Dietary polymer-coated urea enhances the goats lactational performance, excretion of microbial purine derivatives and blood metabolites in the semi-arid zone of Iran

ABSTRACT.

This study aimed to determine the effect of using different sources of nitrogen to supply part of degradable intake protein needs in lactating goat performance and its effect on excretion of microbial purine derivatives and blood metabolites. Thirty-two lactating Saanen goats (body weight 38.85 ± 2.14 kg and 1979 ± 0.25 g day^-1 milk yield) were used in a one-way ANOVA completely randomized design. Goats were assigned to the following treatments for a 10-wk experimental period: 1) Control (canola meal as a nitrogen source); 2) Urea (0.5% urea); 3) Optigen (0.55% Optigen- Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) and 4) Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU- international patent number: A01K5/00, 0.7% PCU) based on dry mater intake. Non-protein nitrogen groups had a comparative effect (p > 0.05) between control and other treatments on milk composition, microbial protein synthesis and they affected on blood factors including urea, cholesterol, and ALT. Dry matter intake decreased (p > 0.05) in PCU, Optigen, Urea than Control goats. Synthesis of microbial protein in PCU goats was 22.5 g day^-1 and it was greater (p > 0.05) than other treatments. Plasma cholesterol was increased in PCU and Optigen, whereas urea concentration was increased in Urea and Control goats. Milk production was higher in PCU than Urea and Control. Feed conversion ratio was improved (p > 0.05) in PCU and Optigen goats versus other treatments. This study demonstrated that polymer-coated urea can be utilized as a nitrogen source and improve goats milk performance.

Keywords:
goat; microbial synthesis; milk yield; optigen; urea

Introduction

Nutrition has a major effect on animal production systems including the goat raising farms and has a remarkable effect on the cost of productions (Romero-Huelva, Ramírez-Fenosa, Planelles-González, García-Casado, & Molina-Alcaide, 2017). Goat feed sources are usually pasture and crop by-products. Until 50 year ago, just a few and limited research had been published on goat nutrition and this was mostly because they were assumed to be pets, not livestock, and destroyed the environment, and therefore did not deserve scientific treatment, this attitude resulted in the lack of research for solving goat farmer’s questions (Amills, Capote, & Tosser‐Klopp, 2017). But now it is known that goat farming has some benefits, one benefit is that goats can be milked once a day without decreasing milk production (Mazinani & Rude, 2020). Milk of goats persistency will be up to 2 to 3 years even without kidding, which means goats can provide winter milk without needing seasonal breeding (Baker & Miller, 2019).

As feed cost is one of the main costs of goat raising systems, using alternative products such as urea can be an economic solution, but it was associated with ammonia toxicity because urea rapidly hydrolyzed to ammonia in the rumen under the action of urease (Stocker et al., 2013). If the releasing rate of urea is controlled, rumen microorganisms can utilize ammonia then, microbial bodies will digest and absorb post-rumen. Using biuret and protecting urea with different coated materials have been developed to achieve this goal. Due to now, several slow-release urea products have been developed and tested for this purpose (Spanghero, Nikulina, & Mason, 2018). The results of these research are contradictory, and rate of nitrogen release is different depends on affecting parameters such as rumen situation, feed processing and forage to concentration ratio. Theoretically, the urea breakdown rate should be increased to shorten the degradation (Alipour et al., 2020). Polymer-coated urea (PCU) is one of the newest coated urea products that coated with oil materials. This product showed positive effects in slowing rate of urea degradation urea compare with other expensive coated-urea products in previous studies (Mazinani, Naserian, Mesgaran, & Valizadeh, 2018).

Considering these benefits for raising goats and also effects of nutrition management on the cost of end terminal products, the objective of this study was to use different sources of nitrogen for supplying part of the protein needs of goats and determining goat response and performance while consuming different nitrogen sources.

