Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:18:16.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of central composite design to optimize working conditions of Streptomyces griseus enzymatic method in estimating in vitro rumen undegraded crude protein of feedstuffs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

A. Gallo ,
P. Fortunati ,
S. Bruschi ,
G. Giuberti  and
F. Masoero
A. Gallo*
Affiliation:
Departement of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
P. Fortunati
Affiliation:
Departement of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
S. Bruschi
Affiliation:
Departement of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
G. Giuberti
Affiliation:
Departement of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
F. Masoero
Affiliation:
Departement of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: A. Gallo, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim was to identify optimized combinations of Streptomyces griseus protease concentration (CONC), incubation length (TIME), or amount of crude protein (CP) incubated in buffered enzymatic solution (CPW) to predict the in vitro rumen-undegraded feed CP (RUP) of 26 different feeds (soybean, rapeseed or sunflower meals, wheat bran, distillers dried grains with solubles, maize co-products and alfalfa hay). Different levels of CONC (0.08, 0.19, 0.44, 0.69 and 0.80 enzymatic units [U] of S. griseus protease/ml), TIME (6, 10, 18, 26 and 30 h) and CPW (69, 118, 235, 353 and 401 mg CP) were tested in agreement with a central composite design (CCD) with four replications of the central point to calculate second-order polynomial equations of main tested effects. The RUP was estimated by incubating samples in a buffered rumen fluid for 16 h or by adopting different enzymatic approaches as planned a priori in CCD. Differences between rumen and enzymatic RUP (ΔRUP) were estimated and regression terms of second-order polynomial equations for estimating ΔRUP were calculated between and within feeds. These equations were optimized using the non-linear generalized reduced gradient method with the objective set at ΔRUP equal to 0. The adoption of CCD permitted identification of optimized enzymatic combinations of CONC (0.12 U of S. griseus protease/ml), TIME (18 h) and CPW (from 233 to 458 mg CP for distillers dried grains with solubles and soft white wheat bran, respectively) to predict RUP accurately in all feed categories except for soybean meal, where optimized combinations were 0.47 U of S. griseus protease/ml, 18 h and 435 mg CP.

Keywords

In vitro assayproteaseproteinrumen
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 100 - 109
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdelgadir, IEO, Cochran, RC, Titgemeyer, EC and Vanzant, ES (1997) In vitro determination of ruminal protein degradability of alfalfa and prairie hay via a commercial protease in the presence or absence of cellulase or driselase. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2215–2222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AOAC (1995) Official Methods of Analysis. 15th edn, Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Assoumani, MB, Vedeau, F, Jacquot, L and Sniffen, CJ (1992) Refinement of an enzymatic method for estimating the theoretical degradability of proteins in feedstuffs for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 39, 357–368.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J and Cartailler, D (1988) Mise au point d'une méthode de laboratoire de prévision de la dégradabilité des protéines alimentaires des aliments concentrés dans le rumen. Annales de Zootechnie 37, 255–270.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Graviou, D, Demarquilly, C, Vérité, R, Michalet-Doreau, B and Chapoutot, P (1991) Predicting in situ degradability of feed proteins in the rumen by two laboratory methods (solubility and enzymatic degradation). Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 97–116.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA (1987) Determination of protein degradation rates using a rumen in vitro system containing inhibitors of microbial nitrogen metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition 58, 463–475.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA, Udén, P, Murphy, ML and Lapins, A (2004) Sources of variation in rates of in vitro ruminal protein degradation. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1345–1359.Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Stern, MD and Firkins, JL (1995) Effects of protein source on nitrogen metabolism in continuous culture and intestinal digestion in vitro . Journal of Animal Science 73, 1819–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calsamiglia, S, Stern, MD and Bach, A (2000) Enzymatic and microbial-cell preparation techniques for predicting rumen degradation and postruminal availability of protein. In Givens, D, Owen, E, Axford, R and Omed, H (eds) Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, KM, Kamneva, NY and Reminga, J (2004) Response Surface Methodology. Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems CASOS Technical Report. CMU-ISRI-04-136. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: CASOS. Available at http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/publications/papers/CMU-ISR-04-136.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2017).Google Scholar
