Abstract:
Dairy cattle rations are formulated to optimize milk production by balancing the proportion of soluble and insoluble protein in the total dietary protein. The ration may include both forage and concentrate portions, in which case the forage portion may consist of grazing and/or available stored forage with the composition of the concentrate being adjusted as required to provide the required balance of soluble and insoluble protein. The total protein intake is established according to standard recommended levels based on a particular cow or herd&#39;s production level, and other factors. The proportion of the total protein which is soluble in the cow&#39;s rumen is limited to not more than 25%, but some soluble protein, preferably in a range of about 10% to 20% is provided since it is this protein which is used by the microorganisms in the rumen which are, in turn, used by the cow as protein.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to dietary programs for dairy cattle and, more specifically, to the protein portion of dietary programs designed to increase milk production of dairy cows. 
     It has been recognized that the protein content of a dairy cow&#39;s diet is an important factor in the quantity of milk produced. Much research has been devoted to determining the relationship between total protein intake and milk production. In this context, the term &#34;total protein&#34; is used to denote both protein substances and non-protein nitrogen sources such as urea. It is standard procedure to calculate the total protein content of a feed material based on its nitrogen content. Since protein contains approximately 16% nitrogen, total protein content is expressed as 6.25 times the nitrogen percentage content of a given material. That is, if the composition of a material includes 2% nitrogen, its total protein content is 12.5% (6.25 × 2%). 
     In the unique digestive system of ruminant animals, a portion of the food is broken down by the fluid and microorganisms present in the rumeno-reticular compartment, the first and largest of the stomach compartments. Certain protein substances are degraded to soluble peptides, amino acids and/or ammonia in the rumen, while others remain chemically intact until digested in the abomasum or small intestine. For purposes of the present discussion, such substances are termed soluble and insoluble proteins, respectively. Thus, the total protein content of a given ration may be expressed in terms of the percentages of soluble and insoluble protein. 
     The prior art includes studies of ruminant nutrition which suggest that weight gain may be accelerated in beef cattle and wool growth increased in sheep by inhibiting protein breakdown until the later stages of the digestive process. For example, coating with fats and vegetable oils, heat treatment and reaction with specific chemicals are among the procedures suggested for improving the nutrient usefulness for sheep and beef cattle. The implications of prior research in the area of protein solubility, as previously defined, are confined to weight gain and wool growth, and suggest that the level of protein solubility should be as low as possible. That is, for the best body and wool growth, ideally, all protein should be insoluble in the rumen. 
     BRIEF SUMMARY &amp; OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION 
     The principal object of the present invention is to provide novel dietary programs which will increase milk production in dairy cattle. Although it has been known that both soluble and insoluble protein are required in the total ration, the present invention establishes relative proportions and amounts required for significantly increased milk production beyond that attained through application of prior knowledge. The total ration usually includes one or more forages and a supplemental feed, hereinafter termed a concentrate, which typically contains a number of ingredients blended to provide specific nutritional values which complement those provided by the forage. The invention may be practiced under conditions where the cattle are allowed to graze and/or to eat stored forages ad libitum, and where the amounts fed of both forage and concentrate are controlled and measured. In ad libitum feeding situations, including grazing, standard dairy practices provide methods for estimating with reasonable accuracy the total amount of forage consumed. 
     A further object of the invention is to provide a novel method of balancing the forage and concentrate portions of the dietary program of dairy cattle in order to increase milk production. 
     A still further object is to provide unique methods of formulating dietary programs which will result in a milk production response in diary cattle which already produce high milk yields. 
     Other objects will in part be obvious and will in part appear hereinafter. 
     The underlying concept of the invention is that a balance between soluble and insoluble protein substances may be established to achieve a milk production response. The validity of the concept is demonstrated by a carefully controlled research trial, and is further supported by field tests under semi-controlled conditions, as set forth later herein. 
     Samples of the forage(s) are analyzed to determine the amount and solubility of its(their) protein content, as well as other nutritional features. The required amount and solubility level of protein in the concentrate which is fed to the cattle to complete the total ration is calculated from the corresponding values for the forage(s). Likewise, the total amount of concentrate to be fed is calculated after knowing the amount and nutrient content of forage(s) consumed. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     A trial was conducted under carefully controlled conditions at the Agway Cooperative Research Farm in Fabius, New York, to investigate the influence of varying protein solubility upon ration utilization and performance of high producing dairy cows in early lactation. A further object of the trial was to investigate the position of urea as a potentially totally-soluble nitrogen source in meeting the protein requirements of high producing dairy cows. A total of 80 cows were divided into four equal groups. All 80 cows were fed the same forage(corn silage) and each group was additionally fed a concentrate(grain). All cows in the test program were fed the same silage and concentrate for a pre-test period, namely, until the fifth Tuesday postpartum and all averaged at least 55 lbs. of milk daily for the week preceding the beginning of the test. All four groups averaged approximately 69 lbs. of milk per cow daily at the start of the test. 
