Effect of Total and Rumen Undegradable Protein
on the Performance of Cows Fed Low Fiber Diets'
C. A. ZIMMERMAN? A.
ABSTRACT
Twelve multiparous and 18 primipa-
rous Holstein cows were fed a 17.3%
CP, 21.0% ADF diet during wk 2
through 6 postpartum. Cows then were
assigned from wk 7 through 14 to one of
three low fiber (10.7% ADF) dietary
treatments containing either 14.4 or
18.7% CP, the latter with or without a
soybean meal enhanced with rumen un-
degradable protein. Treatments had no
effect on milk yield or composition in
multiparous cows, although milk fat per-
centage was not depressed in multi-
parous cows receiving the low fiber
diets. The soybean meal diet enhanced
with m i e n undegradable protein in-
creased yields of milk, 4% FCM, fat,
protein, and DMI compared with the
14.4% CP diet in primiparous cows; it
also increased yields of 4% FCM and fat
versus the 18.7% CP, untreated diet in
primiparous cows. Blood urea N concen-
trations were greater for high CP diets
than for the low CP diet in both parity
groups. Rumen acetate:propionate ratios
were higher for both high CP diets than
for the low CP diet in multiparous cows.
Soybean meal enhanced with rumen un-
degradable protein improved yields of
milk and its components in primiparous
cows fed low fiber diets, even when high
protein diets were fed.
Received August 12, 1991.
Accepted March 2, 1992.
lThe use of trade names in this publication does not
imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural
Research Service of the products named or criticism of
similar ones not mentioned.
2Present address: Farmland Industries, Inc.Kansas Ci-
ty, MO 64116--ooO5.
3Reprint requests.
1992 J Dairy Sci 75:19541964
H. RAKES? T. E. DANIEL, and B. A. HOPKINS
Department of Animal Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh 276957621
(Key words: rumen undegradable pro-
tein, low fiber, soybean meal, parity)
Abbreviation key: HPT = high protein, soy-
bean meal diet enhanced with rumen undegrad-
able protein; HPU = high protein, untreated
soybean meal diet; LF = low fiber, LPU = low
protein, untreated soybean meal diet; MP =
multiparous; NF = normal fiber, PP = primipa-
rous.
INTRODUCTION
Previous studies conducted in our labora-
tory demonstrated that feeding high amounts
of dietary CP (22 to 23% CP) can partially
alleviate milk fat depression associated with
the consumption of low fiber (LF) diets (11,
12, 13). These high protein diets also resulted
in increased milk yields (1 1, 12, 13, 28). More
moderate (18%) dietary CP was ineffective in
alleviating milk fat depression, but it enhanced
milk yield (28). The exact mechanism of par-
tial alleviation of milk fat depression by high
protein diets is unknown, but it appears to be
due to an increased postruminal supply of AA,
Hopkins et al. (10) observed an alleviation of
milk fat depression when Arg, Leu, Ile, and
Val were infused intraperitoneally.
One possible method to decrease total die-
tary CP, while still maintaining total AA flow
to the small intestine for enhanced milk pro-
duction and milk fat percentage, is to increase
the rumen undegradable protein portion of the
diet. Increased rumen undegradable protein in-
creased milk yield (4, 9, 14, 22), although the
response was inconsistent (2,5, 7). In previous
studies conducted in our laboratory (1 1, 12, 13,
28). soybean meal served as the supplemental
protein source; therefore, it seemed reasonable
for us to attempt to decrease the rumen degrad-
ability of soybean meal protein to increase
dietary rumen undegradable protein. Pefiaps
the AA balance of soybean meal is critical to
the milk and milk fat responses observed.
1954
 TOTAL AND RUMEN UNDEGR4DABLE PROTEtN 1955
TABLE 1. Chemical analyses of bay, conmmtes, and soybeau meals.
Feedstuff1 DM CP ADF NDF RUDP2 RDp3
(96) (96 of DM) -(96 of CP) -
Alfalfa hay 89.1 19.0 38 2 48.7 28.0 72.0
concentrates4
Normal fiber 89.0 15.8 4.95 24.7 41.0 59.0
Low fiber
LPU 88.9 13.5 5.07 25.6 43.8 56.2
Hpu 88.6 18.6 5.4 22.5 38.6 61.4
HPT 88.6 18.6 4.98 22.1 48.0 52.0
Soybean meals
Untreated 89.1 53.0 7.46 15.79 29.6 71.4
Treated 89.4 51.8 7.20 16.68 45.8 54.2
'LPU = Low protein, untreated soybean meal diet; HPU = high protein, untreated soybean meal diet; HPT = high
protein, soybean meal diet enhanced with rumen undegradable protein (RUDP).
%he RUDP calculated using NRC values (15) for all feeds except untreated and treated soybean meals,which were
d e t e h e d by ficin procedure (17).
3Rumen degradable protein calculated by difference from RUDP.
4Composition: soybean meal (mtreahd normal fiber, Lpu,and m,or treated: HPT),ground corn grain, dicalcium
phosphate, limestone, magnesium oxide, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, trace-mineralized salt, and vitamins.

