without undegradable protein had no added advantage in increasing milk production and improving milk composition. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mustard cake; Undegradable protein; Molasses; Milk and goat

Abbreviations: CM, concentrate mixture; LUP, low undegradable protein; LUPM, low undegradable protein with molasses; HUP, high undegradable protein; HUPM, high undegradable protein with molasses; MC, mustard cake; GNC, ground nut cake; FA, formaldehyde; RDP, rumen degradable protein; UDP, undegradable protein; DM, dry matter; EE, ether extract; CP, crude protein; NDF, neutral detergent fibre; TCHO, total carbohydrate; DCP, digestible crude protein; TDN, total digestible nutrient; SNF, solid not fat; TS, total solid; SCM, solid corrected milk; FCM, fat corrected milk ∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Instructional Dairy Farm, Nagla, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, UA 263149, India. Tel.: +91 9412943547. E-mail address: biswanath [email protected] (B. Sahoo). 0921-4488/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2007.07.007

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

1. Introduction Many attempts have been made to increase the milk production and milk components through dietary manipulation of protein and energy in the diets of ruminants (Maiga and Schingoethe, 1997). Protein is typically the most important and expensive nutrient in dairy ration which needs to be efficiently utilized. The source of dietary CP and energy fed to the dairy animals significantly influence the utilization of N and energy in the rumen and the flow of nutrients to the small intestine. Mustard cake (MC) is the most commonly used and cheaper protein supplement for livestock in India (Sahoo et al., 2006). It has a higher proportion of essential amino acids, viz. Methionine and Lysine than other oil cakes. However, its protein is highly degradable in rumen, which reduces its nutritive value. Formaldehyde (FA) treatment of MC is the common used method for protection of protein from microbial degradation (Kanjanapruthipong et al., 2002; Wulf and Sudekum, 2005). Supplementing the diets of ruminants with undegradable protein (UDP) improved N and amino acids flow to the small intestine (Volden, 1999). Milk yield and milk components were increased when lactating animals were fed high quality protein with good ruminal bypass potential (Garg et al., 2005). Energy is often the limiting dietary factor during early lactation. Molasses as energy source acts as excellent source of readily fermentable non-structural carbohydrate. Milk production increased when the diet contained more amounts of ruminally degradable carbohydrates from molasses (Wing et al., 1988; Maiga and Schingoethe, 1997). Therefore, the present study was planned to assess the nutritional performance of supplementing rumen undegradable protein with energy source on nutrient utilization, milk yield and milk components of lactating goats.

37

Preweighed nylon bags (9 cm × 15 cm with 40 ␮m pore size) containing 5 g ground sample were tied with nylon threads fastened with iron chains which were then placed in rumen of 4 fistulated animals to record the observations with 3 replications of each sample. Bags were taken out at regular intervals of time (0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 30, 36 and 48 h), thoroughly washed, dried and subjected to N estimation to assess protein degradability. 2.2. Animals and feeding Twenty healthy lactating crossbred goats were randomly assigned to four groups of five animals each on the basis of body weight (31.5 ± 1.97), days of post-partum (21.5 ± 1.83) and average daily milk yield (1.3 kg ± 0.21). The animals were housed in well-ventilated cement floored individual pens with facilities for separate feeding and watering throughout the experimental period. The animals were dewormed before start of the experiment and maintained under strict hygiene and uniform management. The animals were fed four different dietary treatments containing concentrate and roughage at the ratio of 50:50 so as to meet the nutritional requirement (NRC, 1981). Treatments were (1) low undegradable protein (LUP), (2) low undegradable protein with molasses (LUPM), (3) high undegradable protein (HUP) and (4) high undegradable protein with molasses (HUPM). Two types of concentrate mixture (CM-I and CM-II) having isonitrogenous and isocaloric nature were prepared (Table 1). CM-I containing untreated MC was fed to animals in treatment 1 and 2. CM-II fed to animals in treatment 3 and 4 was similar to CM-I except that untreated MC was replaced by formaldehyde treated MC. Energy in the form of molasses was additionally supplied at the rate of 8% of concentrate mixture on DM basis to animals of treatment 2 and 4. The animals were offered concentrate and roughage (Berseem:wheat straw = 2:1) in 50:50 ratio. Concentrate mixture was offered at 9:30 h. Berseem as a green fodder was offered at 14:30 h and wheat straw was made available from 17:00 h onwards for the rest of the day. Fresh water was provided ad libitum to all the animals twice a day at 10:30 and 16:00 h.

