Evaluation of available energy value and digestive metabolism in dairy goats: A comparative study of grain types and processing methods

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4958601/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Evaluation of available energy value and digestive metabolism in dairy goats: A comparative study of grain types and processing methods

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4958601/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

The diverse types and processing methods of grains intricately influence the sites and digestibility of starch digestion, thereby impacting energy utilization. This study aimed to explore the impact of grain variety and processing methods on the net energy (NE) in dairy goats, analyzing these effects at the level of nutrient digestion and metabolism.

Methods

Eighteen castrated Guanzhong dairy goats (44.25 ± 3.59 kg BW) were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of six replicates. The substitution method was employed to determine the net energy (NE) values of the dry-rolled corn (DRC), dry-rolled wheat (DRW) or steam-flaked corn (SFC, 360 g/L). Briefly, two phases were performed. Throughout the basal phase, all goats were fed the same basal diet. In the substitution phase, 30% of the basal diet was replaced with DRC, DRW and SFC, respectively.

Results

The NE values of the DRC, DRW and SFC were 7.65, 7.54 and 7.44 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Compared to the DRC group, the DRW group showed increased digestibility of starch and crude protein (CP). Similarly, the SFC group exhibited increased organic matter (OM) and starch digestibility and a trend towards higher dry matter (DM) digestibility, reduced fecal OM and starch content. Additionally, fecal volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations decreased in goats fed SFC. Correspondingly, digestible energy (DE) in the DRW and SFC groups tended to be higher than in the DRC group. DRW increased total VFA concentration compared to DRC, while SFC increased the proportion of propionate and decreased the acetate-to-propionate ratio in the rumen. Both the DRW and SFC diets elevated serum glucose levels. Furthermore, heat increment (HI) and GasE (gas energy) related to fermentation were significantly higher in the DRW and SFC groups compared to the DRC group.

Conclusion

Our findings indicated that DRW and SFC increased rumen starch fermentation in goats, thereby improving total tract starch digestion and DE. However, DRW and SFC failed to improve NE value due to increased heat and gas energy production from fermentation. Therefore, for dairy goats, excessively refined processing of grains in the diet does not effectively improve energy efficiency.

Dairy Goats

Grain types

Processing

Energy metabolism

Starch digestion

Grains are the primary source of energy in ruminant diets, with starch serving as the main energy carrier. The structure of the protein matrix in the endosperm varies among grain types and influences starch digestibility [1]. For instance, corn, which has a protein matrix predominantly composed of zein, ferments more slowly compared to wheat, whose protein matrix is mainly glutenin and ferments more rapidly [2]. Processing treatments like steam flaking can partially or fully overcome the structural constraints of the protein matrix in cereal grains, enhancing digestion [3]. Compared to dry-rolled corn (DRC), both steam-flaked corn (SFC) and dry-rolled wheat (DRW) significantly improve rumen and total starch digestibility [4–6], thereby increasing energy availability for dairy and beef production [7, 8]. However, a study on goats found that adding SFC to diet did not improve nutrient digestion or growth performance [9]. Furthermore, goats fed maize diets demonstrated superior growth compared to those on wheat diets [10]. SFC and DRW have undergone extensive research and have found widespread application in dairy and beef cattle diets. However, their effects on goat nutrition are still under investigation. Thus, a thorough understanding of how different grain types and processing methods affect energy metabolism and their applications in goat feeding is still needed.

The energy content of a test feedstuff can be evaluated using either the direct or the indirect (substitution) method [11, 12]. The direct method involves formulating a diet where all components are supplied solely by the test feedstuff. However, many ingredients (e.g. grains) cannot be fed to ruminants alone. To address this, the substitution method is employed. The substitution method, a form of the indirect method, involves replacing a portion of the basal diet with the test feedstuff, and observing the resulting change in energy content [12]. The available energy values of the test ingredients are calculated according to the equations of the substitution method. The recommended substitution rate for energy feeds generally ranges from 20–30%, with several studies supporting a 30% replacement rate as optimal [13, 14]. Compared to digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) systems, the net energy (NE) system provides a more accurate reflection of the actual available energy that the feedstuff provides to the goat and a maximizes production cost savings. Indirect calorimetry, a method that measures gas exchanges, specifically respiratory oxygen and carbon dioxide, is a reliable technique for determining NE. It has been pivotal in quantifying the energy released as heat or heat production (HP) and has been employed in many studies [13, 15–17]. Accurate estimations of energy availability in animal feeds are essential for developing comprehensive systems to delineate nutrient requirements [18]. However, the available energy values of the three conventional grains, DRC, DRW and SFC, for goats remain inadequately defined.

Therefore, this study employed the substitution method to evaluate the available energy and the impacts on nutrient digestion and metabolism of three starch sources (DRC, RWC, and SFC) in dairy goats. The results will provide foundational data to enhance precision nutrition for dairy goats.