     During the 10 week test period, the four groups continued to be fed the same corn silage forage, but each group was fed a different concentrate. The silage was analyzed to establish its nutritional content, and the concentrates were formulated to have different protein-related nutritional factors. One group was fed a total ration (forage and concentrate) having a total protein content (as a percent of dry matter in the total ration) of 12.6%, which is less than the amount recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) for high producing cows(16%). The other three groups were fed concentrates which provided a total ration having protein contents slightly higher than that recommended (17.8%, 18.8% and 18.5% for the second, third and fourth groups, respectively). The amount of total ration fed to each individual cow was adjusted so that total protein intake was approximately equal to NRC requirements for all three groups. 
     The total rations for the first (low protein) group and the second group differed in the respect that essentially all of the protein added to increase the total protein in the ration from 12.6% to 17.8% came from natural sources of soluble protein. The total rations for the first and third groups differed in that part of the supplemental protein added to increase the total protein content from 12.6% to 18.8% of the ration was urea, a non-protein nitrogen source which is entirely soluble in the rumen. The protein added to the concentrate fed to the fourth group was lowest in solubility. The actual proportion of soluble protein in the rations of the four groups was 31.1%, 38.2%, 43.7% and 21.3%, respectively. 
     Aside from protein content, nutrient qualities of the rations fed all four groups were essentially the same. For cows producing 75 or more pounds of milk per day the forage to concentrate ratio was 40:60, while for cows producing less than that amount the ratio was 50:50. The purpose of using two different ratios was to assure desired nutrient intake within predictable dry matter intake limits. The forage and concentrate were fed as a total mixed ration on an individual, limited basis to more closely meet trial objectives. The amount fed was adjusted weekly based on dry matter content of the forage and each cow&#39;s previous six day production average. Grain mixes for the concentrate portion of the ration were formulated on a least cost linear program based on nutrient composition and protein solubility. Samples of corn silage and each concentrate mix were collected weekly, composited every four weeks and analyzed to provide the data shown in the following table: 
     TABLE I 
     The above values are averages from 12 samples. The control values shown on the first line are those of the total mixed ration fed to all cows prior to commencement of the test. The numbers in the Feedstuff column identify concentrate mixes; those with even numbers being those fed in the 40:60 forage to grain ratio and those with the odd numbers being those fed in 50:50 ratio. 
     Formulation of the experimental concentrate mixes is given in the following table: 
     TABLE II 
     Pricing figures in the above table were calculated as of Jan. 27, 1975. The higher cost of the concentrates fed to the cows in the fourth group was more than offset by the significantly higher milk production from this group. Weekly milk production figures for each treatment group were as follows: 
     TABLE III 
     When comparing only the three adequate protein treatments, insoluble protein intake explains 55.4% of the variability obtained in milk production of the individual cows. The regression of milk production on insoluble plus soluble protein intake explains 62% of the variability. Adding a third term (soluble protein intake squared) to the regression analysis explains 67.2% of the variation. The regression equation with three terms would be: ##EQU1## 
     Holding insoluble protein intake constant, this equation would predict a milk production increase until total soluble protein intake exceeded 2.9 lb. 
     Evaluating only the increased milk production of the three adequate protein treatments versus the deficient group and expressing the increase as a function of insoluble and soluble protein intake relative to the deficient group, yields a different regression analysis. Insoluble protein intake alone explains 64.4% of the variability, insoluble plus soluble protein intake explains 66.1% of the variation, but insoluble plus soluble protein minus soluble protein intake squared explains 86.7% of the variability in milk production (R=0.93). The regression equation is: ##EQU2## 
     This equation is highly significant (P&lt;0.001) and would predict that a maximum production level would be obtained when supplemental soluble protein equals 1.15 lb/cow/day and insoluble protein intake is constant. The 1.15 lb. supplemental soluble protein plus 1.4 lb fed to the deficient group means 2.58 lb would be the total soluble protein which should be fed for maximum production. That predicted maximum soluble protein intake of about 2.6-2.9 lb/cow/day would vary, however, depending on energy intake and individual cow variation. 