2. Materials and methods 2.3. Lactation trial 2.1. Formaldehyde treatment of mustard cake Mustard cake was ground to pass 1 mm sieve size and subjected for CP estimation by Kjeldahl’s technique. The cake was then treated with formalin (40% formaldehyde) at the rate of 1.2 g of formaldehyde per 100 g CP of cake followed by mixing thoroughly and stored in tightly sealed plastic bags for 7 days. Within this reaction period the formation of complexes between amide and aldehyde group was complete which can resist the proteolytic attack in the rumen (Ashes et al., 1995; Chatterjee and Walli, 2003). The protein was then tested for degree of protection and effective protein degradability using nylon bag technique (Ørskov and McDonald, 1979).

In 120 days lactation trial amounts of feed offered and left over were recorded weekly for 2 consecutive days and samples were subjected to DM and CP estimation. Body weights were recorded for 2 consecutive days at the start and end of the experimental period and at every fortnight intervals during the trial. Does were milked twice daily and milk yields were recorded at each milking throughout the lactation trial. Milk samples from individual animals were collected at fortnight intervals on 2 consecutive days of milkings. Aliquots of milk sample equal to 1/100th of daily milk yield was composited and analyzed for different milk constituents.

38

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

Table 1 Ingredient and chemical composition of experimental feeds Component

CM-I

Ingredient composition (g kg−1 as feed basis) Maize 450 Wheat bran 170 Untreated MC 250 FA treated MC – GNC 100 Mineral mixture 20 Common salt 10 Chemical composition (% DM basis) OM 90.7 CP 20.7 EE 6.6 NDF 33.1 TCHO 63.4 Total ash 9.3 CP (%) 20.6 RDP 15.0 UDP 5.7 RDP/UDP ratio 72:28 TDN (%) 73.2

CM-II 450 170 – 250 100 20 10 90.8 20.6 6.6 32.8 63.7 9.2 20.6 12.0 8.7 58:42 73.2

Berseem

Wheat straw

Molasses

– – – – – – –

– – – – – – –

– – – – – – –

84.3 16.4 3.3 44.8 64.6 15.7 – – – – –

88.3 4.1 1.0 83.0 83.2 11.7 – – – – –

90.0 3.0 0.6 – 86.4 10.0 – – – – –

2.4. Metabolism trial

2.5. Chemical analysis

A metabolism trial of 10 days duration (3 days acclimatization and 7 days of feeding trial) for individual animal was conducted at the end of the lactation trial in which the goats were placed in metabolic cages with facilities for separate collection of faeces and urine. Measurement of daily feeds offered and residues were recorded along with the 24 h interval output of faeces and subjected to analysis for proximate composition of sample. Milk production and urine excreted was recorded daily. Aliquots of faeces from each animal equal to 1/10th of total faeces were dried in a hot air oven (100 ± 5 ◦ C) for dry matter. The dried samples of the trial period were pooled and kept for analysis of proximate composition, except N. For analysis of N, another aliquot of 1/40th of total faeces voided by each animal was preserved with dilute sulfuric acid (1:4) in wide mouth air tight preweighed bottle separately for each animal. At the end of collection period, the bottles were weighed. The aliquots of faecal sample collected in bottles during the trial period were composited, mixed thoroughly and suitable aliquots were taken for N estimation. However, for urinary N estimation 1/100th of total urine excreted out were taken daily and preserved separately with 25% of sulfuric acid in plastic bottles followed by analysis by the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1995). Duplicate milk samples from individual animals equal to 1/100th of total milk produced from two milking (morning and evening) were pooled together. Representative samples were drawn in clean and dry plastic bottles and taken for laboratory analysis of various milk constituents.