Animals and experimental design

Eighteen healthy castrated Guanzhong male goats (44.25 ± 3.59 kg BW) were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of six goats. The ingredients and nutrient levels of the diets are shown in Table 1. The substitution method was employed in this study. During the basal experimental phase, all goats were fed the same basal diet, and the available energy of the basal diet for each goat was determined. In the substitution experimental phase, the three groups were fed the test diets, which 30% of the basal diet was substituted with DRC, DRW, or SFC. Both the basal and substitution experimental phases lasted 21 days each, with the initial 12 days allocated for diet acclimation and the remaining 9 days for sample collection and measurements. The SFC and DRC were sourced from the same batch of corn. The nutrient levels of the test ingredient are shown in Table 2. Each goat was housed individually in metabolic cages measuring 1.5 m × 1.0 m ×1.5 m and fed twice daily at 08:00 and 16:00 h. The animals were provided feed at a rate of 2.3% of BW per day (DM basis), and the goats had free access to drinking water. The amount of feed refused was recorded daily.

Table 1

Ingredients and nutrient levels of the experimental diets (% of DM)
Item¹	Basal diet	Test diets
Item¹	Basal diet	DRC	DRW	SFC
Ingredient
Corn silage	46.20	32.14	32.14	32.14
Alfalfa hay	23.80	16.56	16.56	16.56
Ground corn	15.00	10.44	10.44	10.44
Dry-rolled corn	-	30.00	-	-
Dry-rolled wheat	-	-	30.00	-
Steam-flaked corn	-	-	-	30.00
Wheat bran	5.95	4.14	4.14	4.14
Soybean meal	4.95	3.45	3.45	3.45
Rice bran meal	2.69	1.87	1.87	1.87
CaCO₃	0.64	0.64	0.64	0.64
Salt	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.24
NaHCO₃	0.24	0.24	0.24	0.24
CaHPO₄	0.11	0.11	0.11	0.11
Premix²	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18
Nutrient levels³
DM	50.04	64.15	64.55	64.88
CP	11.48	10.64	11.25	10.49
Starch	17.59	34.59	32.82	35.89
NDF	36.00	28.33	28.68	26.90
ADF	21.65	15.73	16.02	15.55
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn.
¹: DM = dry matter, CP = crude protein, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, ADF = acid detergent fiber.
²: Premix (per kg) contains: Cu 370 mg, Fe 2200 mg, Zn 1800 mg, Mn 800 mg, I 30 mg, Se 30 mg, Co 50 mg, Vitamin A 200 kIU, Vitamin D₃ 4500 IU, Vitamin E 6500 IU, Vitamin K₃ 45 mg.
³: All nutrient levels were the measured values.

Table 2

Nutrient levels of the test ingredients (% of DM)
Item¹	DRC	DRW	SFC
DM	92.84	92.61	93.37
CP	8.74	10.69	8.19
Starch	67.59	61.69	70.59
NDF	11.42	12.56	6.81
ADF	2.59	3.57	2.01
GE	16.15	16.85	16.07
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn
¹: DM = dry matter, CP = crude protein, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, ADF = acid detergent fiber, GE = gross energy.
All nutrient levels were the measured values

Sample collection and measurements

For this study, four environmentally controlled indoor chambers were used. The dimensions of each chamber were 7.4 m × 4.2 m × 2.7 m. Two chambers were designated for adaptation, while the other two were used for gas measurement. The construction, operation and animal welfare considerations of environmentally controlled chambers have been described in detail by Li et al [19]. Gas emissions from each goat were measured in 2 consecutive days over three distinct time intervals: 08:00 to 12:00 h and 16:00 to 20:00 h on the first day, and 00:00 to 04:00 h on the second day. Following the conclusion of each interval, the chamber doors were opened to facilitate air exchange, and thorough cleaning was conducted before the subsequent period. The methane (CH₄), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and oxygen (O₂) contents were measured using a gas chromatograph (7890B Agilent Technologies, CA, USA).

During the sampling period, feed refusals and spillage were collected for five consecutive days, while feces and urine were collected comprehensively. Feces and urine were collected twice daily at 07:30 and 15:30 h; urine from each goat was collected from a plastic bucket containing 20 mL of 10% hydrochloric acid and filtered through cotton gauze. The total amount of feces and urine produced by each goat was measured and 20% of the daily fecal output and 10% of the urinary excretion were stored at -20°C, respectively. Subsequently, all the feces and urine samples from each goat were combined, thoroughly mixed, and homogenized. Samples of the diets, feed refusals, and feces were subjected to a drying process at 65°C for 72 hours, followed by grinding through a 1 mm screen. These samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM, AOAC 2023, 930.15), ash (AOAC 2023, 942.05), and crude protein (CP, AOAC 2023, 984.13)[20]. Additionally, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were analyzed using an Ankom A200I fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY, USA) as described by Mertens [21] and AOAC (2023, 973.18)[20], respectively. The starch content was determined using commercial kits (Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute, Nanjing, China) based on the anthrone method. The gross energy (GE) content was determined utilizing a bomb calorimeter (6100, Parr, Moline, IL, USA).

On the final day of the sampling period, blood, ruminal fluid, and rectal feces samples were collected. Blood samples were obtained before the morning feeding, and at the 2nd, 4th, and 6th hours post-feeding. These samples were drawn from the jugular vein into 5 mL vacuum blood collection tubes. Subsequently, the samples were placed in a 37°C water bath for 30 minutes and centrifuged at 3500 × g for 10 minutes to separate the serum. Serum biochemical indices, including glucose (GLU), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (CHO), albumin (ALB), total protein (TP), and urea, were analyzed using an automated chemistry analyzer (BK-400, Biobase, Shandong, China).