The objective of our study was to examine domly to one of three LF, 10.7% ADF diets
the effects of total dietary protein and rumen containing either low (14.4%) CP (LPU), high
undegradable protein on milk yield and com- (18.7%) CP (HPU), or 18.7% CP with soy-
position, particularly milk fat synthesis, in bean meal enhanced with rumen undegradable
dairy cattle fed LF diets. Effects on blood and protein (HPT) (Protekm, Central Soya Co.,
rumen metabolites also were examined. Inc., Fort Wayne, IN).The LF diets were fed
in wk 7 through 14 postpar&um.Alfalfa hay
MATERIALS AND METHODS served as the forage source throughout the
experiment, and it was chopped in a bedding
Twelve multiparous (MP) and 18 primipa- chopper to 10- to 15cm lengths.
rous (PP) cows were fed a 17.3% CP, 21.0% The LPU and HPU diets contained regular,
ADF, normal fiber (NF) diet during wk 2 to 6 solventextracted soybean meal. The HPT diet
postpartum. Cows then were assigned ran- was made by mixing 2% of packaged, pow-

TABLE 2. Nutrient compositions of experimental diets.'

concell-
Diet DM CP ADP NDF Hay trate RUDd R
D g
(96) (96 of DM) - (% of CP) -
Normal fiber 89.0 17.3 21.0 36.3 48.3 51.7 34.1 65.9
Low f i k r
LPu4 88.9 14.5 10.8 29.6 17.3 82.7 40.2 59.8
Hpu 88.7 18.7 10.9 26.8 16.6 83.4 36.8 63.2
HPT 88.7 18.7 10.5 26.5 16.5 83.5 44.6 55.4
on actual DMI.
*Rumen degradable protein Calculated using NRC values (15) for all feeds except unkated and treated soybean
meals, which were determined by ficin procedure (17).
kumen degradable protein calculated by difference fiom RUDP.
4Lpv = LOW protein, antreated soybean meal dies HPU = hi& protein, untreated soybean meal diet; HPT = high
protein soybean meal diet enhanced with RUDP.

J o d of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992

1956 ET AL.

LPU
,--. A-A LPU
>
A-A U
0-0 HPU 0-OHPU

10 i
I
: l
, .
, .
, ,
.
,
. l
, i : l 204 i :1 i : ; I : : ; : I
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4 5 6 7 a i o 1 1 12 13 1 4 15
9

WEEK OF LACTATION WEEK OF LACTATION

PRIMIPAROUS COWS PRIMIPAROUS COWS

A-ALPU A-ALPU
0-OHPU 0-OHPU
*-*HPT *-*HPT

low fiber initiated 15t low fiber initiated

t I
10 : :
I , ,, . : : : : : : I 104 : : & : : : : ~ ~ I I
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
WEEK OF LACTATION WEEK OF LACTATION

Figure 1. Average daily DMI for multipmus and Figure 2. Average daily 4%FCM yield for multiparous
primiparous COWS by week of Lactation. LPU = 14.4%8, and primiparous cows by week of lactation. Lpu = 14.4%
untreated soybean HPU = 18.7% CP, untreated CP, untreated soybean meal;HPU = 18.7%CP, untnated
soybean meal;HPT = 18.7% 8 soybean meal enhanced soybean meal; HPT = 18.7%CP soybean meal enhanced
with rumen undegmdable protein. with rumen degradable pmteiu

&red premix with solventextracted soybean experimental diets is listed in Table 2.