The samples collected during the metabolism trial period were analyzed for DM, EE, CP, total ash and urine for N following standard procedures of AOAC (1995) and cell wall fraction (NDF) by the method of Goering and Van Soest (1970). TCHO and TDN percent were estimated through digestibility of nutrients as follows: TCHO(%) = OM(%) − [CP(%) + EE(%)] TDN(%) = DCP(%) + DTCHO(%) + [DEE(%) × 2.25] Representative samples of milk were analyzed for fat, protein, SNF, total solids and milk urea as per ISI (1982) procedure. The solid corrected milk yield (SCM) and yield of milk energy (Mcal) were calculated as per formula given by Tyrrell and Reid (1965) as follows: SCM(kg) = 12.3(F) + 6.56(SNF) + 0.0752(M) where F, SNF and M are of fat, SNF and milk yields expressed in kg. Milk energy (Mcal) = SCM (kg) × 0.75 2.6. Statistical analysis The data were analyzed by 2 × 2 factorial designs using the general linear model procedure of SPSS (version 7.5 for windows). Data of each parameter are presented as means of each treatment and standard errors of the means. Effects of

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

39

buffaloes (Chatterjee and Walli, 2003) and to cows (Garg et al., 2005). Digestibility coefficients remained indifferent for varying ratios of RDP/UDP diet fed to goats (Mishra and Rai, 1996b). In contrast to the present findings nutrient digestibility was reported to be improved due to protein protection (Kridi et al., 2001; Wankhede and Kalbande, 2001). Wing et al. (1988) reported an increase (P < 0.01) in DM and OM digestibility in Holstein cows fed undegradable protein with citrus molasses distillers soluble (6% of concentrate). Supplementation of citrus molasses at 12 and 18% rather depressed (P < 0.01) DM and OM digestibility which might be due to higher level of molasses in diet leading to a change in rumen fermentation pattern. The daily DM intake (Table 2) in molasses supplemented animals (LUPM and HUPM) were higher (P < 0.05) irrespective of feeding undegradable protein, which was obviously due to more (P < 0.04) concentrate intake. Higher (P < 0.01) Berseem intake with lower (P < 0.01) intake of straw was obtained in animals of HUP and HUPM resulting in higher CP intake through Berseem. Molasses supplementation as energy source had no effect in increasing the roughage consumption. However, DM, DCP and TDN intake on metabolic body size basis was similar among the four groups indicating no influence by quality of protein and energy

undegradable protein and energy and the interaction between protein and energy were tested using animals as the error term.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Nutrient utilization The ingredient and chemical composition of experimental feeds is presented in Table 1. The concentrate mixtures (CM-I and CM-II) had similar composition due to inclusion of similar ingredients in same proportion. The difference was only in RDP/UDP ratio (72:28 vs. 58:42) due to replacement of MC in CM-I by formaldehyde treated MC in CM-II. The RDP/UDP ratio of total mixed ration fed to animals were 62 ± 1.78, 64 ± 1.57, 45 ± 1.37 and 47 ± 1.82 in treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively indicating significant increase in UDP value of diet through formaldehyde treatment of MC as an ingredient of concentrate mixture. The data in Table 3 showed that the digestibility coefficient for DM, OM, CP, EE, NDF, and total carbohydrate did not differ significantly among different dietary treatments which revealed that inclusion of formaldehyde treated MC and molasses supplementation had no positive influence on digestibility of nutrients. Similar results were reported by feeding formaldehyde treated cakes, to

Table 2 Effect of undegradable protein and energy on nutrient intake and nutritive value of feeds in lactating goats Attributes

Treatments 1 LUP

Live weight (kg) DM intake Straw (g day−1 ) Berseem (g day−1 ) Concentrate (g day−1 ) Total (g day−1 ) Total (g kg−0.75 day−1 ) Roughage:concentrate CP intake Roughage (g day−1 ) Concentrate (g day−1 ) Total (g day−1 ) Total (g kg−0.75 day−1 )

33.1 237 497 588 1322 96 43:57

P value 2 LUPM 34.9 233 497 690 1419 100 40:60

3 HUP 33.1 225 518 603 1346 98 43:57

P

M

P×M

1.29

0.75

0.52

0.76

0.81 2.42 28.32 29.65 3.25

0.01 0.01 0.97 0.80 0.65

0.23 0.46 0.04 0.05 0.35

0.02 0.42 0.74 0.75 0.99

–

–

–

–

4 HUPM

S.E.M.