Ruminal fluid samples were collected at 2, 4, and 6 hours after feeding using an esophageal tube. Due to the limited amount of rumen fluid available before morning feeding, collection was not possible during this time. To minimize saliva contamination, the initial 30 mL of fluid was discarded, and approximately 40 mL of rumen fluid was collected. The samples were immediately filtered through quadruple-layer gauze, and the pH was measured. Furthermore, a 10 mL subsample was stored at -80°C for later analysis of volatile fatty acid (VFA) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH₃-N) concentrations. The VFA concentrations of each sample were analysed using gas a chromatograph (7890 A, Agilent Technologies, CA, USA) equipped with a 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm fused silica column (DB-FFAP, Agilent Technologies, CA, USA). Solid particles and proteins were removed from the samples prior to analysis, following the methods described by Li et al. [22]. The ruminal NH₃-N concentration was determined using the colorimetric phenol-hypochlorite method described by Broderick and Kang [23].

For the analysis of fecal VFAs, samples were collected before morning feeding, as well as at 2nd and 4th hours post-feeding. Due to the limited volume of samples at the 6th hours post-feeding, they were not collected. At each sampling time, an aliquot of each fecal sample was immediately stored at -80°C. Approximately 1 g of each sample was mixed with 4 mL of water, stored at 4°C for 24 hours, and subjected to pH determination, VFAs extraction, and analysis.

Calculation

Heat production (HP) was calculated by using the volumes of respiratory gas (O₂, CO₂, CH₄) and urinary nitrogen (UN) excretion according to Brouwer [24]:

HP (kJ/d)= 16.18 × O₂(L/d) + 5.02 × CO₂(L/d) − 5.99 × UN (g/d) − 2.17 × CH₄(L/d)

The metabolizable energy(ME), gaseous energy (GasE), heat increment (HI), net energy for maintenance(NEm), and net energy (NE) of the experimental diets were determined using the following equations:

GasE (kJ/d) = 39.54 × CH₄ (L/d)

ME = GE – FE – UE – GasE

NEm (kJ/d) = 315 ×BW^0.75(kg) [25]

HI = HP – NEm

NE = ME – HI

where FE is the fecal energy, UE is the urinary energy and BW^0.75 is the metabolic body weight.

The DE, ME, and NE contents of the test ingredients were calculated using the substitution method [11]:

Eti = [Etd − (1 − Rti) × Ebd]/Rti

where Eti is the energy content of the test ingredient, Etd is the energy content of the test diet, Ebd is the energy content of the basal diet, and Rti is the ratio (i.e.30%) of test ingredient substitution in the basal diet.

The apparent total tract digestibility(ATTD) of nutrition was calculated using the following equation:

ATTD (%) = (NI – NO_feces)/NI ×100

where NI is the nutrient intake, NO_fecesis the nutrient output in feces.

Statistical analysis

Outlying results were identified by Grubbs' test. The data were analyzed by the General Linear Model (GLM) in SPSS 26(SPSS INC., Chicago, USA) with diet and the test ingredient as a fixed effect and animal and chamber as random effects. The results are expressed as mean and standard error of the mean (SEM). The Duncan test was used to examine differences between treatment groups. P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance, and 0.05 < P < 0.10 indicated a trend toward statistical significance.

Nutrient digestibility

The apparent nutrient digestibility results are presented in Table 3. Goas fed the SFC diet showed a significant increase in starch and OM digestibility (P < 0.05) and a tendency toward increased DM digestibility (P = 0.076) compared to those fed the DRC diet. Additionally, the DRW group exhibited significantly greater starch digestibility than those in the DRC group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the CP digestibility was significantly greater in the DRW group compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the digestibility of NDF or ADF among the test diets (P > 0.05).

Table 3

Effects of different diets on DMI (kg/d) and apparent nutrient digestibility of the dairy goats (% of DM)
Item¹	DRC	DRW	SFC	SEM	P-value
DMI	1.04	1.07	1.03	0.035	0.866
DM	70.04	72.15	73.45	0.631	0.076
OM	72.00^b	74.14^ab	75.60^a	0.628	0.050
CP	62.30^b	68.97^a	62.61^b	1.089	0.009
Starch	91.93^b	95.93^a	96.63^a	0.751	0.012
NDF	50.73	50.00	46.36	1.019	0.172
ADF	47.34	44.71	43.95	1.008	0.402
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn, SEM = standard error mean
¹: DMI = dry matter intake, DM = dry matter, OM = organic material, CP = crude protein, NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber
^{a, b} Means without a common superscript are significantly different from each other at P < 0.05

Ruminal fermentation characteristics

The ruminal fermentation characteristics are shown in Fig. 1. The ruminal pH of the SFC group was significantly lower than that of the DRC group at the 2nd hour post-feeding (P < 0.05). At the 4th hour, goats fed the DRW diet exhibited a significantly higher total VFA concentration compared to those fed the DRC diet (P < 0.05). Additionally, the SFC group tended to have an increased ruminal propionate ratio at the 6th hour after morning feeding (P = 0.070) and a significantly decreased acetate-to-propionate ratio at the 4th and 6th hours (P < 0.05) compared to the DRC and DRW groups. However, the ruminal isobutyrate and isovalerate ratios were significantly lower in the SFC group from the 2nd to 6th hours compared to the DRC group (P < 0.05). While the isovalerate ratio in the DRW group was also significantly lower than in the DRC group at the 4th hour (P < 0.05). Among goats fed the DRW diet, the valerate ratio was significantly greater than that in the other two groups at the 4th hour (P < 0.05), and the isovalerate ratio was significantly greater than that in the SFC group at the 2nd and 4th hours (P < 0.05). The NH₃-N concentration in the DRW group was significantly higher than that of the DRC group at the 2nd hour (P < 0.05). Moreover, acetate molar concentration in the DRC group consistently remained lower than in the other two groups and was significantly lower than that of the DRW group at the 4th hour (P < 0.05, Figure S1).