Chaudhry, AS (2005) Comparing two commercial enzymes to estimate in vitro proteolysis of purified or semi-purified proteins. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 89, 403–412.Google Scholar
Coblentz, WK, Abdelgadir, IE, Cochran, RC, Fritz, JO, Fick, WH, Olson, KC and Turner, JE (1999) Degradability of forage proteins by in situ and in vitro enzymatic methods. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 343–354.Google Scholar
Cone, JW, Van Gelder, AH, Steg, A and Van Vuuren, AM (1996) Prediction of in situ rumen escape protein from in vitro incubation with protease from Streptomyces griseus . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 72, 120–126.Google Scholar
Cone, JW, Kamman, AA, Van Gelder, AH and Hindle, VA (2002) Rumen escape protein in concentrate ingredients determined with the nylon bag and enzymatic techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 97, 247–254.Google Scholar
Cone, JW, Van Gelder, AH, Mathijssen-Kamman, AA and Hindle, VA (2004) Rumen escape protein in grass and grass silage determined with a nylon bag and an enzymatic technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 111, 1–9.Google Scholar
Czitrom, V (1999) One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments. The American Statistician 53, 126–131.Google Scholar
De Boever, JL, Cottyn, BG, De Brabander, DL, Vanacker, JM and Boucqué, CV (1996) Prediction of the feeding value of grass silages by chemical parameters, in vitro digestibility and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Animal Feed Science and Technology 60, 103–115.Google Scholar
Edmunds, B, Spiekers, H, Südekum, KH, Nussbaum, H, Schwarz, FJ and Bennett, R (2014) Effect of extent and rate of wilting on nitrogen components of grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 69, 140–152.Google Scholar
Fessenden, SW, Hackmann, TJ, Ross, DA, Foskolos, A and Van Amburgh, ME (2017) Ruminal bacteria and protozoa composition, digestivility, and amino acid profile determined by multiple hydrolysis times. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 7211–7226.Google Scholar
Gallo, A, Giuberti, G, Bertuzzi, T, Moschini, M and Masoero, F (2015) Study of the effects of PR toxin, mycophenolic acid and roquefortine C on in vitro gas production parameters and their stability in the rumen environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 153, 163–176.Google Scholar
Gallo, A, Giuberti, G and Masoero, F (2016 a) Gas production and starch degradability of corn and barley meals differing in mean particle size. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 4347–4359.Google Scholar
Gallo, A, Bertuzzi, T, Giuberti, G, Moschini, M, Bruschi, S, Cerioli, C and Masoero, F (2016 b) New assessment based on the use of principal factor analysis to investigate corn silage quality from nutritional traits, fermentation end products and mycotoxins. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96, 437–448.Google Scholar
Gargallo, S, Calsamiglia, S and Ferret, A (2006) Technical note: a modified three-step in vitro procedure to determine intestinal digestion of proteins. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2163–2167.Google Scholar
Giallongo, M, Harper, MT, Oh, J, Parys, C, Shinzato, I and Hristov, AN (2017) Histidine deficiency has a negative effect on lactational performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 2784–2800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselink, JMJ, Dulphy, JP, Poncet, C, Jailler, M, Tamminga, S and Cone, JW (2004) Prediction of forage digestibility in ruminants using in situ and in vitro techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 227–246.Google Scholar
Hippenstiel, F, Kivitz, A, Benninghoff, J and Südekum, KH (2015) Estimation of intestinal protein digestibility of protein supplements for ruminants using a three-step enzymatic in vitro procedure. Archives of Animal Nutrition 69, 310–318.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Etter, RP, Ropp, JK and Grandeen, KL (2004) Effect of dietary crude protein level and degradability on ruminal fermentation and nitrogen utilization in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3219–3229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irshaid, RAH (2007) Estimating intestinal digestibility of feedstuffs for ruminants using three-step in situ-in vitro and in vitro procedures. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germania.Google Scholar
Jones, DIH and Theodorou, MK (2000) Enzyme techniques for estimating digestibility. In Givens, D, Owen, E, Axford, R and Omed, H (eds) Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Kohn, RA and Allen, MS (1995) Enrichement of proteolityc activity relative to nitrogen in preparations from the rumen for in vitro studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 52, 1–14.Google Scholar