33.8 226 512 678 1417 102 42:58

91 122 213 15

91 134 225 16

94 124 218 16

94 131 224 16

0.41 5.66 5.84 0.55

0.01 0.96 0.79 0.63

0.42 0.26 0.30 0.63

0.56 0.74 0.72 0.94

DCP intake (g kg−0.75 day−1 ) TDN intake (g kg−0.75 day−1 )

39 69

41 73

39 70

40 74

1.10 0.14

0.92 0.74

0.25 0.31

0.74 0.96

Nutritive value (%) CP DCP TDN

16.1 9.9 71.8

15.8 10.0 72.7

16.2 9.8 71.4

15.8 9.8 72.2

0.08 0.18 0.70

0.78 0.56 0.67

0.01 0.96 0.41

0.55 0.71 0.95

LUP = low undegradable protein; LUPM = low undegradable protein with molasses; HUP = high undegradable protein; HUPM = high undegradable protein with molasses.

40

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

Table 3 Effect of undegradable protein and energy on nutrient digestibility and N balance in lactating goats Attributes

Treatments

P value

1 LUP

2 LUPM

3 HUP

4 HUPM

S.E.M.

P

M

P×M

Digestibility of nutrients (%) DM OM CP EE NDF Total carbohydrate

73.7 75.8 61.3 60.3 67.9 80.2

74.7 76.7 63.1 64.2 68.0 81.2

73.9 75.9 60.6 61.3 67.7 80.5

74.5 76.8 61.6 62.3 67.6 81.2

0.88 0.75 0.90 1.28 1.03 0.75

0.98 0.87 0.42 0.83 0.84 0.92

0.49 0.42 0.29 0.19 0.98 0.42

0.86 0.98 0.77 0.44 0.94 0.86

Nitrogen balance Intake (g day−1 ) Export (g day−1 ) Balance (g day−1 ) Balance (as % of N intake)

34 29 5 15

36 30 6 18

35 30 5 13

36 30 6 16

0.93 0.83 0.75 1.96

0.79 0.55 0.72 0.61

0.30 0.97 0.19 0.25

0.72 0.77 0.89 0.86

LUP = low undegradable protein; LUPM = low undegradable protein with molasses; HUP = high undegradable protein; HUPM = high undegradable protein with molasses.

supplementation on nutrient digestibility probably due to similar intake on metabolic body size basis and similar digestibility of nutrients. Several reports supported the present findings (Crawford and Hoover, 1984; Chatterjee and Walli, 2003). Contrary to the above findings, DM intake per day was not affected by molasses supplementation to cottonseed hull diet fed to lactating dairy cows (Morales et al., 1989). Energy supplementation through molasses significantly decreased CP% of diet. However, DCP and TDN percent of all the four diet remained unaffected by feeding higher undegradable protein or supplementing energy source. The average body weight

during the whole experimental period was 32.3 ± 0.54, 32.8 ± 0.85, 32.0 ± 0.54 and 33.1 ± 0.59 in treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively which was similar among the different groups. 3.2. N balance The N balance in all the four treatments was positive (Table 3). N intake was similar among the treatments due to similar DM intake. The N excretion did not differ among the treatments resulting similar N balance in all the groups of animals. Chaturvedi and Walli (2000) also

Table 4 Milk production, composition and efficiency of lactating goats fed undegradable protein and energy Attributes

Treatments

(kg day−1 )

DM intake Milk yield (kg day−1 ) 4% FCM yield (kg day−1 ) Protein (%) Fat (%) SNF (%) TS (%) Milk urea (mg/100 ml) Protein yield (g day−1 ) Fat yield (g day−1 ) SNF yield (g day−1 ) Total solid yield (g day−1 ) SCM yield (kg day−1 ) Energy yield (Mcal day−1 ) Milk yield per unit DM FCM yield per unit DM

P value

1 LUP

2 LUPM

3 HUP

4 HUPM

S.E.M.