Rectal fecal fermentation characteristics and nutrient content

The fecal fermentation characteristics are shown in Fig. 2. Compared to the DRC group, the SFC group showed a trend towards increased fecal pH before morning feeding (P = 0.063). Moreover, the SFC treatment significantly reduced the total VFA and butyrate contents from 0 to 4 hours (P < 0.05). The propionate content in the SFC group was significant lower before morning feeding (P < 0.05), as well as the acetate content at the 2nd hour (P < 0.05) and the valerate content at the 4th hour (P < 0.05) compared to the DRC group. At the 4th hour, the total VFA, acetate, and butyrate contents in the SFC-fed goats were lower than those in the DRW group (P < 0.05). The butyrate content in the DRW group was lower than that in the DRC group from the 0 to 4 hours (P < 0.05), with no significant difference from that of the SFC group (P > 0.05).

The fecal nutrient content is presented in Table 4. In the DRC group, the fecal OM content was significantly greater than that in the SFC group (P < 0.05), and the fecal starch content was significantly greater than that in both the DRW and SFC groups (P < 0.05). Conversely, the NDF and ADF contents were lower in the DRC-fed goats compared to those in the other two groups (P < 0.05).

Table 4

Effects of different diets on fecal nutrient content of the dairy goats (% of DM)
Item¹	DRC	DRW	SFC	SEM	P value
OM	89.19^a	88.65^ab	87.84^b	0.207	0.016
CP	13.34	13.26	12.47	0.185	0.100
Starch	9.22^a	4.51^b	4.45^b	0.774	0.007
NDF	47.15^b	54.10^a	52.53^a	0.936	< 0.001
ADF	27.85^b	32.83^a	31.52^a	0.668	< 0.001
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn, SEM = standard error mean
¹: OM = organic material, NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber
^{a, b} Means without a common superscript are significantly different from each other at P < 0.05

Blood serum biochemical indices

As shown in Fig. 3, both the DRW and SFC groups exhibited significant greater serum GLU levels at the 4th and 6th hours compared to the DRC group (P < 0.05). Additionally, at the 2nd hour, the SFC group exhibited significantly higher serum GLU levels than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Conversely, the serum TG levels were significantly lower in the SFC group before morning feeding and also lower than those in the DRC group at the 6th hour after feeding (P < 0.05). Similarly, the TG levels in the DRW group were lower than those in the DRC at the 6th hour (P < 0.05). Moreover, the serum TP levels in the SFC group were significantly greater than in the DRC and DRW groups at the 6th hour (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the serum urea levels in the DRW group were significantly greater than in the DRC group before morning feeding (P < 0.05) and consistently greater than in the other two groups from the 2nd to 6th hours (P < 0.05). No significant difference in CHO content was found among the three groups (P > 0.05).

Energy

The energy data for the three experimental diets are presented in Table 5. The GE was significantly higher of the DRW group than that of the DRC and SFC groups (P < 0.05). And the GasE and HI of the DRC group were significantly lower than those of the other two groups (P < 0.05). Moreover, the DRC group showed a trend towards increasing excreted FE values (P = 0.089) while decreasing the DE values of the test diet and corn (P = 0.061, P = 0.062, respectively). In Table 6, the ME values of the three test ingredients, DRC, DRW, and SFC were 11.30, 12.42 and 12.15 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Correspondingly, the NE values were 7.65, 7.54, and 7.44 MJ/kg DM. However, no significant differences were observed in ME and NE values among the test diets or ingredients (P > 0.05).

Table 5

Effects of different diets on energy metabolism of the dairy goats (MJ/kg DMI)
Item¹	DRC	DRW	SFC	SEM	P-value
Energy partition
GE	16.52^b	16.73^a	16.44^b	0.035	< 0.001
FE	4.99	4.65	4.47	0.100	0.089
UE	0.36	0.37	0.33	0.032	0.724
GasE	1.16^b	1.35^a	1.36^a	0.036	0.025
HP	9.47	9.77	9.88	0.170	0.617
HI	4.20^b	4.60^a	4.54^a	0.072	0.037
Available energy
DE	11.53	12.09	11.97	0.105	0.061
ME	10.01	10.37	10.29	0.089	0.237
NE	5.81	5.78	5.74	0.105	0.968
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn, SEM = standard error mean
¹: GE = gross energy, FE = fecal energy, UE = urinary energy, GasE = gaseous energy, HP = heat production, HI = heat increment, DE = digestible energy, ME = metabolizable energy, NE = net energy
a, b Means without a common superscript are significantly different from each other at P < 0.05