Khuri, AI and Mukhopadhyay, S (2010) Response surface methodology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2, 128–149.Google Scholar
Klopfenstein, TJ, Mass, RA, Creighton, KW and Patterson, HH (2001) Estimating forage protein degradation in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 79(E. Suppl.), E208–E217.Google Scholar
Krishnamoorthy, U, Sniffen, CJ, Stern, MD and Van Soest, PJ (1983) Evaluation of a mathematical model of rumen digestion and an in vitro simulation of rumen proteolysis to estimate the rumen-undegraded nitrogen content of feedstuffs. British Journal of Nutrition 50, 555–568.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licitra, G, Lauria, F, Carpino, S, Schadt, I, Sniffen, CJ and Van Soest, PJ (1998) Improvement of the Streptomyces griseus method for degradable protein in ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72, 1–10.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Van Soest, PJ, Schadt, I, Carpino, S and Sniffen, CJ (1999) Influence of the concentration of the protease from Streptomyces griseus relative to ruminal protein degradability. Animal Feed Science and Technology 77, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, ND, Broderick, GA and Combs, DK (1996) Characterization of the proteolytic activity of commercial proteases and strained ruminal fluid. Journal of Animal Science 74, 685–692.Google Scholar
Madsen, J and Hvelplund, T (1994) Prediction of in situ protein degradability in the rumen. Results of a European ringtest. Livestock Production Science 39, 201–212.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T and Weisbjerg, MR (1997) Appropriate methods for the evaluation of tropical feeds for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 69, 53–66.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, S, Erfle, JD and Sauer, FD (1980) Degradation of soluble and insoluble proteins by protease and by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Animal Science 50, 723–728.Google Scholar
Mathis, CP, Cochran, RC, Vanzant, ES, Abdelgadir, IEO, Heldt, JS, Olson, KC, Johnson, DE, Caton, J, Faulkner, D, Horn, G, Paisley, S, Mass, R, Moore, K and Halgerson, J (2001) A collaborative study comparing an in situ protocol with single time-point enzyme assays for estimating ruminal protein degradability of different forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 93, 31–42.Google Scholar
Michalet-Doreau, B and Ould-Bah, MY (1992) In vitro and in sacco methods for the estimation of dietary nitrogen degradability in the rumen: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocek, JE (1988) In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2051–2069.Google Scholar
NRC (2001) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th revision edn, Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Paz, HA, Klopfenstein, TJ, Hostetler, D, Fernando, SC, Castillo-Lopez, E and Kononoff, PJ (2014) Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in high-protein feedstuffs commonly used in dairy diets. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 6485–6498.Google Scholar
Pichard, G and Van Soest, PJ (1977) Protein solubility of ruminant feeds. In Proceedings of the Cornell Nutritional Conference, November 1977, Syracuse, New York. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University, pp. 91–98.Google Scholar
Ross, DA, Gutierrez-Botero, M and Van Amburgh, ME (2013) Development of an in-vitro intestinal digestibility assay for ruminant feeds. In Proceedings of the Cornell Nutritional Conference. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University, pp. 190–202.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (2003) SAS/SAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 9.13. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schwab, CG (2015) Potential changes from NRC 2001 – challenges facing the next dairy NRC protein/AA model. In Proceedings of the 29th ADSA Discover Conference on Food Animal Agriculture, Amino Acid Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 26–29 May 2015, Itasca, IL, USA: ADSA.Google Scholar
Spanghero, M, Zanfi, C, Signor, M, Davanzo, D, Volpe, V and Venerus, S (2015) Effects of plant vegetative stage and field drying time on chemical composition and in vitro ruminal degradation of forage soybean silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 200, 102–106.Google Scholar
Stern, MD, Bach, A and Calsamiglia, MD (1997) Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2256–2276.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR and Weiss, WP (2009) Technical note: designing and analyzing quantitative factorial experiments. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4581–4588.Google Scholar
Susmel, P, Mills, CR, Colitti, M and Stefanon, B (1993) In vitro solubility and degradability of nitrogen in concentrate ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 42, 1–13.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Velasquez, A and Pichard, G (2010) In vitro protein breakdown by enzimatic extracts of rumen origin: comparison with methods in situ and protease of Streptomyces griseus . Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 37, 57–70.Google Scholar