     Milk production for the three adequate protein treatment groups ranged from 43.9 to 90.4 lb/cow/day for the 10 week average. The range in soluble protein intake was 1.3 to 3.8 lb/cow/day and insoluble protein intake ranged from 3.3 to 7.4 lb/cow/day. 
     Average urea intake by cows on the high sol. c urea treatment was 0.37 lb/cow/day. Assuming 100% soluble protein equivalency of the urea nitrogen, the urea provided 0.97 lb of soluble protein intake. Total soluble protein intake for the high sol c urea treatment groups averaged 3.1 lb/cow/day which is above the predicted maximum. However, had the urea been totally without value (as suggested by prior dairy studies) to these cows averaging 62.8 lb milk daily, the predicted milk production would be: ##EQU3## 
     Results of the above-described test indicated that there is a definite difference in utilization of soluble and insoluble protein by high producing dairy cows. Also, there apparently is a maximum amount of soluble protein which can be used to meet protein requirements of the high producing cow. This maximum appeared to be 2.6 to 2.9 pounds per day. This test, however, was under highly controlled, closely supervised conditions. The nutritional principles established by this research were applied in actual farm situations in trials to establish validity of the principles under widely varying commercial conditions. 
     The trial was conducted on twelve separate, commercial dairy herds located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Herds in the testing program had a Dairy Herd Improvement Association rolling herd milk production average (production for immediate past 12 month period) of over 15,000 pounds of milk per cow. That is, the trial was conducted on herds consisting of cows already producing high quantities of milk. Within herds, lactating cows less than 210 days postpartum were balanced into two groups based on age, milk production and days postpartum. These cows were housed and individually fed in confinement stall barns and remained on the trial for three monthly production periods. 
     Both of the two groups in each herd were fed the same forage (corn silage plus hay and in some cases, hay crop silage) and samples of the actual forage fed to each herd were collected monthly, dried, stored, composited, and analyzed. Data obtained from forage analysis included percent dry matter, total protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), ADF-bound protein and protein solubility. It is important to note that the test procedure used for establishing the protein solubility was that set forth in &#34;Measurement of Protein Solubility in Common Feedstuffs&#34; by J. E. Wohlt, et al published in the Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 56, at page 1052 (1973). The results of laboratory analysis of the various forages fed to each test herd are shown in the following table: 
     TABLE IV 
     As previously indicated, the forage was fed ad libitum to each herd, and a feeding program was devised for each herd based on prior art methods of calculating nutritional requirements. That is, standards for determining the total protein, energy (caloric values), vitamins and minerals recommended in the total daily ration, taking into account the cow&#39;s body weight, milk fat test and normal production level (these factors normally being averaged for all cows in a given herd) are provided in &#34;Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle&#34; (4th Ed., 1971) published by National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. The feeding programs, in terms of the average amounts of concentrate and forage (by type) consumed by each cow per day are reflected in the following table: 
     TABLE V 
     The only variable of statistical significance in the total rations fed to the two groups of each herd was the proportion of total protein in the concentrate which was soluble. The nutrient density of the total ration of both groups was essentially the same, but one group was fed a concentrate having an average of 21.0% soluble protein (indicated in the following tables as &#34;Hi&#34;) and the other group was fed a concentrate having an average of 14.3% soluble protein (&#34;Lo&#34;). Total protein content and protein solubility of the concentrates fed to each herd are indicated in the following table: 
     TABLE VI 
     The soluble protein content in the total rations of each test herd was as follows: 
     TABLE VII 
     The twelve herds included a total of 173 cows fed the &#34;Lo&#34; concentrate; these cows had an average daily milk production during the test period of 55.6 pounds, while 172 cows fed the &#34;Hi&#34; concentrate produced an average of 53.4 pounds per day. This difference was statistically significant at a probability of less than 0.01, i.e., the probability was at least 99% that the higher production was due to application of the invention and not to chance. There was no significant difference between milkfat tests in the two groups. Prior to commencement of the trial, the cows in the group fed the &#34;Hi&#34; concentrate had a slightly higher average daily production (59.0 lbs/cow/day) then those in the group fed the &#34;Lo&#34; concentrate (58.2 lbs/cow/day) but the final data were adjusted to reflect this difference. 
     Actual production figures for the twelve individual test herds during the testing periods are as follows: 
     TABLE VIII 
     The difference in production levels for the cows on the &#34;Hi&#34; and &#34;Lo&#34; concentrates was essentially the same when grouped according to forage program, stage of lactation, and daily production level. 
     From the foregoing, it is apparent that a total ration wherein not more than 25% of the total protein requirements are soluble in the rumen will result in superior milk production. 
