JOURNAL OF THE SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF FINLAND Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja 59 Vol. 51:59-67, 1979 Untreated and formaldehyde treated protein concentrate mixture in the feeds of bulls Liisa Syrjälä and Esko Poutiainen Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Helsinki, 00710 Helsinki 71 Abstract Twelve bulls within the age period 113 294 days were used in an ex- periment in which the effect of formaldehyde treatment of protein on the live weight gain and feed utilization was studied. Their rations Were a combination of a protein concentrate mixture, barley, mineral and vitamins according to nutrient requirements for a growth rate of 1 000 g/animal/day. Oats and barley straw was available ad libitum. In the experimental group the protein concentrate mixture was treated with form- aldehyde, 0,88 g/100 g crude protein, whereas in the control group it was untreated. The proportion of treated protein was 45 % of the total protein in the diet. The study involved feeding trials, digestibility and nitrogen balance trials, and rumen fluid in- vestigations. The live weight gain of the bulls in the experimental group was 10 % better than that of the control group. The amount of feed used per kg live weight gain was 8 % less in the former group than in the latter. The differences in both cases were, how- ever, not significant (P > 0,05). The differences in the digestibility and nitrogen balance and in the pH, ammonia and VFA concentrations of the rumen fluid between the groups were small and insignificant (P > 0,05). Introduction The protection of the dietary protein against ruminal degradation has, during recent years, been the object of many studies in order to improve the utilization of protein by ruminants. The first experiments concerning protected protein were performed with sheep (Chalmers et al. 1954, Ferguson et al. 1967). The results were very promising. The wool growth increased, in some case, even more than 120 %. When the effect of protected protein on the live weight gain of sheep and cattle or on milk production was examined, the results were not as positive. In some experiments the protection had an improving effect, but more often it had no effect (Waldo et al. 1973, Schmidt et al. 1973, Wachira et al. 1974, Clark et al. 1974, Syrjälä et al. 1978 a, 1978 b). The differing results depend to a great degree on the differences in the composition of the ration, especially its protein/energy ratio, in the protein source and the technique and level used in protection. All these factors in- fluence what benefit the protein protection gives. https://www.c-info.fi/en/info/?token=1RC_k8KSCXHBA7CU.hvwcxWafkPHGnsfJwpraxQ.UTXU6IyrVC10O3i0ZKNQloinc_BEBPN4ckTUMpzxw-FQ0FgbViSVx69v7m0sGZd26KtSru30JEbm3r-buM5zy62n_mLijdDUgyv7g9XGoE5g_WQiCxtcVZf3U30DklGL1THGum6yApMBea_cviNKKr9afQavhcLgcTbbrc3BkpofZ4FsjE5-jARfcDogqxOAXVbQav9o-xR2 60 The purpose of this experiment was to find out the effect of a protected protein concentrate mixture on the live weight gain and feed utilization of growing bulls. The study involved feeding trials, digestibility and nitrogen balance trials and rumen fluid investigations. Experimental procedures Feeds and feeding The experiment was performed with 12 growing bulls which were divided by age, live weight, breed and sex into two comparable groups. The animals’ mean age at the experiments beginning was 114 days and their mean weight 139 kg. The experiment was of 6 months duration including an adaptation period of one week in which the bulls’ diet was gradually changed to that of the ex- perimental regime. The experimental diet consisted of oats and barley straw, barley and protein concentrate, plus additional minerals and vitamins. The animals received chopped straw ad libitum. The mixture was prepared from barley and protein concentrate, this fed at a level which satisfied the energy and protein demands of the bulls growing at a rate of 1 000 g/day (Daenicke and Rohr 