Materials and Methods

Animals

treatments and management

Thirty-two lactating Saanen goats were used in a 10-wk lactation trial, confinement each goat in individual metabolism cage. As it is shown in Figure 1, goats were randomly assigned to each of four different nitrogen (N) source diets (8 goats per treatment) and each animal was fed individually on a daily basis. Treatments were: 1) control (canola meal as a N source); 2) Urea (0.5% urea); 3) Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen) and 4) Polymer-coated urea (0.7% PCU) (international patent number: A01K5/00, inventor: Mitra Mazinani).

Figure 1. Graphical
abstract of experimental treatments.

In Table 1, diets were formulated to satisfy the nutrient requirements of Saanen goats using Small Ruminants NRC version 1.9.4468 (Tedeschi, Callaway, Muir, & Anderson, 2011). Goat’s average weight was 38.85 ± 2.14 kg, and 1979 ± 0.25 g d^-1 milk yield, and fed ad libitum twice daily (08:00, 15:00 h) isonitrogenous total mixed ration (15% crude protein) and they were housed in individual pens (Animal Care Committee Protocol: 37756).

Feed intake Nutrient digestibility

Daily amounts of feed distributed, and feed refusal were weighed. Fecal and feed refusal samples were taken weekly. Apparent nutrient digestibility was calculated by measuring the difference between the consumed feed and feces as a percentage of goats feed intake and considering lignin as an internal marker (Cochran, Adams, Wallace, & Galyean, 1986).

Table 1
Diet composition and chemical analysis of different dietary treatments (% of dry matter)¹.

Diet composition (% DM)	Control	Urea	Optigen	PCU
Alfalfa hay	40	40	40	40
Wheat straw	5	5	5	5
Corn grain	27.5	27.5	27.5	27.5
Canola meal	17.5	11	10.95	10.8
Wheat grain	8	14	14	14
Calcium carbonate	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6
Salt	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5
Urea	0	0.5	0	0
PCU	0	0	0	0.7
Optigen	0	0	0.55	0
Min-Vit Mix2	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9
Chemical analysis (% DM)
Dry matter	90.40	90.32	90.31	90.33
Organic matter	80.20	80.46	80.43	80.62
Crude protein	15.54	15.20	15.05	14.78
Neutral detergent fibre	37.00	39.90	39.88	39.85
Acid detergent fibre	21.40	21.00	21.00	20.95

• ¹Control (canola meal as dietary N source); Urea (0.5% urea); Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen), and Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU, 0.7% - patent number: A01K5/00). ²Each kg contained: Vit A, 500000IU; Vit D3, 100000 IU; Vit E, 100mg; Ca, 190000mg; P, 90000mg; Na, 50000mg; Mg, 19000 mg; Fe, 3000 mg; Cu, 300 mg; Mn, 2000 mg; Zn, 3000 mg; Co, 100 mg; I 100 mg; Se, 1 mg; Antioxidant (B.H.T) 3000 mg.

Measurements and analysis

Feed, feed refusal and feces were analyzed for crud protein (CP) by using copper catalyst and steam distillation into boric acid according the Kjeldahl method (method 973.18) and for ash (method 942.05), acid detergent fiber (ADF, method 973.18) as initial marker according AOAC methods (ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTIS [AOAC], 2005). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was estimated according to method of Soest, Robertson and Lewis (1991). Feeds refusal and feces were collected and dried for 24 h at 105°C in oven to measure dry matter content (method 934.01) and then samples were grounded with 1-mm screen of Wiley mill. Complete fecal collection of each goat was done in collection periods (once each week and every day in collection week).

Microbial Nitrogen synthesis

Urine samples were taken according to Chen, Mejia, Kyle and Ørskov (1995) to determine microbial crude protein. Urine was collected hourly with using a fraction collector. In order to pH decrease under 3, an initial amount of H₂SO₄ was added in 30 ml bottles before collecting. If the final pH of samples was greater than 3, more H₂SO₄ solution was added to adjust it. In practice, urinary excretion of purine derivatives is an indicator of microbial protein and it was measured as the sum of allantoin, uric acid, xanthine and hypoxanthine using a method based on the AutoAnalyzer (Chen & Gomes, 1992).