P

M

P×M

1.3 1.3 1.2 3.0 3.4 9.7 13.1 62.4 39 44 126 170 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9

1.4 1.3 1.2 3.1 3.3 10.2 13.5 59.4 40 44 132 176 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8

1.3 1.6 1.4 3.1 3.3 9.9 13.2 59.3 46 50 152 202 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0

1.4 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.3 9.7 13.0 54.4 47 50 149 199 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9

0.03 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.92 4.23 4.99 14.96 19.77 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.08

0.80 0.30 0.35 0.81 0.43 0.67 0.58 0.01 0.29 0.39 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.33

0.06 0.98 0.99 0.81 0.87 0.74 0.72 0.01 0.84 0.97 0.84 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.62 0.64

0.75 0.87 0.94 0.99 0.43 0.40 0.46 0.46 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.98

LUP = low undegradable protein; LUPM = low undegradable protein with molasses; HUP = high undegradable protein, HUPM = high undegradable protein with molasses.

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

reported similar results on N balance in lactating crossbred cows fed higher UDP diet. Contrary to our findings, N excretion was lower (P < 0.05) in lactating cows fed high UDP diet indicating better N efficiency (Reynal and Broderick, 2005).

41

influenced by feeding higher UDP diet with or without supplemental energy. The feed cost per kg FCM produced during the whole experimental period was Rs. 5.1, 5.6, 4.7 and 4.8 in treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively indicating beneficial effect for farmers by feeding FA treated MC to animals.

3.3. Milk production and feed efficiency The overall increase in milk yield and FCM yield as a result of feeding high UDP diet was 19.2 and 16.7%, respectively over low UDP diet (Table 4). In the present study, milk yield and 4% FCM yield during the entire experimental period was not altered by either degradability of CP or supplemental energy. Similar observations were recorded by feeding higher undegradable protein to ewes (Landau et al., 2005) and goats (Mishra and Rai, 1996b). However, higher intake of formaldehyde treated cake lead to increased milk production in dairy cows which might be due to increased supply of amino acids post-ruminally without affecting post-ruminal digestibility of protein (Kanjanapruthipong et al., 2002; Garg et al., 2005). Supplementation of molasses with undegradable protein was expected to improve efficiency of energy and protein utilization by better balancing effect at tissue level. In the present study, no apparent change in productive performance of milch goats was recorded which might be due to the fact that animals fed UDP diet were perhaps already receiving sufficient nutrient as the animals were in high plane of nutrition. However, in low plane of nutrition supplementation of energy irrespective of feeding high UDP diet could have positive impact on milk yield and composition in lactating animals to exploit their genetic potential (Garg et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 2005). Table 4 showed that milk protein, fat, SNF and TS percentage and yield were unaffected by feeding FA treated MC regardless energy supplementation which were in consistent with the findings of some researchers (Hadjipanayiotou, 1992; Garg et al., 2005). However, Mishra and Rai (1996a) reported a decrease in fat and total solid percentage with increase in UDP level from 25 to 45% without affecting protein percentage in milk. Similarly increasing UDP and energy content of diet did not influence the milk composition and milk yield (Morales et al., 1989; Maiga and Schingoethe, 1997). Milk urea concentration (mg/100 ml) is the major index for monitoring protein and energy utilization in ruminants. Feeding undegradable protein, irrespective of supplementation of molasses reduced (P < 0.01) the milk urea concentration compared to control diet, which reflects better efficacy of nutrient utilization. Milk production efficiency (milk produced per unit DM) was not

