Influence of Slow Release Non-Protein Nitrogen Compound on Utilization of Poor Quality Roughages and Lactation Performance in Lactating Cows

Full text

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page182
Page182
Original Research
Effect of Supplementation of Rumen Protected Methionine and Lysine in
Crossbred Calves
V. S. Gavade, G. M. Gadegaonkar*, B. N. Ramteke, A. G. Pagdhuneand and A. B. Kanduri
Department of Animal Nutrition, Bombay Veterinary College, Parel, Mumbai- 00 012,
Maharashtra, INDIA
*Corresponding author: drgmgadegaonkar@rediffmail.com
Rec. Date:
Dec 23, 2018 05:43
Accept Date:
Mar 08, 2019 10:49
DOI
10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Abstract
Twelve crossbred (Gir Χ HF, Gir Χ Jersey) calves above 6 months of age were selected and divided
randomly into two equal groups viz. Group- T1 and T2. Group- T1 (control) received standard concentrate
mixture routinely used on the farm whereas Group- T2 (treatment) received concentrate mixture same as
control supplemented with 3 g rumen protected methionine and 20 g rumen protected lysine/calf/day. The
roughage feeding was same for both the groups. The average body weights and gain in weight of calves
from treatment group were significantly (P<0.01) higher than control group. The average DM, TDN and
DCP intake of calves from groups T1 and T2 were comparable, however, the average percent DM intake
and DM intake per unit metabolic body size of group T1 was significantly (P<0.05) higher than treatment
group T2. The efficiency of feed utilization in terms of DM, TDN intake per kg gain in weight was
significantly better for treatment group T2 than control. The mean values of blood glucose, serum NEFA
and BUN of calves from groups T1 and T2 showed non-significant effect of feed treatment, however, the
mean serum triglycerides, VLDL, protein, albumin and globulin levels of calves from treatment group were
significantly higher than control group. The digestibility of all the nutrients was significantly (P<0.05)
higher for treatment group. The economics of the study revealed that the per kg weight gain cost was
reduced by 2.92% in group T2 when compared with control.
Key words: Blood Biochemical Parameters, Crossbred Calves, Growth Performance, Protected
Methionine and Lysine, Supplementation
How to cite: Gadegaonkar, G., Gavade, V., Ramteke, B., Jagadale, S., & Pagdhune, A. (2019). Effect of
Supplementation of Rumen Protected Methionine and Lysine in Crossbred Calves. International Journal of
Livestock Research, 9(4), 182-188. doi: 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Introduction
To improve the efficiency of protein use by ruminants, diets need to be balanced according to the specific
amino acid requirements of the animals. Balancing for post ruminal amino acid delivery could allow use of
lower CP rations because they would be balanced to supply individual amino acid to the intestinal

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page183
Page183
absorptive site. Metabolic costs of deamination of excess amino acids and excretion of excess N would be
lower, and removal of CP from the ration leaves space to supply other nutrients, such as those that more
efficiently supply energy (Lapierre et al., 2002).
In the Indian cattle feed industry, protein sources are mainly derived from plant sources. Unfortunately
these plant sources are deficient in lysine and methionine content in comparison to the requirement for
enhanced growth and milk production in ruminant animals. The rumen protected methionine and lysine
may help in making methionine and lysine available for absorption at intestinal level which in turn will
help in improving production performance of the ruminant animals in terms of growth and milk yield.
Hence present study has been planned to assess the effect of the supplemental rumen protected methionine
plus lysine on growth and nutrient utilization in crossbred calves under Indian feeding conditions.
Materials and Methods
The twelve crossbred calves above six months of age were selected on the basis of breed, sex, age, body
weights and were divided randomly into two equal groups viz. T1 and T2 of six each. The group-T1 (control)
received standard concentrate mixture routinely used on the farm. Whereas, group-T2 (Treatment) received
concentrate mixture same as control plus supplemented with 3 g rumen protected methionine and 20 g
rumen protected lysine per calf per day. The roughage feeding was same both the experimental groups. The
trial lasted for 14 weeks period.
Chemical Composition or Purity of Protected Amino Acids
Rumen Protected Methionine
It is product with spray freezing technology to deliver rumen protected methionine with maximum intestinal
availability. It contains 55% DL methionine which is embedded in the fat matrix. Spray freezing technology
ensures the maximum production of DL methionine.
Rumen Protected Lysine
It is also a commercially available product developed by using encapsulated product which ensures rumen
bypass and making lysine available in gastrointestinal tract for maximum and efficient absorption.
The experiment animals were housed in an ideal sheds with proper ventilation, flooring and tying
arrangements. Normal standard of hygiene, management, feeding practices, vaccination and deworming
programs were followed for all experimental calves Animals were let loose daily in a open paddock for
exercise. The managmental practices remained same for all the experimental animals except feed
treatments. All the experimental animals were weighed at the start of the experiment before feeding and
watering and thereafter weighing was done every fortnightly at the same day and time. The weighing
balance of 1000 kg capacity with least count of 0.2 kg was used for weighing the animals. The representative

