Effect of protein and glucogenic precursor supplementation on forage digestibility, serum metabolites, energy utilization, and rumen parameters in sheep

Abstract

Abstract Supplementation of glucogenic precursors in roughage diets may increase production responses due to improved efficiencies of nutrient utilization. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of source of supplemental glucogenic potential (GP) on forage digestibility, serum metabolites, energy utilization, and rumen parameters of growing wethers consuming a roughage diet (8.8% crude protein, 71.4% ash-free neutral detergent fiber). Crossbred wethers (49.1 ± 4.7 kg initial BW; n = 16) were utilized in a 4 × 4 replicated Latin Square design with four periods of 21 d. Supplements were designed to supplement increasing amount of GP: 1) no supplementation (CON; 0 g), 2) 40 g of calcium propionate (CAP; 30 g of GP), 3) 70 g of blood meal + 100 g of feather meal (BF; 40 g of GP), or 4) combination of CAP and BF (COMBO; 70 g of GP). Total fecal and urine collection was conducted from days 13–17 to calculate digestibility estimates and urinary losses. An acetate tolerance test was administered on day 17 to determine the effect of GP on acetate clearance. Blood samples were collected on day 19 and were analyzed for serum concentrations of glucose, urea N (SUN), non-esterified fatty acids, and amino acids. Rumen fluid was collected on day 21 to determine supplementation effects on ruminal volatile fatty acid (VFA) and ammonia concentrations. Wethers receiving BF and COMBO supplementation had greatest (P ≤ 0.01) DM and OM total tract digestibility. Supplementation did not affect (P ≥ 0.37) NDF digestibility or digestible energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was greatest (P = 0.02) for BF and COMBO. Circulating serum essential amino acid concentration was increased (P < 0.01) in BF and COMBO compared to CAP and CON. In addition, BF and COMBO had increased (P < 0.01) SUN concentrations compared to CAP and CON. Acetate half-life was not affected (P = 0.39) by supplementation strategy. However, area under the curve (AUC) for acetate was decreased (P = 0.04) with supplementation of BF and COMBO compared to CON-fed wethers. Ruminal propionate concentration was increased (P ≤ 0.01) for wethers fed CAP and COMBO supplementation, which resulted in decreased (P ≤ 0.01) A:P ratio. Overall, these results indicate that the increased propionate supply by providing propionate salts did not result in a protein sparing impact or increased N retention.