1974). Energy and protein obtainable from the straw was negligible. Chemical determinations were made on the feed by standard procedures (Paloheimo 1969) and the feeding values obtained from NJF Tables (Anon. 1969, Table 1). The experimental groups protein concentrate was treated with formal- dehyde, used at a rate of 0,88 g/100 g of protein. The control group was given Table 1. The mean chemical composition of the feeds. Protein concentrate Straw Barley formaldehyde untreated . , ,treated Dry matter, % 87,7 89,1 90,5 90,3 % of dry matter: Ash 5,5 3,6 21,6 22,0 Organic matter 94,5 96,4 78,4 78,0 Crude protein 3,6 12,8 41,4 41,6 Crude fat 2,0 2,4 5,4 4,9 Crude fibre 42,3 7,2 9,0 9,0 N-free extract 46,6 74,1 22,6 22,5 kg/f.u 4,0 1,0 1,35 1,35 DM kg/f.u 3,5 0,9 1,2 1,2 DCP % in DM - 9,6 29,5(* 31,1(* DCP g/f.u. 86 398(x 420 (* x ) Values are calculated from digestibility coefficients obtained in this study, f.u. = feed unit DM = dry matter DCP = digestible crude protein 61 the same protein concentrate but without formaldehyde treatment. The protein concentrate contained 25 % crushed soya, 21,5 % brewers mash, 15 % meat and bone meal, 8 % molasses, 10 % dried molasses beet pulp, 4 % urea, minerals and vitamins. Feeding was twice daily at 8.00 and 15.00. Refusals were weighed after morning feeding. The bulls were weighed at the beginning of the experiment, fortnightly during it, and at it’s end. Adjustments were made to the quantities of grain and protein concentrate according to these weights every week. 100 g/day of a commercial mineral mixture (Se-Terki) was given. Physiological experiments All animals spent a two week period in the physiological experiment. The first week was an adjustment period. Samples were taken during the second week. There was no alteration to the feeding regime. The physiological experi- ments consisted of digestibility and nitrogen balance investigations based on total collection methods and of rumen fluid studies. The rumen samples were taken by means of a hose connected to a vacuum pump via the mouth 3 times on the last day of the two week period. 1. In the morning before feeding, at 7.45 2. Two hours after the beginning of feeding, at 10 3. Five hours » » » , at 13 Determinations of rumen fluid pH and ammonia were made immediately after sampling, pH with a Beckman Model 76 meter, and ammonium nitrogen colorimetrically after centrifuging the sample at 2 000 r.p.m. for 10 mins (McCullough 1967). The volatile fatty acids (VFA) were determined by the gas chromatographic method (Huida 1973). Results and discussion Live weight gain and feed consumption The mean live weight gain of the bulls in the experimental group was about 10 % better than that of the control group (Table 2, Fig. 1). The feed consump- tion of the animals was, however, in both groups about the same. The amount of feed used per kg live weight gain by the bulls of the experimental group was about 8 % less than by the control animals. The physiological experiments decreased the growth rate in both groups, although the composition and the intake of the diets were the same during this period as during the whole experiment. This reduction of growth rate was, however, compensated for after the physiological study period. The mean live weight gain of the animals before that period, i.e. between 121 189 days of age, was in the experimental group 1 015 g and in the control group 939 g/day. During the physiological period it was 534 g and 492 g/day, respectively. After the physiological period the experiment continued 23 days more and during this time the mean live weight gain in the experimental group was 1 756 g and in the control group 1 496 g/day. 62 In previous investigations, where formaldehyde protected protein has been used in the diets of growing animals, there have been contradictory results. Formaldehyde treated ground-nut meal in calves diets, containing 12 % protein, increased growth by 9 %, while at the higher protein levels, 15 % and 19 %, formaldehyde treatment