meal. The treated soybean meal was mixed in Throughout the study, cows were housed in a
l-ton (US) batches. Rumen undegradability of tie-stall barn and milked twice daily; milk
treated and untreated soybean meal was mea- weights were recorded at each milking. Cows
sured with an in vitro ficin protease procedure received exercise on a dirt lot for 2 h daily.
(17). Treatment with the premix increased the They were fed at 0800 and 1500 h, and indi-
rumen undegradable protein in the soybean vidual intakes were recorded twice daily.
meal by 54.5% (Table 1). Throughout the experiment, BW was recorded
Following calving, cows were weighed on 2 on 2 consecutive d weekly. Milk samples were
consecutive d and adjusted gradually to the NF collected at am. and p.m. milkings three times
diet. Hay and concentrate were fed simulta- weekly during wk 5 to 6 postpartum and twice
neously, but not mixed, for 5% refusal. Fol- weekly during the LF period. A composite
lowing wk 6 postpartum, all cows were milk sample was taken from the a.m. and p.m
switched gradually in five equal increments milk samples and analyzed for fat by the Bab-
over a 5-d period to one of the three LF diets. cock method, protein by a dye-bindhg assay
Hay samples were taken at the beginning of (26), and SNF using a Watson lactometer (A.
the aial, and concentrates were sampled Daigger & Co., Richmond, CA).
weekly and composited by 4-wk periods. Jugular blood samples collected via veni-
Chemical composition of hay and concentrate puncture and rumen fluid samples collected via
is listed in Table 1. Nutrient composition of stomach pump were taken 5 h after the am.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75. No. 7, 1992
 TOTAL AND RUMEN WEGRADABLE PROTEIN
feeding, twice weekly during wk 5 to 6 post-
partum, and once weekly during the LF period.
Plasma was analyzed for urea N using a p h e
no1 hypochlorite procedure (23) and for glu-
cose with a YSI Model 27 Industrial Analyzer
using a membrane-immobilized glucose oxi-
dase (Yellow Springs Instrument Co., Yellow
Springs, OH). The NEFA were determined by
an enzymatic colorimetric method (Wako Pure
Chemical Industries, Ltd, Osaka, Japan). Ru-
men fluid Supernatant was acidified with 25%
metaphosphoric acid and analyzed for molar
proportions of VFA by gas chromatography
(25) and ammonia N using a phenol hypo-
chlorite procedure (3).
Milk fat samples were collected and pre-
pared using the one-step methylation proce-
dure of Sukhija and Palmquist (24); samples
1957
were analyzed for relative percentage of fatty
acids. Fatty acid analysis was conducted on a
Varian 3700 gas chromatograph. A 10%
diethylene glycol succinate-packed silica on an
80/100-mesh, 183-cm column (2 mm x 6 mm)
(Supelco, Inc., Bellefonte, PA) was used. The
temperature was programmed for an initial
temperature of 35'C, held for 3 min, with a
lO'C/min increase up to 170'C. Total run time
was 32 min. Carrier N flow was 20 ml/min.
Relative area under the curve from the gas
chromatograph was used as the quantitative
m e a m in lieu of a standard.
Data were analyzed as a randomized com-
plete block design using the general linear
models procedure of SAS (21). Parity (MP vs.
PP) served as the blocking factor. The full
model contained the main effects treatment

TABLE 3. Intakes by parity and period (DM basis) with contrasts to detect treatment differences when switched from
normal (pretreatment) to low fiber diets.
Item cp RUDP' RDP2 ADF ~
NDF
~
DM
W f
Multiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPu3 3.29 1.12 2.17 4.02 6.91 19.0
HPU 3.53 120 2.33 4.29 7.39 20.3
HPT 3.55 121 2.34 4.34 7.46 20.5
SEM .07 .02 .os .09 .IS .4
Low fiber
LPU 2.79 1.12 1.67 2.08 5.72 19.4
HPU 3.56 1.31 225 2.06 5.11 19.1
HPT 3.54 1.58 1.96 1.98 5.03 19.0
SEM .12 .os .07 .03 .13 .3
contrasts4 NS
Rimiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPU 2.86 .98 1.88 3.44 5.97 16.5
HPU 2.91 .99 1.92 3.51 6.08 16.8
HPT 2.89 .99 1.90 3.49 6.04 16.7
SEM .07 .02 .os .09 .15 .4
Low f i h
LPU 2.31 .93 1.38 1.73 4.75 16.0
HPU 3.15 1.16 1.99 1.84 4.54 16.9
HPT 3.39 151 1.88 1.91 4.82 182
SEM .13 .06 .08 .04 .10 .4
c o r n B = .03
'Rnmen Mdegradableprotein calculated using NRC values (15) for all feeds except untreated and treated soybean
meals, which were demmined by ficin procedure (17).
2Rumen degradable protein calculated by difference from RUDP.
3 L p u = L o w p t e i q nntreatsd soybeanmml diet; HPu= high proteiq untreated Mybean mcal diet; m = high
protein soybean meal diet enband with RUDP.
4Aaoal change contrasts when cows were switched from normal fiber to low fikdiets: A = LPUversus HPU,B =
Lpu VCISUS m,c = HPLT VCISUS m.
Jomnal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7. 1992
1958 ZIMMERMAN ET AL.

MULTiPAROUS COWS able, B = LF mean for dependent variable, and

C = NF mean for dependent variable.
A-A LPU
Single degree of freedom contrasts were
used to detect treatment differences in diets:
LPU versus HPU, LPU versus HIT, and HPU
versus HIT. Effects were considered to be
different based on a signifcant (P < .lo) F
ratio.
"O low fiber initiated
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2.5 I ; r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 Dry matter intakes are listed in Table 3. The

WEEK OF LACTATION PP cows consumed more HPT than LPU diet
(Figure 1). Increased DMI in response to in-
PRIMIPAROUS COWS creased m e n undegradable protein was ob-
A- A LPU
served in other studies (22, 27). Egan (8)
4.5 0-OHPU stated that DMI can increase because of cor-
rection of an AA imbalance, and perhaps the
HPT diet corrected an AA imbalance in the PP
cows. Intakes in MP cows were unaffected by
dietary treatment.

20 low fiber initiated

1.5 ;
1
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
, ; I
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MULTIPAROUS COWS
WEEK OF LACTATION A-ALPU
600 0-OHPII
figure 3. Average milk fat percentage for multipaous
and primiparous Holstein COWS by week of lactation. LPU
= 14.4% CP, untreated soybean meal; HPU = 18.7% 8,
untreated soybean meal, HPT = 18.7% CP treated soybean
meal enhanced with m e n undegradable protein.