Table 6

The available energy of the three test ingredients (MJ/kg of DM)
Item¹	DRC	DRW	SFC	SEM	P-value
DE	12.86	14.61	14.26	0.329	0.062
ME	11.30	12.42	12.15	0.280	0.242
NE	7.65	7.54	7.44	0.327	0.969
DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn, SEM = standard error mean
¹: DE = digestible energy, ME = metabolizable energy, NE = net energy

The type of cereal grain and the processing methods employed for corn grain influence digestive sites and starch digestion extent in ruminants, thereby impacting grain energy metabolism [5, 26]. The increasing cost of feed raw materials has led to feed expenses comprising a substantial proportion, ranging from 60–80%, of total livestock production costs. Therefore, any endeavor to lower feed costs is expected to yield significant reductions in overall production expenses. In this study, the energy metabolism of goats fed DRC, DRW, and SFC test diets was systematically determined (Fig. 4). Additionally, the NE values of the tested ingredients were calculated. Specifically, the NE values of DRC, DRW, and SFC were determined as 7.65, 7.54, and 7.44 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Nutrient digestion, rumen and hindgut fermentation, and blood biochemistry were analyzed to elucidate energy metabolism at digestive and metabolic levels. The data obtained will serve as fundamental information for precision nutrition, reducing energy waste, and optimizing feed costs.

Our results indicated that, compared to the DRC group, the SFC group exhibited an increase in the starch and OM digestibility, with a tendency toward increased DM digestibility. The improved OM and DM digestibility in SFC-fed goats might primarily be attributed to the enhanced starch digestibility. These findings are in line with previous studies conducted on dairy cows [27–29]. This consistency may be due to the impact of steam flaking, which disrupts the protein matrix enveloping starch granules, subsequently enhancing starch gelatinization and increasing the surface area of corn [30]. Additionally, the larger particle size of SFC [27] enables longer retention in the rumen for enhanced digestion compared to DRC, thereby further contributing to increased starch digestibility. The starch digestibility of the DRW was also greater than that of the DRC group consistent with previous reviews by Huntington [6]. Compared to corn starch, wheat starch has a higher amylopectin content, increasing susceptibility to enzymatic hydrolysis [31]. Furthermore, the protein matrix surrounding wheat starch consists primarily of gluten, which is readily degraded in the rumen. Therefore, it does not impede microbial or enzymatic degradation of starch granules. In contrast, the protein matrix surrounding cornstarch granules is predominantly composed of prolamin zein, which is known for its insolubility in the ruminal environment [7]. Accordingly, the CP digestibility in the DRW group exceeded that in the other two groups. Additionally, the rumen NH₃ concentration and serum urea nitrogen were also elevated in the DRW group compared to the other two groups, aligning with a previous study conducted in dairy cows [32], which might be related to the urea nitrogen cycle in ruminants. In accordance with the nutrient digestibility data, the dietary and ingredient DE values were lower for goats fed the DRC diet.

The primary site for starch digestion typically occurs in the rumen [33], where microorganisms ferment starch into VFA. These VFAs are then absorbed by the host, where they play a crucial role in providing energy. The Rumen pH is inversely related to VFA production, which increases with starch content and rate of degradation in the rumen [32, 34]. Consequently, a higher starch degradation rate may lead to a decrease in rumen pH. Among the three groups, the DRC goats exhibited the lowest VFA concentrations, accompanied by the correspondingly highest rumen pH. Previous studies [35, 36] have shown an increase in the ruminal propionate concentration and a reduction in the acetate-to-propionate ratio in goats and cows fed diets containing rapidly degradable starch. In the present study, the utilization of SFC tended to increase the propionate concentration and significantly reduce the acetate-to-propionate ratio in the rumen. These findings indicate that steam flaking enhances the rate of cornstarch fermentation in the rumen of goats. In addition, a previous study revealed that the propionate concentration and the propionate-to-acetate ratio in high-gain goats were significantly higher compared to their low-gain counterparts [37]. Acetate production is accompanied by the production of hydrogen, whereas propionate production is accompanied by hydrogen consumption during rumen fermentation [36, 38]. Hydrogen serves as the primary substrate and electron donor for methane synthesis by methanogenic archaea [39]. However, in this study, SFC decreased the acetate-to-propionate ratio, but instead increased GasE. Based on the pathways of carbohydrate fermentation, the hydrogen available for methanogenesis depends not only on the ruminal VFA profiles but also on the amount of dietary carbohydrate fermented [36]. It has been observed that dissolved hydrogen concentrations are greater in the rumens of animals fed readily digestible carbohydrates [39, 40]. In this study, the RDC group demonstrated decreased levels of rumen-degraded starch and exhibited a lower molar concentration of acetate in rumen fluid, which may offer insights into the observed low GasE. The propionate produced in the rumen serves as the primary substrate for hepatic gluconeogenesis and provides energy for overall body metabolism [41]. In the present study, the difference in serum glucose levels was similar to that in the propionate concentration, with increased glucose levels in goats fed SFC compared to those in the DRC group. This result supports the notion that a higher amount of starch in the SFC group underwent ruminal degradation, leading to the production of propionate, which was subsequently absorbed and utilized. Furthermore, our findings align with the results of Rafiee and Darabighane's study [29], which indicated a decrease in the concentrations of isovalerate and isobutyrate in the SFC group. These ruminal isoacids serve as specific nutrients for cellulolytic bacteria and appear to have a beneficial impact on microbial fermentation [42]. A decrease in isoacids may potentially affect fiber degradation.