gave no significantly higher growth rates. Formaldehyde was used at a rate of 2 g/100 g of crude protein (Faichney and Davies 1973). The calves growth was not different in the control group when compared with that of those on feed containing 26 % formaldehyde treated rape seed meal. Formaldehyde use in this experiment was 5,6 g/100 g of digestible crude protein (Sharma et al. 1972). Growth and feed consumption were also found to be considerably smaller with beef animals, live weight 350 kg, on formaldehyde treated barley fed ad libitum (Davies and Faichney 1973). Negative results were also obtained by Schmidt et al. (1974) with Holstein bulls fed soya beans treated with 40 % formaldehyde at a rate of 1,5 and 3 ml/100 g of soya protein. Digestibility and N-balance The treatment with formaldehyde lowered the organic matter and crude protein digestibility of the ration but not significantly (P > 0,05, Table 3). The reason for such a slight decrease was the treatment with only 0,88 g formaldehyde/100 g protein concentrate and the fact, that the proportion of this treated protein in the whole diet was only 45 % (Table 2). Fig.i. Live-weight gain and feed consumption on different diets 63 Table 2. Live weight gain and feed consumption. Experimental group Control group Number of animals 6 6 Age at start of exp., days 112 115 Age at end of exp., days 293 296 Live weight at start, kg 140 138 Live weight at end, kg 313 296 Live weight gain, g/day 956 873 DM supply, kg/day 5,26 5,30 32from straw, % 32 from concentrates, % 68 68 Energy supply, f.u./day 4,29 4,23 12from straw, % 11 from concentrates, % 89 88 Energy utilization, f.u./kg live weight gain 4,48 4,85 769Crude protein supply, g/day 754 from straw, % 8 8 from barley, % 47 45 from protein cone., % 45 47 DCP, g/f.u 140 142 Table 3. Digestibility, N balance and feeding values, calculated for complete diet. Experimental Control group group Digestibility, % Organic matter 69,1 69,5 Crude protein 62,1 63,5 N balance, g/day 16,9 15,6 Biological value 52 48 Nitrogen secretion in the urine of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group. This is the main reason why the nitrogen balance was also better in the experimental group. These differences were however not significant (P > 0.05). In many studies formaldehyde treatment generally lowered feed digest- ibility, but N-retention has been seen to be same or a little better (Reis and Tunks 1969, Barry 1970, 1972, 1976, Poutiainen and Huida 1970, Faichney 1971, Brown and Valentine 1972, Mcßae et al. 1972, Syrjälä 1972, Barry and Fennessy 1973). The effect, however, has depended on the level of form- aldehyde treatment and also the protein source. Rumen fermentation The mean pH value of all the rumen fluid samples was 6,94 (Table 4, Fig. 2). This relatively high pH value has probably been influenced by the neutralising effect of saliva as the rumen samples were taken via the mouth and at least 64 some saliva contamination was unavoidable. Although the rumen fluid pH values were higher in the animals in the experimental group than those of the control group the differences were not significant (P > 0,05). Other studies also confirm that formaldehyde treatment of feeds has no significant effect on the rumen pH values fbarry 1975, Dintus et al. 1975, Kaufmann and Hage- MEISTER 1976). Table 4. pH, ammonia and volatile fatty acids in the rumen fluid of bulls in different groups. The values are the averages of different sampling times. Experimental Control group group pH 6,94 6,94 NH S-N, mg/100 ml 11,8 11,2 Total VFA, mmoles/100 ml 13,65 14,22 Acetic acid, molar % 67,4 68,1 Propionic acid » 15,8 15,4 Butyric acid » 13,9 13,6 Isovaleric acid » 1,7 1,5 Valeric acid » 1,3 1,4 Ratio acetic: propionic 4,3 4,4 * acetic: butyric 4,8 5,0 * propionic: butyric 1,1 1,1 Fig. 2. pH. NH 3-N and VFA in the rumen fluid of bulls on different diets 65 Treatment with formaldehyde, in this experiment only slightly decreased the ammonia-N level in the rumen fluid. Differences in