500 low fiber initiated

480 ; ;
1 ,, .r
; ; : ; ; ; ; l
and parity. Because of some significant treat- 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
ment by parity effects and previous differences WEEK OF LACTATION
in parity response (11, 12, 13), data in this
study were analyzed separately for MP and PP
cows, using a reduced model with main effect
dietary treatment. Means were calculated by
period (fiber level) for each dependent variable
using data from the last 2 wk of the NF period
,--.
m
Y
v
520
540

500
1 PRIMIPAROUS COWS
A-A
0-OHPU
LPU

*---*HPT

and the last 5 wk of the LF period. To test the

effect of dietary treatment on changes in yield,
blood metabolites, and rumen responses be-
tween NF and LF periods, the actual change
from NF to LF was calculated for each depen- 4 2 o J ; ; :
4
: ; ; i i ~ : I :
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
dent variable. The actual change was calcu-
lated as WEEK OF LACTATION
Figwe 4. Average BW for multiparous and primipa-
IVUS COWS by Week Of laaati011. LPU 14.4% CP, M-
A = B - C
treated soybean meal; HPU = 18.7% CP, untreated SOY-
bean mcal, HPT = 18.7% CP soybean meal enhanced with
where A = actual change in dependent vari- m e n undegradable protein.

Journal of Dairy Scimce Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992

 TOTAL AND RUMEN UNDEGRADABLE PROTEIN
Milk Yield and Composition
Milk yield and composition are listed in
Table 4. There were no significant dietary
treatment effects on milk yield or components
in MP cows. Milk yield was higher for HPT
than for LPU in PP cows. Yields of milk
protein and SNP followed the increase in milk
yield because of the HPl" diet in PP cows.
Yields of 4% FCM (Figure 2) and fat were
higher for HPT than for either LPU or HPU
diets in PP cows, in contrast to earlier fmdings
that MP cows responded more favorably to
increased dietary protein (6, 18, 19,20). &vi-
ous studies in our laboratory showed a greater
response to supplemental protein in PP cows
(11, 12). To determine whether all of the yield
response in PP cows fed the HPT diet was due
to increased DMI, ne! energy balances were
calculated using actual BW, BW change, milk
yield, feed intake data, and 1989 NRC feed
1959
energy values (15). During the NF period, PP
cows assigned to the LPU ration had a slight
positive energy balance of .07 McaVd, but PP
cows assigned to HPU and HPT diets had a
negative energy balances of -.lo and -1.71
Mcal/d, respectively. When switched to the LF
diet and the respective protein treatments, all
PP cows were in positive energy balance;
values were 5.19, 3.52, and 2.07 for LPU,
HPU, and HPT diets, respectively. Based on
this information, increases in yield on the HPT
diet were not solely due to increased DMI,
because the cows fed HFT were in less posi-
tive net energy balance during the LF period.
The PP cows apparently had an increased de-
mand for rumen undegradable protein com-
pared with that of MP cows. Perhaps the meta-
bolic priorities for simultaneous growth and
lactation in PP cows result in different limiting
AA than in MP cows, in which the priority is
for lactation. If this is true, rumen-protected

TABLE 4. MiIk yield and composition by parity and period with contrasts to detect differences when COWS were
switched from normal (pretreatment) to low fiber diets.
Item Milk 4% FCM Fat Protein SNF Fat Protein SNP

Multiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPUl 30.4 32.0 1.32 .97 2.53 4.34 3.19 8.31
HPU 32.4 33.7 1.38 1.07 2.80 4.26 3.30 8.63
HPT 33.9 33.7 1.33 1.06 2.85 3.89 3.08 8.33
SEM .6 .6 .03 .02 .06 .09 .05 .10
Low fiber
LPU 28.4 25.9 .% .% 2.39 3.42 3.38 8.39
HPU 28.7 28.4 1.12 1.01 2.53 3.93 3.52 8.74
HPT 31.8 29.8 1.13 1.01 2.65 3.54 3.16 8.26
SEM .9 .7 .03 .03 .07 .14 .09 .13
contrasts2 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Primiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPU 24.0 22.2 .84 .75 2.00 3.48 3.11 8.31
HPU 25.2 24.9 .98 .82 2.12 3.85 3.21 8.34
HPT 25.9 24.8 .96 .83 2.19 3.73 3.21 8.46
SEM .9 1.0 .04 .03 .08 .08 .04 .04
Low fiber
LPU 23.1 18.7 .62 .74 1.95 2.65 3.21 8.40
HPU 25.7 21.7 .76 .86 2.18 2.93 3.35 8.46
m 29.0 24.5 .86 .98 2.48 3.00 3.39 8.57
SEM 1.0 1.1 .os .04 .09 .14 .04 -05
Contrasts B = .04 B = .01 B = .06 B = .03 B = .OS NS NS NS
C = .02 C = .05
'LPU = Low protein, untreated soybean meal dies HPU = high protein, untreated soybean meal dies HPT = high
protein soybean meal diet enhanced with rumen undegradable protein.
kontrasts for actual change when switched from normal to low fiber diets: A = LPU versus HPU, B = LPTJ versus
HPT, C = HPU versus HPT.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, NO. 7, 1992