Among the carbohydrates degraded in the rumen, approximately 75–85% of the energy is converted into VFAs, while the remaining energy is lost as CO₂, CH₄, and heat [43]. Consequently, rumen fermentation was enhanced in the SFC and DRW groups, but it also led to an increased loss of heat. In the present study, the elevated heat of fermentation in the DRW and SFC groups resulted in increased HI losses, ultimately causing no discernible variation in NE compared to the DRC group. Moreover, the rumen-escaped starch content was higher in the DRC group, suggesting the possibility of partial compensatory starch digestion occurring in the small intestine. Starch digestion is generally more extensive in goats than in cattle fed a similar diet [44]. Therefore, goats may have less restriction of starch digestion in the small intestine than cattle [45]. It has been reported that small intestinal starch digestion can provide approximately 42% more energy than ruminal fermentation [46]. The DRC group may have partially offset the energy loss resulting from reduced rumen fermentation through enhanced small intestinal digestion.

According to the indirect estimation model suggested by Ren et al. [47], the concentration of VFAs in feces represents the process of large intestinal fermentation, while the nutrient content in feces indicates the quantity of undigested nutrients. Based on the fermentation in the large intestine and the remaining nutrient content after fermentation, the nutrient content and digestion of the chyme before reaching the large intestine can be inferred. SFC resulted in a reduction in fecal VFAs concentration and a tendency to increase pH compared to those in the DRC group. Considering the positive correlation between fecal starch content and VFA, as well as the negative correlation with pH [48, 49], the lower fecal VFA concentration and higher pH in the SFC group may indicate reduced hindgut starch fermentation. Furthermore, starch fermentation typically increases the levels of propionate and butyrate [50, 51]. The diminished propionate and butyrate concentrations in the SFC group further indicated a reduction in starch fermentation within the hindgut of goats. Additionally, the DRW group exhibited a decrease in the fecal butyrate concentration. Encouragingly, fecal starch content aligns with the earlier inferences, as the SFC and DRW groups exhibited lower fecal starch contents than the DRC group. These findings suggest enhanced starch digestion in goats fed SFC and DRW before reaching the hindgut. Conversely, the SFC and DRW groups exhibited elevated fecal NDF and ADF levels, indicating a potential negative impact on fiber digestion in rumen. This outcome may be associated with the decline in rumen pH [52].

This study systematically determined the NE values of the DRC, DRW and SFC in goats. These results provide basic data for formulating accurate feed formula. Compared to those in DRC, the use of DRW and SFC, which are rapidly fermentable starch sources, enhanced the digestibility of starch and the DE of the test diets and ingredients by improving rumen fermentation. However, this improvement also led to increased HI and methane losses from fermentation, thus failing to improve net energy. Reducing dietary heat production and methane emissions from rumen fermentation while increasing digestibility may be the key to improving net energy efficiency. Given the unique starch digestion capability of dairy goats, overly meticulous processing of cereal feeds does not improve energy efficiency.

DRC: Dry-rolled corn, DRW: Dry-rolled wheat, SFC: Steam-flaked corn, DMI: Dry matter intake, DM: Dry matter, OM: Organic material, CP: Crude protein, NDF: Neutral detergent fiber; ADF: Acid detergent fiber, VFA: Volatile fatty acid, NH3-N: ammonia-nitrogen, GE: Gross energy, FE: Fecal energy, UE: Urinary energy, GasE: Gaseous energy, HP: Heat production, HI: heat increment, RE: Retained energy, DE: Digestible energy, ME: Metabolizable energy, NE: Net energy, NEm: net energy for maintenance, GLU: Glucose, TG: Triglyceride, CHO: Total cholesterol, ALB: Albumin, TP: Total protein. UN: urinary nitrogen, ATTP: apparent total tract digestibility, SEM: Standard error of the mean.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All the experimental designs and protocols used in the present study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Northwest A&F University (Shaanxi, China) and were in accordance with the recommendations of the university’s guidelines for animal research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

All the data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this paper

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFE0111800), Shaanxi Livestock and Poultry Breeding Double-chain Fusion Key Project (grant number 2022GD-TSLD-46-0501).

Author contributions

Conception and design: JY, XS

Sample collection: XS. YW, JR, LZ, YS, HR

Development of methodology: XS, JY, SW

Acquisition of data: XS, LZ, YS

Analysis and interpretation of data: XS, JY, SW

Writing and revision of the manuscript: XS, JY, XL, JZ, DW

Review, and/or revision of the manuscript: All authors

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the input of the members of the Innovative Research Team of Animal Nutrition and Health at the Northwest A&F University (Yangling, Shaanxi, China) during the experimental periods and sample analysis.