the values between the groups were not significant (P > 0,05). Generally formaldehyde treatment has been noticed to decrease the ammonia-N levels in the rumen (Faichney and Davies 1973, Dinius et al. 1975). The total VFA concentration was lower, but not significantly (P > 0,05), in the rumen fluid of bulls in the experimental group than in those in the control group. The lowering effect of formaldehyde treatment on the rumen fluid VFA concentration has also been noticed by Barry (1975) and Dinius et al. (1975). Acknowledgements. We wish to express our sincere thanks to Mr. Nils Finskas, Mrs. Marjatta Boman and Miss Diane Barnes for helping us to perform this work. We also wish to thank the Farmos Group for prepearing the experimental feeds. REFERENCES Anon. 1969. Fodermiddeltable. Nord. Jorbr. forskenes Foren. 40 p. Gjodvik. Barry, T. N. 1970. The effect of formaldehyde treated casein and lucerne meal to sheep on nitrogen metabolism and wool production. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Production 30; 216-217. 1972. The effect of feeding formaldehyde treated casein to sheep on nitrogen reten- tion and wool growth. N.Z.J. Agric. Res. 15; 107 116. 1975. Evaluation of formaldehyde treated lucerne hay for protecting protein from ruminal degradation and for increasing nitrogen retention, wool growth, live-weight gain and voluntary intake when fed to young sheep. J. Agric. Sci. 85: 2 3. 1976. The effectiveness of formaldehyde treatment in protecting dietary protein from rumen microbial degradation. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35:221 229. & Fennessy, P. F. 1973. Effect of formaldehyde treatment on the chemical com- position and nutritive value of silage. II Digestibility of the silages and the chemical composition of rumen fluid in sheep supplemented or not supplemented with DL- methionine. N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 16: 59 63. Brown, D. C. & Valentine, S. C. 1972. Formaldehyde as a silage additive I. The chemical composition and nutritive value of frozen lucerne, lucerne silage and formaldehyde treated lucerne silage. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 23: 1093 1100. Chalmers, M. L, Cuthbertson, D. P. & Synge, R. L. M. 1954. Ruminal ammonia formation in relation to the protein requirement of sheep. I. Duodenal administration and heat processing as factors influencing fate of casein supplements. J. Agric. Sci. 44: 254 262 Clark, J. H., Davies, C. L. & Hatfield, E. E. 1974. Effect of formaldehyde treated soybean meal on nutrient use, milk yield and composition and free amino acids in the lactating bovine. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1031-1036. Daenicker, R. & Rohr, K. 1974. Rindermast. Land- und Hauswirtschaftlicher Auswertungs und Informationsdienst. Bonn-Bad Godesberg. Nr. 372, 19 p. Davies, H. L. & Faichney, G. J. 1973. The effect of formaldehyde treatment of barley on productive performance of Friesian steers. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. and Husb. 13: 142 145. Dinius, D. A., Reynolds, P. J., Lyon, C. K. & Hohler, G. O. 1975. Digestion and utilization of formaldehyde treated alfalfa meal by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 40: 945 —951. Faichney, G. J. 1971. The effect of formaldehyde treated casein on the growth of ruminant lambs. Aust. J. Agr. Res, 22: 453—460. 66 Faichney, G. J. & Davies, H. L. 1973. The performance of calves given concentrate diets treated with formaldehyde. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 24: 613 621. Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. 