1960
soybean meal appeared to have provided these
limiting AA.
Percentages of milk fat (Figure 3), protein,
and SNF were unaffected by dietary treatment.
In a series of experiments by Jaquette et al.
(11, 12 , 13), 22 to 23% CP diets partiaUy
alleviated milk fat depression associated with
the consumption of LF diets. We were unable
to enhance milk fat percentage by lowering the
dietary CP to 18.7% and increasing the per-
centage of rumen undegradable protein. The
reasons for the lack of response in alleviating
milk fat depression are unclear. Part of the
reason may be that milk fat test was not
depressed by the LF diets as it was in earlier
studies (11, 13), possibly ftom the increased
proportion of forage in the LF diets. In fact,
ZLMMERMAN ET At.
milk fat test in MP cows during the LF period
averaged more than 3.6%. Also, less soybean
meal was supplemented in the HPU and H l T
diets than in earlier studies because of lower
total ration CP and higher protein content of
the hay. We think that the AA in soybean meal
are critical to alleviate milk fat depression.
Soybean meal was the protein source in earlier
studies by Jaquette et al. (11, 12, 13). In-
traperitoneal (10) infusion of the AA Arg, Leu,
ne, and Val also minimized milk fat depres-
sion. Those four AA are found in high propor-
tions in soybean meal, further emphasizing its
importance. Finally, the lack of response in
minimizing milk fat depression also could pos-
sibly be due to the possibility that, when a
strong milk yield response is observed, as in

TABLE 5. Rumen VPA molar percentages by parity and pericd with contrasts to detect treatment differences when cows
were switched from normal (pretreatment) to low fik diets.

Item APl c2 c3 iso-C4 C4 is&5 CS

(moV100 mol)
Multiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPU2 3.58 67.3 19.2 1.45 9.23 1.63 1.19
HPU 3.78 68.1 18.2 1.45 9.33 1.70 1.23
HPT 3.89 68.5 17.7 1.41 9A7 1.70 1.21
SEM .I2 .6 .5 .03 .13 .06 .04
Low fiber
LPU 2.09 56.2 29.0 1.21 10.53 1.46 1.64
HPU 2.79 59.8 23.1 1.61 11.72 2.04 1.79
HPT 3.04 62.7 21.0 1.52 11.40 1.97 1.43
SEM .I9 1.3 1.5 .08 .42 .IO .10
contrasts3 A = .10 B = .04 A = .05 A = .07 NS A = .09 NS
B = .04 B = .02 B = .10
Primiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPU 4.15 69.1 16.8 1.60 9.53 1.84 1.19
HPU 4.11 69.3 17.0 1M 9.47 1.68 1.16
HPT 4.00 68.9 17.3 1.60 9.39 1.71 1.11
SEM .07 .4 2 .03 .14 .05 .03
Low fiber
LPU 2.15 55.5 29.0 .96 11.09 1.45 2.01
HPU 2.02 55.5 29.2 1.20 10.36 1.70 2.02
HPT 2.27 55.9 28.2 1.19 10.86 1.85 1.99
SEM .15 1.1 1.3 .07 .31 .09 .12
Conmsts NS NS NS A = .09 NS B = .07 NS
'Acetate:propionate ratio.
*LPU = LOW protein, untreated soybean m d ; HFW = high protein, untreated soy- meal, HIT = high protein
soybean meal enhanced with rumen undegradable protein.
3Actual change contrasts when switched from normal to low fiber diets: A = LPU versus HPU, B = LPU versus HPT.
C = HPU versus HPT.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75. No. 7, 1992

 TOTAL AND RUMEN WEGRADABLE PROTEIN 1961
the PP cows, yield increases mask a milk fat acetate was higher for HIT versus LPU diets,
test response. The HPT diet increased milk fat and molar percentage of propionate was lower
yield compared with HPU and LPU diets. for HPU and HPT versus LPU in MP cows.
Isobutyrate was higher for HPU than for LPU
in both parity groups, and it was higher for
Rumen Fluid Measures
HPT than LPU in M P cows. Isovalerate was
Rumen VFA data are listed in Table 5. higher for HPU than LPU diets in MP cows
Ratios of acetate:propionate in the rumen were and higher for HPT than LPU diets in PP
higher for both HPU and HPT diets than for cows. Branched-chain VFA would be expected
to increase with increasing dietary true protein.
the LPU diet in MP cows. Blauwiekel and Isobutyrate and isovalerate are degradation
Kincaid (1) found that increased rumen unde- products of the essential AA, Val and Leu,
gradable protein increased the acetate: respectively. We found that similar protein
propionate ratio in the m e n . However, we amounts increased isobutyrate and isovalerate
question the significance of our finding be- in an earlier study (28).
cause it was not observed in the PP cows, and Rumen ammonia N concentrations ('Table
there was no subsequent improvement in milk 6 ) were higher for HPU than for LPU diets in
fat percentage for the HPU and HPT diets. both parity groups, as expected. Rumen ammo-
Related to this response, molar percentage of nia N concentrations also were lower for the

TABLE 6. Rumen ammonia N and blood metabolites by parity and period with contrasts to detect treatment differences
when cows were switched from normal (pretreatment) to low fiber diets.