4. Conclusion The results of the study indicated that increasing UDP level in ration of lactating goats through formaldehyde treatment of mustard cake was not beneficial in augmenting milk production and composition. Additional supplementation of molasses with or without undegradable protein could not achieve added advantage in improving milk yield, milk composition and feed efficiency. However, animals in low plane of nutrition or diet imbalanced in energy and protein, molasses supplementation irrespective of feeding undegradable protein could have improved productive performance in milch goats having high genetic potential. References AOAC, 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA, pp. 4.1–4.17. Ashes, J.R., Gulati, S.K., Scott, T.W., 1995. The role of rumen protected proteins and energy sources in the diet of ruminants. In: Ivan, M. (Ed.), Animal Science Research and Development. Centre for Food and Animal Research Agriculture and Agri-Foods, Canada, pp. 177–182. Chatterjee, A., Walli, T.K., 2003. Effect of feeding formaldehyde protected mustard cake as bypass protein on milk yield and milk composition on Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 56, 299–306. Chaturvedi, O.H., Walli, T.K., 2000. Effect of feeding graded levels of bypass protein on nutrient utilization, nutrient partitioning and on performance of cross bred cows. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 53, 1–10. Crawford, R.J., Hoover, W.H., 1984. Effect of particle size and formaldehyde treatment of soyabean meal on milk production and composition for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 1945–1953. Garg, M.R., Sherasia, P.L., Bhanderi, B.M., Gulati, S.K., Scott, T.W., 2005. Effect of feeding rumen protected protein on milk production in low yielding cross bred cows. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol. 5, 1–8. Goering, H.K., Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage Fiber Analysis. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC, Hand book No. 379, 1–12. Hadjipanayiotou, M., 1992. Effect of protein source and formaldehyde treatment on lactation performance of Chios ewes and Damascus goats. Small Rumin. Res. 8, 185–197. ISI, 1982. Method of test for dairy industry, chemical analysis of milk. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, Bull. No. IS:10083, pp. 4–5. Kanjanapruthipong, J., Vajrabukka, C., Sindhuvanich, C., 2002. Effects of formalin treated soybean as a source of rumen undegradable protein on rumen functions of non lactating dairy cows on concentrate based diets. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15, 1439–1444.

42

B. Sahoo, T.K. Walli / Small Ruminant Research 75 (2008) 36–42

Kridi, R.T., Haddad, S.G., Muwalla, M.M., 2001. The effect of feeding ruminally undegradable protein on post partum reproduction of Awassi ewes. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1125–1128. Kumar, M.R., Tiwari, D.P., Kumar, A., 2005. Effect of undegradable dietary protein level and plane of nutrition on lactation performance in crossbred cattle. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1407– 1413. Landau, S., Kababya, D., Silanikove, N., Nitsan, R., Lifshitz, L., Baram, H., Bruckental, I., Mabjeesh, S.J., 2005. The ratio of dietary rumen degradable organic matter and crude protein may affect milk yield and composition in dairy sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 58, 115–122. Maiga, H.A., Schingoethe, D.J., 1997. Optimizing the utilization of animal fat and ruminal bypass protein in the diets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80, 343–352. Mishra, S., Rai, S.N., 1996a. Effects of different RDP and UDP ratios on voluntary intake, milk production and feed conversion efficiency in lactating goats. Small Rumin. Res. 20, 31–38. Mishra, S., Rai, S.N., 1996b. Influence of varying RDP/UDP ratios on digestion, nitrogen utilization and milk production efficiency in goats. Small Rumin. Res. 20, 39–45. Morales, J.L., Van Horn, H.H., Moore, J.E., 1989. Dietary interaction of cane molasses with source of roughage intake and lactation effects. J. Dairy Sci. 72, 2331–2338. NRC, 1981. Nutrient Requirements of Goats. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC, p. 11.

Ørskov, E.R., McDonald, I., 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 92, 499–504. Reynal, S.M., Broderick, G.A., 2005. Effect of dietary level of rumen degraded protein on production and N metabolism in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 4045–4064. Sahoo, B., Walli, T.K., Sharma, A.K., 2006. Effect of formaldehyde treated rapeseed oil cake based diet supplemented with molasses on growth rate and histopathological changes in goats. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 19, 997–1003. Tyrrell, H.F., Reid, J.T., 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk. J. Dairy Sci. 48, 1215–1223. Volden, H., 1999. Effects of level of feeding and ruminally undegraded protein on ruminal bacterial protein synthesis, escape of dietary protein, intestinal aminoacid profile and performance of dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 1905–1918. Wankhede, S.M., Kalbande, V.H., 2001. Effect of feeding bypass protein with urea treated grass on the performance of Red Khandhari calves. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14, 970–973. Wing, J.M., Vanhorn, H.H., Sklare, S.D., Hariss, B., 1988. Effects of citrus molasses distiller, solubles and molasses on rumen parameters and lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 71, 414–420. Wulf, M., Sudekum, K.H., 2005. Effects of chemically treated soyabean and expeller rape seed meal on in vivo and in situ crude fat and crude protein disappearance from the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 118, 215–227.