1967. Nutrition and wool growth. The effect of protecting protein from microbial degradation in the rumen. Aust. J. Sci. 30: 215 217. Honig, H. & Rohr, K. 1973. Über den Einfluss von Formalin und formalinhaltigen Zusatz- mitteln auf den Silierverlauf und die Vormagenverdauung bei Milchkuhen. Wirtschafts- eigene Futter 19:21—30. Huida, L. 1973. Quantitative determination of volatile fatty acids from rumen sample and silage by gas-liquid chromatography. J. Scient. Agr. Soc. Finl. 45:483—488. Kaufmann, W. & Hagemeister, H. 1976. Zum Einfluss den Behandlung von Protein mit Formaldehyd auf die bakteriell Proteinsynthese und die Abbaurate von Protein in den Vormagen von Milchkuhen sowie auf die Verdaulichkeit des Proteins ira Darm. Kieler Milchwirtsch. Forsch. Berichte 28: 335 346. Macßae, J. C., Ulyatt, M, J., Pearce, P. D. & Hendtlass, J. 1972. Quantitative intestinal digestion of nitrogen in sheep given formaldehyde treated and untreated casein sup- plements. Brit, J. Nutr. 27: 39 50. McGullough, H. 1967. The determination of ammonia in whole blood by a direct colorimetric method. Clin. Chim, Acta. 17:297 304. Paloheimo, L. 1969. Weender Analyse. Hanb. der Tierernährung 164 171, Hamburg und Berlin. Poutiainen, E. & Huida, L. 1970. Eri säilöntäaineilla valmistettujen nurmisäilörehujen laatu ja sulavuus. Koetoim. ja käyt. 27: 7 8. Reis, P. J. & Tunks, D. A. 1969. Evaluation of formaldehyde treated casein for wool growth and nitrogen retention. Aust, J. Agric. Res. 20: 775 781. Schmidt, S. P., Jorgensen, N. A., Benevenga, N. J. & Brungardt, V. H. 1973. Comparison of soybean meal, formaldehyde treated soybean meal, urea and starea for steers. J. Anim. Sci. 37:1233-1237. , Benevenga, N. J,, Jorgensen, N. A. 1974. Effect of formaldehyde treatment of soybean meal on the performance of growing steers and lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 38; 646 653. Sharma, H. R., Ingalls, J. R. & McKirdy, J. A. 1972. Nutritive value of formaldehyde- treated rapeseed meal for dairy calves. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 363 371. Syrjälä, L. 1972. Effect of different sucrose, starch and cellulose supplements on the utili- zation of grass silages by ruminants. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 11: 199 276. , Poutiainen, E. & Koskela, V. H. 1978 a. Untreated and formaldehyde treated skimmilk powder as a protein supplement of dairy cows. J, Scient. Agric. Soc. Finl. 50: 155-165. , Syväoja, E.-L. & Boman, M. 1978 b. Utilization of untreated and formaldehyde treated skimmilk powder and skimmilk powder-barley pellets by ruminants. J. Scient. Agric. Soc. Eini. 50: 166 176. Wachira, J. D., Satter, L. D., Brooke, G. P. & Pope, A. L. 1974. Evaluation of formal- dehyde treated protein for growing lambs and lactating cows. J. Anim. Sci, 39: 796 807. Waldo, D. R., Keys, J. E. Jr. & Gordon, C. H. 1973. Formaldehyde and formic acid as a silage additive, J. Dairy Sci. 56; 229 232. Ms received January 31, 1979. SELOSTUS 67 Käsittelemätön ja formaldehydillä käsitelty valkuaistiiviste lihanaudan rehussa Liisa Syrjälä ja Esko Poutiainen Helsingin yliopiston kotieläintieteen laitos, 00710 Helsinki 71 Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli selvittää formaldehydillä tapahtuvan rehu valkuaisen suojauksen vaikutusta lihanaudan kasvuun ja rehun hyväksikäyttöön. Koe suoritettiin 12 mullilla ikävälillä 113 294 vrk. Väkirehuseos valmistettiin valkuaistiivisteestä, ohrasta sekä kivennäisistä ja vitamiineista, joiden keskinäinen suhde ja annostustaso muutettiin viikot- tain ravinnontarvetta vastaavaksi, kun kasvutavoite oli 1 000 g/el/pv. Kauran ja ohran olkea eläimet saivat vapaasti. Koeryhmän valkuaistiiviste oli käsitelty formaldehydillä, 0,88 g/100 g raakavalkuaista. Kontrolliryhmän tiiviste oli käsittelemätöntä. Formaldehydillä käsitellyn valkuaisen osuus oli vain 45 % koko rehuannoksen valkuaisesta. Ruokintakokeen lisäksi tut- kimukseen kuului sulavuus- ja typpitasekokeet sekä pötsinestetutkimuksia. Koeryhmän eläinten kasvu oli noin 10 % parempi kuin kontrolliryhmän eläinten kasvu. Rehunkäyttö kasvukiloa kohti oli edellisessä ryhmässä noin 8 % vähäisempää kuin jälkim- mäisessä ryhmässä. Mainitut erot eivät kuitenkaan olleet tilastollisesti merkitseviä. Myös- kään rehun eri aineosien sulavuudessa ja typpitaseessa sekä pötsinesteen pH:ssa, ammoniakin ja haihtuvien rasvahappojen määrissä ei ollut merkitseviä eroja ryhmien välillä.