RUmen Plasma
Item ammonia N UIW Glucose NEPA
cllesn)
Multiparous cows
Normal fiber
LPUl 6.20 17.05 61.9 338.4
HPU 6.33 19.02 57.6 324.1
HPT 9.43 19.36 54.2 395 2
SEM .59 .65 2.1 48.6
Low fiber
LPU 7.01 11.75 65.3 136.0
HPU 14.25 2 1.85 59.1 137.8
HPT 11.95 20.66 59.7 147.1
SEM 1.14 1.55 1.3 7.7
Contrasts2 A = .02 A = .01 NS NS
c = .07 B = .02
Primiparous cows
N o d fiber
LPU 8.54 16.48 63.0 253.5
HPU 7.98 17.85 59.2 235.8
HPT 6.38 16.22 62.1 259.5
SBM .64 .40 1.1 20.8
Low fiber
LPU 6.22 9.63 66.9 150.9
HPU 15.16 18.84 64.8 133.4
HPT 928 17.57 66.5 131.4
SEM 1.41 1.29 .9 8.5
Contrasts A = .01 A = .01 NS NS
B = .001
'LPU = LOW protein. untreated soybean meal, HPU = ~ g protein,
t ~ untreated soybean meal; HPT = high protein
soybean meal enhanced with rumen undegradable protein.
2 ~ ~ t uchange
al conmts when switched from nolma~to low fiber diets: A = LPU versus HPU,B = LPU vmus HPT,
c = mu versus HPT.
Joumal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992
1962 ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
TABLE 7. Milk fatty acids and average daily BW change by period for multiparous cows with contrasts to detect
treatment differences when cows were switched from normal (pretreatment) to low fiber diets.

Item c4 c6 c8 c10 Cl2 c14 c16.0 c161

Normal fiber
LpUl 1.74 1.63 1.07 2.32 2.62 9.73 29.64 3.61
HPU 1.78 1.79 1.18 256 2.88 10.45 30.36 3.86
HPT 2.10 1.89 1.20 2.45 2.67 10.37 28.03 3.17
SEM .as .06 .06 .15 .I8 .47 .73 .14
Low fiber
LPU 1.54 1.83 1.42 3.62 4.43 12.26 30.87 3.32
HPU 1.76 2.13 1.60 3.84 453 13.41 31.76 3.45
HPT 2.05 2.15 1.60 3.91 4.54 13.11 30.17 2.61
SEM .10 .08 .05 .I1 .13 .33 .97 .24
Contrasts NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

c18$3 c18:1 c18:2 c18:3 SCFA* LCFA3 ADG4

Peak area (%) Wd)
Normal fiber
LPU 10.88 33.03 2.99 .73 19.11 47.64 .58
HPU 11.21 30.15 2.90 .87 20.65 45.13 .40
HPT 13.07 31.37 2.95 .72 20.68 48.12 .60
SEM .39 1.39 .16 .06 .90 1.50 .20
Low fiber
Lpu 8.95 2650 452 .75 25.09 40.72 .05
HPU 9.73 2356 3.58 .65 27.28 37.52 .12
HPT 12.18 22.94 4.11 -61 27.37 39.85 .12
SEM .51 1.04 .23 .04 .64 1.29 .06
contrasts NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
'LPU = LOW protein, untreated soybean meal, HPU = high protein, untreated soybean meal; HIT = high protein
soybean meal enhanced with m e n undegradable protein.
'Short-chain fatty acids (C4 to C14).
bIlg-Chain fatty acids (c18a to c18.3).
4Average daily gain in BW.

HPT than for the HPU diet in M p cows, groups. Blood NEFA concentrations were in-
suggesting that the treated soybean meal pro- creased by increasing supplies of AA to the
tein was less rumen degradable than the un- small intestine in earlier studies (16, 28); how-
treated soybean meal. The same trend was ever, blood NEFA concentrations were higher
observed in PP cows, although it was not in those studies than in the present one. Blood
statistically significant. NEFA concentrations dropped precipitously
when the LF diets were fed, making it difficult
to detect treatment differences in NEFA con-
Blood Parameters
centrations. The drop in blood NEFA when
Blood measures are listed in Table 6. cows were switched to the LF diets probably
Plasma urea N concentrations were higher for was due to increased dietary energy content of
cows on the HPU and JPT diets than for cows the LF diets, reducing the need for adipose
on the LPU diet in both parity groups, suggest- tissue mobilization.
ing that the soybean meal enhanced with ru-
men undegradable protein was available for Milk Fatty Acids
digestion and absorption in the digestive tract. Milk fatty acid composition is listed in Ta-
Blood glucose and NEFA concentrations were bles 7 and 8. Values are listed as peak area
unaffected by dietary treatment in both parity percentages, which were similar to weight per-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992
 TOTAL AND RUMEN UNDEGFUDABLE PROTEJN 1963
TABLE 8. Milk fatty acids and average daily BW change by period for primiparous cows with contrasts to detect
treatment differences when cows were switched from normal (pmreabnent) to low fik diets.