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page184
Page184
samples of concentrate mixture, paragrass and sugarcane kutti used for feeding of calves were collected at
weekly interval throughout the experimental period, oven dried and the pooled feed and faecal samples
collected during digestibility trial were analyzed. The analysis for proximate principles was undertaken as
per A.O.A.C. (2005) in the Laboratory of the Department of Animal Nutrition, Bombay Veterinary College,
Parel, Mumbai.
Blood samples were collected at fortnightly interval for estimation of various blood parameters, 4.00 hrs
post –concentrate feeding from jugular vein of each calf. Blood samples were analysed for various
parameters by using commercially available kits with the help of Bio -analyser. In the last week of the
experiment a digestibility trial of seven days duration was conducted by total collection method.
Observations of various parameters recorded during experimental period were tabulated and data were
statistically analyzed as per Snedecor and Cochran (1994) by using paired ‘t’ test.
Results and Discussion
The average chemical composition (%DMB) of experimental concentrate mixture, para grass and sugarcane
kutti is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Average chemical composition (%DMB) of experimental concentrate mixtures, para grass and
sugarcane kutti
Nutrient (%)
Concentrate Mixture
Para Grass
Sugarcane Kutti
Dry matter
90.8
30.77
44.51
Organic matter
94.78
87.94
97.26
Crude protein
15.5
11.58
7.4
Ether extract
3.99
2.4
1.08
Crude fibre
14.7
20.52
21.14
N.F.E
60.59
53.44
64.64
Total Ash
5.22
12.06
5.74
AIA
1.08
3.2
2.2
Calcium
0.85
0.55
2.1
Phosphorus
0.36
0.32
1
The overall performance of crossbred calves from both the experimental groups is presented in Table 2.
The average body weights and gain in weight of calves from treatment groups were significantly (P<0.01)
higher than control groups. The higher gain in weight in supplemental group might be due to better
methionine and lysine availability for absorption at small intestinal level and utilization of same for
synthesis of body protein. Finding of the present study are in agreement with Sai (2013) and Gami et al.
(2017) who observed higher (P<0.05) average daily gain in calves from treatment group supplemented with
2 g rumen protected methionine and 17 g rumen protected lysine. The result of present experiment are not
in matching with the findings of Obeidat (2008) who observed that ram Awassi lamb fed increasing level
of methionine supplementation did not improve (P<0.05) growth performance.

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page185
Page185
Table 2: Overall performances of crossbred calves from both the experimental groups
Parameters
Groups
Result of “t” test
T1
T2
Initial average body weight (kg)
89.10±3.75
90.80±4.38
_
Final body weight (kg)
138.31±7.65
149.02±8.32
_
Total gain in weight (kg)
49.21
58.22
_
Average body weights (kg)
114.15±6.06
120.25±7.20
**
Average fortnightly gain in weight (kg)
7.03±0.146
8.32±0.147
**
Average daily gain in weight(kg)
0.502
0.594
_
Average daily DM intake (kg)
3.23±0.145
3.16±0.118
NS
DM intake (%)
2.75±0.053
2.56±0.077
*
DM intake per unit metabolic body (g)
90.41±1.634
85.19±1.719
*
Average daily TDN intake (kg)
1.93±0.052
1.95±0.057
NS
Average daily DCP intake (kg)
0.304±0.013
0.317±0.011
NS
DM required (kg) per kg gain in weight
6.47±0.385
5.34±0.243
**
TDN requirement (kg)per kg gain in weight
4.00±0.238
3.37±0.154
**
DCP requirement (kg)per kg gain in weight
0.610±0.036
0.535±0.024
*
Blood Biochemical Profile
Blood glucose (mg/dl)
53.00±2.174
56.50±1.809
NS
Serum Triglycerides (mg/dl)
50.35±1.045
53.14±0.910
*
Serum VLDL (mg/dl)
10.59±0.709
11.22±0.715
*
Serum NEFA (mmol/lit)
96.42±1.810
95.14±1.425
NS
Serum protein (g/dl)
7.17±0.074
7.60±0.081
**
Serum albumin (g/dl)
3.40±0.064
3.60±0.065
**
Serum globulin (g/dl)
3.92±0.064
4.30±0.097
**
BUN (mg/dl)
16.52±0.872
15.77±0.586
NS
NS – Non-Significant;