     
                                           TABLE I__________________________________________________________________________       % in Dry Matter Dry   Total       ADF-bound                          Protein TreatmentFeedstuff Matter (%)       Protein           ADF Ca                 P Protein                          Solubility (%)                                  Group__________________________________________________________________________Control 34.8  15.8           23.4               .45                 .35                   1.17   41.4    allCorn Silage 27.6   9.7           28.2               .23                 .20                   1.21   49.7 ± 9.4                                  all1690  88.3  16.0           14.3               .83                 .63                   1.05   21.7 ± 3.3                                  11691  87.4  15.7           11.2               .90                 .62                   1.35   18.9 ± 5.9                                  11692  87.5  24.0           13.6               .51                 .59                   1.44   30.3 ± 3.3                                  21693  88.0  27.1           11.8               .56                 .65                   1.35   34.5 ± 7.7                                  21694  87.5  25.7           14.6               .75                 .46                   1.24   43.0 ± 6.2                                  31695  87.7  29.8           10.3               .91                 .67                    .66   40.9 ± 9.3                                  31696  88.8  25.7           17.0               .72                 .65                   2.89   13.3 ± 8.6                                  41697  88.4  28.6           11.6               .81                 .63                   2.07   10.7 ± 3.2                                  4__________________________________________________________________________ 
    
     
                                           TABLE II__________________________________________________________________________          Treatment Group          % of formulaIngredient     1690              1691                  1692                      1693                          1694                              1695                                  1696                                      1697__________________________________________________________________________Corn meal      2.85              --  --  --  --  --  --  --Gluten feed    --  --  68.65                      70.1                          20.25                              5.9 --  --Hominy feed    16.3              47.3                  --  --  --  --  11.1                                      35.45Grd. oats      35.85              --  2   --  29.45                              7.95                                  --  --Oat hulls      .3  --  --  --  --  --  --  --Brewers grains 7.5 14.05                  17.1                      --  11.15                              --  34.5                                      24DD grains      --  1.8 --  10.7                          --  1.4 25.8                                      --Wheat bran     28.15              25.7                  --  --  --  --  15.15                                      1.25Midd           --  --  1.25                      --  24.15                              56.8                                  --  --Soybean meal 48%          --  --  2.35                      12.4                          4.55                              15.35                                  4.6 28.45Urea 42%       --  --  --  --  1.55                              1.9 --  --Molasses       6.15              7.5 6.15                      3.9 6.15                              7.55                                  6.15                                      7.4Salt           1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1Grd. limestone 1.7 2   1.35                      1.75                          1.6 2   1.55                                      1.55Dical phosphate          --  .2  --  --  --  --  --  .75Dynamate       --  .25 --  --  --  --  --  --G-Quad Mico 3  .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05Vitamin ADE    .15 .15 .1  .1  .1  .1  .1  .1Theoretical NEmilk (Mcal/lb)          .76 .83 .79 .84 .76 .79 .77 .84Unit price/ton 153.60              151.60                  143.60                      149.60                          155.60                              158.60                                  161.60                                      163.60__________________________________________________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE III______________________________________     TREATMENT GROUPWeek        1      2      lb. milk/cow/day                                3    4______________________________________1           66.3   69.6              68.4 72.52           63.2   69.6              67.8 73.23           61.5   68.6              66.4 72.54           60.3   66.5              65.9 73.55           58.2   64.6              63.4 72.66           57.8   62.6              61.7 69.27           56.1   62.3              60.1 69.68           54.8   60.7              60.9 68.49           53.9   59.0              58.1 66.210          53.0   56.6              55.4 63.410 Week Average       58.5   64.0              62.8 70.1______________________________________ 
    
     