Item c4 c6 C8 ClO c12 c14 c169 c161

Peak area (46)
Normal fiber
LPU' 1.91 1.79 1.13 2.41 2.75 9.99 27.99 2.65
HPU 1.78 1.78 1.17 2.71 3.02 10.51 27.77 3.03
HPT 1.76 1.86 1.20 2.60 2.86 10.15 26.89 3.01
SEM .05 .05 .05 .14 .16 .43 .73 .10
Low fiber
LPU 1.69 1.73 1.27 3.26 4.00 12.61 29.58 3.35
HPU 1.57 1.72 1.34 3.79 4.94 13.67 31.11 3.20
HFT 1.63 1.99 1.55 4.35 5.30 14.20 2826 2.90
SEM .08 .09 .06 .16 .20 .37 .94 .I5
contrasts* NS NS NS B = .09 B = .04 NS NS B = .07

c18Sl C18:l C18:2 c18:3 SCFA3 LOA4 ADG5

Peak area (%) Wd)
Normal fiber
LPU 14.96 30.1 1 3.19 1.14 19.97 49.39 .21
HPU 14.62 29.46 3.08 1.a7 20.97 4823 -.Ol
HPT 15.45 30.01 3.15 1.07 20.43 49.68 .31
SEM .32 1 .oo .16 .os 31 1.36 .15
Low fiber
LPU 10.32 26.39 4.91 .89 24.56 42.50 23
HPU 9.19 24.24 4.38 .a5 27.03 38.66 .51
HPT 10.59 24.03 4.24 .95 29.02 39.82 .84
SEM .64 .71 .27 .04 .70 1 27 .ll
Contrasts NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
~ L P U= LOW protein, untreated soybean m d ; HPU = hi& protein, untreated soybean meal; w = hi& protein
treated soybean meal.
'Actual change contrasts when switched from normal to low fiber diets: A = IJ?U versus HPU,B = LPU versus HPT,
C = HPU versus HPT.
%hort-chain fatty acids (C4 to C14).
c ~ acids ( ~ 1 8 9to c18:3).
4 ~ o n g - fatty
'Average daily gain (or loss) in BW.

centages. Milk fatty acids exhibited no signxi- CONCLUSIONS

cant treatment effects in MP cows. -pa-
Varying the amounts of dietary CP and
rous cows fed the HPT diet had greater Clo
rumen undegradable protein had no effect on
and C12 and less C16. than PP cows fed the
yield in MP cows, in contrast to results in
LPU diet, suggesting a trend for increased milk
other reports (6, 18, 19, 20). In PP cows,
short-chain fatty acid synthesis, a response ob-
however, the HPT diet increased yields of
served in previous experiments with high CP
milk, 4% FCM, fat, protein, and SNF com-
diets (28)and intraperitoneal AA infusion (10).
pared with the LPU diet and increased yields
of 4% FCM and milk fat versus a high protein
diet with lower rumen undegradable protein.
BW
These findings in PP cows are in agreement
Average daily BW changes are listed in with earlier studies from our laboratory (11,
Tables 7 and 8. There were no significant 12) and may be explained by differing prior-
treatment effects on BW change in either par- ities for use of nutrients in the two parity
ity group, although BW gain appeared to be groups. Although not directly measured in the
highest for the HPT diet (Figure 4). small intestine, we think that the AA supply