-Significant at 5% level;

-Significant at 1% level
The DM intake of calves from group T1 and T2 was comparable. The dry matter intake of control group in
present study was numerically higher than treatment group although statistically non-significant, indicating
that the palatability of concentrate mixture was not affected due to supplementation of rumen protected
amino acids. Findings of the present study corroborated with Singh et al. (2015) who observed no difference
in dry matter intake in heifers supplemented with rumen protected lysine and methionine.
The percent DM intake and DM intake per unit metabolic body size of group T1 was significantly (P<0.05)
higher than treatment group T2. The average TDN and DCP intake of calves from group T1 and T2 were
non-significant. Sai et al. (2013) reported no difference in mean TDN intake in growing crossbred calves
supplemented with rumen protected methionine or lysine over control. The efficiency of feed utilization in
terms of DM, TDN and DCP intake per kg gain in weight was significantly better for treatment group T2
than group T1. Similar findings were reported by Cole and Van (1994) who reported increased average feed
efficiency in crossbred bulls supplemented with rumen protected lysine. The result of present experiment
are not in agreement with findings of Obeidat (2008) who observed that ram lamb fed increasing level of
methionine supplementation did not improve (P<0.05) performance nor feed conversion ratio.

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page186
Page186
The average blood glucose, NEFA and BUN levels of calves from groups T1 and T2 were comparable.
Amrutkar (2011) also did not find any effect on plasma glucose level in lactating cows supplemented with
rumen protected methionine and lysine. In the present experiment treatment group showed numerical
reduction in BUN concentration which might be due to increased intestinal absorption and utilization of
amino acids for tissue growth and reduced deamination of absorbed amino acids. The results of the present
study are in line with those of Amrutkar (2011) who recorded lower BUN concentration in cows
supplemented with rumen protected methionine and lysine. Movaliya (2013) also observed similar results
in Jaffrabadi heifers supplemented with rumen protected methionine and lysine @ 5g and 10g/head/day,
respectively.
The average serum triglycerides, VLDL, protein, albumin and globulin levels of treatment group
supplemented 20 g protected lysine and 3 g protected methionine was significantly (P<0.01) higher than
control group without supplementation. The supplementation of rumen protected methionine might have
facilitated lipoprotein synthesis in liver which may be responsible for increase level of VLDL concentration
in calves. Davidson (2008) also observed increase in serum VLDL level after supplementation of rumen
protected amino acids. The increase in total protein level of blood in supplemented group might be due to
higher organic matter and crude protein digestibility and increased level of methionine in blood. Findings
of the present study are in agreement with Ganiny and Ashry (2007) who observed increased total protein
level in blood of lactating cows supplemented with 15 g rumen protected methionine. However, Sai (2013)
who observed no difference in plasma albumin and globulin concentration in crossbred calves
supplemented with rumen protected methionine plus lysine. The per kg weight gain cost was reduced by
Rs. 3.13 in group T2 as compare to control group T1. The per kg weight gain cost was reduced by 2.92% in
group T2 when compared with group T1.
The digestibility of all the nutrients (Table 3) was significantly higher in treatment group T2. The higher
digestibility of nutrients was also reflected in higher TDN and DCP content in treatment group T2. Similar
findings were observed by Patel et al. (2009) who reported significantly (P<0.05) higher digestibility for
DM, CP, EE and CF in buffalo calves heifers fed bypass protein. Ali et al. (2009) also reported improved
feed consumption and digestibility of nutrients following supplementation of ruminally protected proteins
and amino acids to ruminant animals fed poor quality roughages.