Lopes JC, Shaver RD, Hoffman PC, Akins MS, Bertics SJ, Gencoglu H, Coors JG. Type of corn endosperm influences nutrient digestibility in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2009; 92(9):4541-4548. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2090
McAllister TA, Phillippe RC, Rode LM, Cheng KJ. Effect of the protein matrix on the digestion of cereal grains by ruminal microorganisms. J Anim Sci. 1993; 71(1):205-212. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.711205x
Dehghan-banadaky M, Corbett R, Oba M. Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2007; 137(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.021
Corona L, Owens FN, Zinn RA. Impact of corn vitreousness and processing on site and extent of digestion by feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci. 2006; 84(11):3020-3031. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-603
Zinn RA, Barreras A, Corona L, Owens FN, Plascencia A. Comparative effects of processing methods on the feeding value of maize in feedlot cattle. Nutr Res Rev. 2011; 24(2):183-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422411000096
Huntington GB. Starch utilization by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. J Anim Sci. 1997; 75(3):852-867. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.753852x
Zinn RA, Owens FN, Ware RA. Flaking corn: processing mechanics, quality standards, and impacts on energy availability and performance of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80(5):1145-1156. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8051145x
Cooke KM, Bernard JK, West JW. Performance of dairy cows fed annual ryegrass silage and corn silage with steam-flaked or ground corn. J Dairy Sci. 2008; 91(6):2417-2422. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0715
Kang H, Lee M, Jeon S, Lee SM, Lee JH, Seo S. Effect of flaking on the digestibility of corn in ruminants. J Anim Sci Technol. 2021; 63(5):1018-1033. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e91
Yang Y, Li X, Sun Z, Yang T, Tan Z, Wang B, Han X, He Z. The growth performance and meat quality of goats fed diets based on maize or wheat grain. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2012; 21(4), 587-598. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66133/2012
Adeola O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. In: A. J.Lewis and L. L.Southern, editors, Swine nutrition. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2000; p. 903-916.
Noblet J, Wu S-B, Choct M. Methodologies for energy evaluation of pig and poultry feeds: Areview. Anim Nutr. 2022; 8:185-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.06.015
Wei M, Cui Z-h, Li J-W, Yan P. Estimation of metabolisable energy and net energy of rice straw and wheat straw for beef cattle by indirect calorimetry. Archives of Anim Nutr. 2018; 72:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2018.1482076
Villamide MJ. Methods of energy evaluation of feed ingredients for rabbits and their accuracy. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 1996; 57(3):211-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00855-1
Liu Y, Wei Y, Jiang Q, Li P, Ban Z, Lv Z, Guo Y. Comparative study of apparent metabolizable energy and net energy values of dephenolized cottonseed proteins for laying hens. Anim Nutr. 2023; 12:72-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2022.08.001
Criscioni P, López M, Zena V, Fernández C. Heat production partition in sheep fed above maintenance from indirect calorimetry data. Open J Anim Sci. 2015; 5:86-98. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2015.52011
Gunha T, Kongphitee K, Binsulong B, Sommart K. The Energy Contents of Broken Rice for Lactating Dairy Cows. Animals. 2023; 13, 3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193042
Ferrell CL, Oltjen JW. ASAS CENTENNIAL PAPER: Net energy systems for beef cattle—Concepts, application, and future models. J Anim Sci. 2008; 86(10):2779-2794. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.20080954
Li ZJ, Ren H, Liu SM, Cai CJ, Han JT, Li F, Yao JH. Dynamics of methanogenesis, ruminal fermentation, and alfalfa degradation during adaptation to monensin supplementation in goats. J Dairy Sci. 2018; 101(2):1048-1059. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13254
Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. In. Oxford University Press. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197610145.001.0001
Mertens DR. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. J AOAC Int. 2002; 85(6):1217-1240.
Li F, Yang XJ, Cao YC, Li SX, Yao JH, Li ZJ, Sun FF. Effects of dietary effective fiber to rumen degradable starch ratios on the risk of sub-acute ruminal acidosis and rumen content fatty acids composition in dairy goat. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2014; 189:54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.12.011
Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media1. J Dairy Sci. 1980; 63(1):64-75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8
Brouwer E. Report of subcommittee on constants and factors. In energy metabolism of farm animals, 3rd.; Blaxter, K.L., Ed.; EAAP Academic Press: London, UK. 1965; p. 441–443.
Sutton, J.D., and Alderman, G. The energy and protein requirements of pregnant and lactating dairy goats: The agriculture and food research council report. Livest Prod Sci. 2000; 64, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00170-6
Ferraretto LF, Crump PM, Shaver RD. Effect of cereal grain type and corn grain harvesting and processing methods on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96(1):533-550. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5932
Rafiee-Yarandi H, Alikhani M, Ghorbani GR, Heydari M, Rezamand P. Dietary protein level and corn processing method: Intake, digestibility, and feeding behavior of lactating dairy cows. Livest Sci. 2019; 221:19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.01.001
Zhong RZ, Li JG, Gao YX, Tan ZL, Ren GP. Effects of substitution of different levels of steam-flaked corn for finely ground corn on lactation and digestion in early lactation dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2008; 91(10):3931-3937. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0957
Rafiee H, Darabighane B. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of substitution of steam flaked corn instead of finely ground corn on dry matter intake, nutrients digestibility, lactation performance, and rumen fermentation in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2021; 280:115043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115043
Rooney LW, Pflugfelder RL. Factors affecting starch digestibility with special emphasis on sorghum and corn. J Anim Sci. 1986; 63(5):1607-1623. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351607x