                                           TABLE IV__________________________________________________________________________         % on DM basis                            ADP     % Dry         Total             Soluble                  Acid Detergent                            BoundHerd      Matter         Protein             Protein                  Fiber     Protein__________________________________________________________________________1 Corn Silage     34  7.8 47.1 22.7      .65  Hay     90  20.3             30.2 34.5      1.252 Corn Silage     36  8.5 39.9 24.7      .95  1st Cut Hay     90  12.9             27.8 38.8      1.05  2nd Cut Hay     90  18.2             27.8 35.4      1.303 Corn Silage     34  10.3             40.8 26.5      1.05  Haycrop Silage     55  12.6             46.1 43.9      2.15  Hay     90  19.2             25.0 34.8      1.954 Corn Silage     35  8.6 42.2 33.3      1.05  2nd Cut Hay     90  16.2             19.3 35.8      .455 Corn Silage     29  7.9 26.6 30.3      1.70  Hay     90  18.0             26.6 35.4      1.456 Corn Silage     34  9.5 36.9 22.5      1.20  Hay     90  17.9             23.7 33.7      1.557 Corn Silage     28  7.8 42.2 28.5      .85  Hay     90  17.0             21.1 33.5      1.758 Corn Silage     29  7.2 44.7 27.8      .80  1st Cut Hay     90  12.3             29.1 39.0      .85  2nd Cut Hay     90  16.4             29.1 33.9      1.259 Corn Silage     33  8.1 44.8 28.4      1.15  Haycrop Silage     40  14.8             42.1 39.9      1.95  Hay     90  15.0             23.7 32.4      1.8510  Corn Silage     35  9.3 34.2 19.2      .95  Haycrop Silage     39  11.9             34.2 48.4      3.25  Hay     90  8.7 25.0 38.4      .6511  Corn Silage     26  8.3 38.3 30.6      .95  Hay     90  10.6             15.9 35.9      1.3512  Corn Silage     29  7.5 37.0 28.5      1.25  Hay     30  9.2 23.8 34.2      1.10__________________________________________________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE V______________________________________lb/cow/dayGrain Form-          Corn  Haycrop                             Hay    HayFarm  ulation Amt.   Silage                      Silage (1st Cut)                                    (2nd Cut)______________________________________1     330     15.0   50    --     --     112     430     17.5   30    --     9      73     430     22.0   19    27     4      --4     330     17.0   71    --     --     3.55     330     16.0   66    --     --     56     380     21.5   36    --     8      --7     380     21.5   70    --     6      --8     380     22.5   40    --     5      59     330     22.0   32    14     4.5    --10    430     23.0   17    25     3      --11    330     21.0   45    --     10     --12    380     24.0   40    --     11     --______________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE VI______________________________________Total Protein (% as fed)               Protein Solubility (%)Farm   Lo        Hi         Lo      Hi______________________________________1      25.2      24.9       14.1    18.52      20.8      20.9       13.7    18.73      20.2      20.2       15.3    18.14      25.4      25.8       13.6    21.65      25.6      25.7       12.9    18.86      21.4      21.6       13.6    20.17      23.4      21.8       11.7    22.98      21.1      20.4       13.5    21.29      24.2      25.0       16.3    23.010     22.1      20.7       17.1    24.211     25.8      26.2       15.0    21.612     22.7      22.3       15.2    23.0AVG.   23.2      23.0       14.3±3.8                               21.0±4.2______________________________________ 
    
     
                                           TABLE VII__________________________________________________________________________             lb/cow/day      % of Total             Forage                 Grain Sol.                       Total Sol.                             % SolubleConcentrate      Protein From             Soluble                 Protein                       Protein                             Prot. in RatioFarm    I.D. # Grain  Protein                 Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi__________________________________________________________________________1   330    53     1.23                 .53                    .69                       1.76                          1.92                             24.8                                27.22   430    54     .98 .50                    .68                       1.48                          1.66                             21.9                                24.53   430    58     1.31                 .68                    .80                       1.99                          2.11                             25.9                                27.54   330    62     1.00                 .59                    .95                       1.59                          1.95                             22.8                                27.75   330    64     .62 .53                    .77                       1.15                          1.39                             17.8                                21.66   380    65     .73 .63                    .93                       1.36                          1.66                             19.3                                23.57   380    67     .84 .59                    1.07                       1.43                          1.91                             19.1                                26.88   380    69     .75 .64                    .97                       1.39                          1.72                             20.2                                25.69   330    70     .88 .87                    1.27                       1.75                          2.15                             22.9                                27.510  430    72     .65 .87                    1.15                       1.52                          1.80                             21.5                                26.811  330    74     .52 .81                    1.19                       1.33                          1.71                             18.3                                23.112  380    75     .54 .83                    1.23                       1.37                          1.77                             18.9                                24.8AVG.       65     .84 .67                    .98                       1.51                          1.81                             21.2                                25.8__________________________________________________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE VIII______________________________________Milk Prod. (lb/day)   Difference forFarm    Lo         Hi         Lo______________________________________1       56.7       55.3       +1.42       52.3       48.2       +4.13       58.9       54.4       +4.54       48.7       48.3       +0.45       58.8       54.4       +4.46       61.5       56.2       +5.37       49.8       45.0       +4.88       59.5       56.1       +3.49       59.2       57.6       +1.610      53.6       55.3       -1.711      59.7       57.7       +2.012      51.5       51.6       -0.1______________________________________