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page187
Page187
Table 3: Average percent digestibility coefficient, TDN and DCP contents for both the experimental rations
Parameters
Groups
Significance
T1
T2
Dry Matter
63.36 ±0.34
64.84 ±0.58
*
Organic Matter
65.71 ±0.28
68.96 ±0.44
*
Crude Protein
72.66 ±0.48
73.83 ± 0.67
*
Ether Extract
76.89 ±0.32
78.66 ±0.56
*
Crude Fibre
63.41 ±0.45
66.30 ±0.65
**
Nitrogen Free Extract
69.00 ±0.42
71.00 ±0.56
*
TDN%
61.78±0.24
63.70±0.42
*
DCP%
9.43±o.42
10.02±o.42
*
*Significant at 5% level; ** Significant at 1% level
Conclusion
From the results obtained under the present study, it is concluded that supplementation of rumen protected
methionine @ 3 g/ day and rumen protected lysine @ 20 g/day is beneficial for improving the overall
performance of growing calves in terms of weight gain, efficiency of feed utilization and increased
digestibility of nutrients and such supplementation is cost effective.
References
1. A.O.A.C.(2005) Association of Analytical Chemists, Official Method of Analysis 18th Ed collegiate
press, Washington, D. C., U. S. A.
2. Ali C.S., Din I., Sharif M., Nisa M., Javaid A., Hashmi N and Sarwar M. (2009) Supplementation of
3. ruminally protected proteins and amino acids: feed consumption, digestion and performance of cattle
and sheep. International J. of Agri. and Biology 11:477-482.
4. Cole, D.J.A. and Van Lunen, T.A. (1994) Ideal amino acid patterns. In: D’ Mello, J.F.P. (Ed.), Amino
Acids in Farm Animal Nutrition. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. (Chapter 5).
5. Davidson S., Hopkins B. A., Odle J., Brownie C., Fellner V. and Whitlow L.W. (2008) Supplementing
Limited Methionine Diets with Rumen-Protected Methionine, Betaine, and Choline in Early Lactation
Holstein Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 91: 1552– 1559.
6. Gami R., Thakur S .S. and Mahesh M.S. (2017) Protein Sparing Effect of Dietary Rumen Protected
Lysine Plus Methionine in Growing Murrah Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). National Academy of
Sciences India section B: Biological Sciences 87(3):885–891.
7. Ganiny, E.I. and Ashry A.L. (2007) Effect of feeding different concentrate: Corn silage ratio with or
without protected methionine supplementation on performance of dairy cow. Egypt. J. Nutrition and
Feeds. 10:1-7.
8. Lapierre, H., Berthiaume R. and Doepel, L. (2002) Rumen-protected amino acids: Why, what and
when? In Proc. Maryland Nutrition Conference, pp. 86-94.
9. Movaliya, J. K., Padodara R. J., Bhadaniya A. R. and Savsani H. H. (2013) Effect of bypass methionine-
lysine supplementation of haematologocal and biochemical parameters of Jaffrabadi heifers. Vet World:
147-150.
10. Obeidat, S.B. (2008) Effect of Methionine Supplementation on Performance and Carcass
Characteristics of Awassi Ram Lambs Fed Finishing Diets. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 6: 831- 837.
11. Patel V.R., Gupta R.S. and Jani V.R. (2009). Effect of feeding bypass protein on growth and feed intake
in buffalo heifer calves under field condition. In: Proceedings of Anim. Nutri. Asso. World Conf., 14-
17 Feb, New Delhi, India, p 25.

International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964 NAAS Score -5.36
Vol 9 (4) Apr ’19
Hosted@www.ijlr.org DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20181223054332
Page188
Page188
12. Sai Shailesh (2013). Effect of supplementation of rumen protected methionine plus lysine on growth
performance, nutrient utilization and some blood metabolites in calves. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted
National Dairy Res. Inst., Karnal.
13. Singh J.K, Roy D., Kumar V., Kumar M. and Sirohi R. (2015) Effect of supplementing rumen protected
methionine and lysine on nutrient intake and growth performance of Hariana heifers. Indian J. Dairy
Sci. 68(6), 2015.
14. Snedecor, G. M. and Cochran W.G. (1994) Statistical methods, 8th edn. The Iowa State University
Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.