Shen J, Zheng L, Chen X, Han X, Cao Y, Yao J. Metagenomic analyses of microbial and carbohydrate-active enzymes in the rumen of dairy goats fed different rumen degradable starch. Front Microbiol. 2020; 11:1003. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01003
Rastgoo M, Kazemi-Bonchenari M, HosseinYazdi M, Mirzaei M. Effects of corn grain processing method (ground versus steam-flaked) with rumen undegradable to degradable protein ratio on growth performance, ruminal fermentation, and microbial protein yield in Holstein dairy calves. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2020; 269:114646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114646
Theurer CB. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by ruminants. J Anim Sci. 1986; 63(5):1649-1662. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351649x
González LA, Manteca X, Calsamiglia S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Ferret A. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: Interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review). Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2012; 172(1):66-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.009
Malekkhahi M, Naserian AA, Rahimi A, Bazgir A, Vyas D, Razzaghi A. Effects of ground, steam-flaked, and super-conditioned corn grain on production performance and total-tract digestibility in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2021; 104(6):6756-6767. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19202
Li Z, Liu N, Cao Y, Jin C, Li F, Cai C, Yao J. Effects of fumaric acid supplementation on methane production and rumen fermentation in goats fed diets varying in forage and concentrate particle size. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2018; 9:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-018-0235-3
Wang, D., Chen, L., Tang, G., Yu, J., Chen, J., Li, Z., Cao, Y., Lei, X., Deng, L., Wu, S., Guan, L. L., & Yao, J. Multi-omics revealed the long-term effect of ruminal keystone bacteria and the microbial metabolome on lactation performance in adult dairy goats. Microbiome. 2023; 11(1):215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-023-01652-5
Hegarty RS. Mechanisms for competitively reducing ruminal methanogenesis. Aust J Agr Res. 1999; 50(8):1299-1306.
Li, Q. S., Wang, R., Ma, Z. Y., Zhang, X. M., Jiao, J. Z., Zhang, Z. G., Ungerfeld, E. M., Yi, K. L., Zhang, B. Z., Long, L., Long, Y., Tao, Y., Huang, T., Greening, C., Tan, Z. L., and Wang, M. Dietary selection of metabolically distinct microorganisms drives hydrogen metabolism in ruminants. ISME J. 2022; 16(11):2535-2546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-022-01294-9
Janssen PH. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2010; 160(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002
Wang GY, Qin SL, Zheng YN, Geng HJ, Chen L, Yao JH, Deng L. Propionate promotes gluconeogenesis by regulating mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway in calf hepatocytes. Anim Nutr. 2023; 15:88-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.07.001
Andries JI, Buysse FX, De Brabander DL, Cottyn BG. Isoacids in ruminant nutrition: Their role in ruminal and intermediary metabolism and possible influences on performances - A review. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 1987; 18(3):169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(87)90069-1
Sutton JD. Carbohydrate fermentation in the rumen - variations on a theme. Proc Nutr Soc. 1979; 38(3):275-281. https://doi.org/10.1079/pns19790049
Orskov ER. The effect of processing on digestion and utilization of cereals by ruminants. Proc Nutr Soc. 1976; 35(2):245-252. https://doi.org/10.1079/pns19760038
Brake DW, Swanson KC. Ruminant nutrition symposium: Effects of postruminal flows of protein and amino acids on small intestinal starch digestion in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2018; 96(2):739-750. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx058
Owens FN, Zinn RA, Kim YK. Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. J Anim Sci. 1986; 63(5):1634-1648. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351634x
Ren H, Bai H, Su X, Pang J, Li X, Wu S, Cao Y, Cai C, Yao J. Decreased amylolytic microbes of the hindgut and increased blood glucose implied improved starch utilization in the small intestine by feeding rumen-protected leucine in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2020; 103(5):4218-4235. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17194
Nocek JE. Bovine acidosis: implications on laminitis. J Dairy Sci. 1997; 80(5):1005-1028. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76026-0
Gressley TF, Hall MB, Armentano LE. Ruminant nutrition symposium: Productivity, digestion, and health responses to hindgut acidosis in ruminants1. J Anim Sci. 2011; 89(4):1120-1130. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3460
Mao S, Zhang R, Wang D, Zhu W. The diversity of the fecal bacterial community and its relationship with the concentration of volatile fatty acids in the feces during subacute rumen acidosis in dairy cows. BMC Vet Res. 2012; 8:237. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-237
Chen J, Lei XJ, Wang L, Zhang YL, Wang DD, Zhao LC, Liu T, Yang YT, Yao JH. Effects of rumen-protected leucine on production performance and starch digestion in the small intestine of lactating goats. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2022; 287:115270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115270
Dijkstra J, Ellis JL, Kebreab E, Strathe AB, López S, France J, Bannink A. Ruminal pH regulation and nutritional consequences of low pH. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2012; 172(1):22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.005

FigureS1.pdf
Figure S1 Effects of different diets on the molar concentrations of acetate and propionate in rumen fluid. DRC = dry-rolled corn, DRW = dry-rolled wheat, SFC = steam-flaked corn. Time = hours after morning feeding. a, b Means without a common superscript are significantly different from each other at P < 0.05.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Minor revision
26 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 Sep, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
28 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
26 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
23 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Evaluation of available energy value and digestive metabolism in dairy goats: A comparative study of grain types and processing methods

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Animals and experimental design

Sample collection and measurements

Results

Nutrient digestibility

Ruminal fermentation characteristics

Rectal fecal fermentation characteristics and nutrient content

Blood serum biochemical indices

Energy

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1