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992

1964 ZIMMWMAN ET AL.
from soybean meal is essential to these yield
responses. Unfortunately, the I-PT diet was not
equivalent to a 22 to 23% CP diet with lower
rumen undegradable protein in minimizing the
milk fat depression associated with feeding LF
diets (11, 12, 13). Further work is necessary to
clarify the parity response to increased
amounts of rumen undegradable protein.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to
Central Soya Co., Inc., Fort Wayne, IN for
their donation of the rumen undegradable pro-
tein premix.
REFERENCES
lslauwiekel, R., and R L. Kincaid. 1986. Effect of
crude protein and solubility on performance and blood
constituents of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 692091.
ZBlock, E., L. D. Muller, L. C. Griel, and D. L.
Garwood. 1981. Brown midrib3 corn silage and heat
extruded soybeans for early lactation dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. M1813.
3Broderick, G. A., and J. H. Kuag. 1980. Automated
simultaneous determioation of ammonia and total
amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J.
Dairy Sci. 63x3.
4Broderick, G. A., D. B. Ricker, and L. S. Driver.
1990. Expeller soybean meal and corn by-products
versus solvent soybean meal for lactating dairy cows
fed alfalfa silage as sole forages. J. Dairy Sci. 73:453.
5 Crawford, R J., and W.H. Hoover. 1984. Effects of
particle size and formaldehyde treatment of soybean
meal on milk production and composition in dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 67:1945.
6 Cressman, S. G., D. G. Grieve, G. K.MacLeod, E. E.
Wheeler, and L. G. Young. 1980. Influence of dietary
protein concentration on milk production by dairy
cattle in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1839.
7 Crooker, B. A., J. H. Clark, and R D. Shanks. 1983.
Effects of formaldehyde treated soybean meal on milk
yield, milk composition, and nutrient digestibility in
the dairy cow. 1. Dairy Sci. 66:492.
8E- A. R. 1980. Host animal-nunen I&~~o&Ps.
Roc. Nutr. SOC.39:79.
9 Foster, R J., D. G. Grieve, J. G. Buchanan-Smith, and
G. K. MacLeod. 1983. Effect of dietary protein
degradability on cows in early lactation.J. Dairy Sci.
66:1653.
lOHopkins, B. A., A. H. Rakes, T. E. Daniel, C. A.
zi an, and W. J. Croom, Jr. 1990. EffaXs of
intraperitoneal infusion of Lleucine, L-iileucine, L-
valine, and Larginine on alleviation of mi& fat
depression in early lactation Holstein dairy COWS. J.
Dairy Sci. 73(Suppl. 1):171.(Abtr.)
Joumal of Dairy Science Vol. 75, No. 7, 1992
11Jaquette, R. D., A. H. Rakes, and W. J. Groom, Jr.
1986. Effects of dietary protein on milk. rumen, and
blood parameters in dairy cattle fed low fiber diets. J.
Dairy Sci. 691026.
12Jaquette, R. D., A. H. Rakes, and W. J. Crwm, Jr.
1987. Effect of amount and source of dietary nitrogen
on mi& fat depression in early lactation dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 701202.
13Jaqnette. R. D., A. H. Rakes, and W.J. Croom, Jr.
1988. Effects of body condition and protein on milk
fat depression in early lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci. 71:2123.
14Majdoub. A., G. T. Lane, and T. E.Aitchison. 1978.
Milk production response to nitrogen solubility in
dairy rations. J. Dairy Sci. 6159.
15Nalional Research Council. 1989. Nutrient Requirs
ments of Dairy Cattle. 6th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
WasMqton, DC.
16orskov, E. R., D. A. Grubb, and R N B . Kay. 1977.
Effect of postruminal glucose or protein supplementa-
tion on milk yield and composition in F r e s h cows in
early lactation and negative energy balance. Br. J.
Nutr. 38:397.
~~Poos-FIM o.~,~T.
, K l ~ p f e ~ ~ ~and
t e kR.
~ , A. Britton.
1985. Evaluation of laboratory techniques for predict-
ing ruminal protein degradation. J. Dairy Sci. 682329.
18Roffler. R E.,L. D. Satter, A. R Hardie, and W.J.
Tyler. 1978. Influence of dietary protein concentration
on milk production by dairy cattle during early lacta-
tion. I. Dairy Sci. 61:1422.
19R0fflm, R. E., and D. L. Thacker. 1983. Early lacta-
tional response to supplemental protein by dairy cows
fed gnus-legume forage. J. Dairy Sci. 66:2100.
20 Roffler, R. E.,and D. L. Thacker. 1983. Influence of
reducing dietary crude protein from 17 to 13.5% on
early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 6651.
21 SA@ User’s Guide. 1982. SAS Inst,Inc., Cary, NC.
22 Schingoethe,D. J., D. P. Casper, C. Yang,D. J. Illg, J.
L. Sommedeldt, and C. R Mueller. 1988. Lactational
response to soybean meal, heated soybean meal,and
extruded soybeam with ruminally protected methio-
nine. J. Dairy Sci. 71:173.
23 Sigma Chemical Co. 1981. The colorimetric determi-
nation of urea nitrogen. Bull. 640, Sigma Chem. Co.,
St. Louis, MO.
U S W j a , P. S., and D. L. Palmqukt. 1988. Rapid
method for determination of total kitty acid content
and composition of feedstuffs and feces. J. Agric.
Food Chem. W1202.
25 Snpelco. Inc. 1975. GC separation of VFA’s CzC5.
Bull. 510, Supelco, Inc.. Bellefonte, PA.
26 Udy, D. C. 1956. A rapid method for estimating total
protein in milk. Nature (Und.) 178:314.
27 Voss,V. L..D. Stehr, L. D. Satter, and G. A. Broder-
ick. 1988. Feeding lactating dairy cows proteins resis-
tant to mminal degradation. J. Dairy Sci. 712428.
28Zirmncrman,C. A..A.H.Rakts,R.D. Jaquette,B.A.
Hopkins. and W.J. Croom, Jr. 1991. Effects of p
tein level and forage source on milk production and
composition in early lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy
Sci. 74:980.