Blood metabolites

The blood samples were taken fortnightly 2 hours after first feeding in morning, from the jugular vein of goats by using vacutainer tubes containing heparin and centrifuged at 2,500 RPM for 20 min. Plasma was harvested and frozen at -20°C. Total protein, albumin, cholesterol, urea, triglyceride, ALT and AST were measured by AutoAnalyzer (Biosystems A 15; 08030 Barcelona, Spain- Pars azma kits).

Milk production and composition

Goats were milked twice daily with machine (GEA portable model, USA) at 7 am and 3 pm during feeding time, and daily milk yield was recorded throughout the trial period. Milk samples were collected weekly. In the sampling week (last 7 days), 50 ml milk of each goat was thoroughly homogenized, and milk samples were analyzed for protein, fat, lactose and total solids-non-fat content using an automatic Milkoscan 605 analyser (Foss Electric, Hillerød, Denmark, AOAC International, 2005). Milk energy (MJ kg^-1) was estimated using fat, lactose and CP content of the milk for each goat (Tyrrell & Reid, 1965).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA analysis of variance using the general linear models (GLM) procedure of SAS 9.1. Nitrogen treatments were considered the only sources of variation. The significance of differences between control and experimental treatments was estimated by using one-way ANOVA, with Duncan's post-hoc test, and alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to assess the significance among means. The statistical models used in this study were as follows:

$Y_{ij}=\mu +T_i+e_{ij}$

where: Yij = observed response, μ = overall mean, T_i = treatment effect (I = 1 to 4), E_ijk = residual error

Results

Total diet consumption in polymer-coated urea (PCU) and Optigen were more (p > 0.05) than Control goats. However, consumption of crude protein, NDF and ADF were not affected by treatments (Table 2).

Table 2
Effect of the polymer-coated urea product and Optigen on dry matter intake of goats (g head^-1 day^-1)¹.

	Control	Urea	Optigen	PCU	SEM2	p-value3
DM intake	1985.01c	2105.52ab	2157.77a	2047.84a	23.419	0.020
Crude protein	304.27	325.71	333.70	308.19	12.085	0.845
Organic matter	1785.38ab	1894.24ab	1938.61 a	1833.52 ab	21.361	0.023
Acid detergent fiber	419.01	449.99	473.01	430.03	12.977	0.533
Neutral detergent fiber	724.5	854.9	899.7	816.5	19.545	0.129

• ¹Control (canola meal as dietary N source); Urea (0.5% urea); Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen), and Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU, 0.7% - patent number: A01K5/00).²SEM: standard error of mean. ³Means within same row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).

Synthesis of microbial protein was not affected (p > 0.05) by the treatments, however, PCU goats synthesized more microbial protein than other groups, that indicates adding non-protein nitrogen increased synthesis of microbial protein (Table 3). Cholesterol was increased in PCU and Optigen goats than Control. Blood urea concentration was increased in Urea and Control goats. The PCU and Urea treatments increased the plasma ALP concentration (Table 4).

Table 3
Effect of the polymer-coated urea product and Optigen on microbial nitrogen synthesis¹.

Items	Control	Urea	Optigen	PCU	SEM4	P-value5
Microbial nitrogen synthesis (g day-1)	20.95	17.99	18.93	22.49	0.772	0.150
PD2 absorption (mmol day-1)	28.81	24.74	26.04	30.94	1.014	0.107
PD excretion (mmol day-1)	26.20	22.79	23.88	27.99	0.875	0.132
Allantoin excretion (mmol day-1)	22.27	19.37	20.29	23.79	0.814	0.222
Uric acid excretion (mmol day-1)	3.93	3.42	3.58	4.20	0.187	0.508
DOMR3 (mmol day-1)	0.65	0.56	0.59	0.70	0.039	0.658

• ¹Control (canola meal as dietary N source); Urea (0.5% urea); Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen), and Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU, 0.7% - patent number: A01K5/00). ²PD: purine derivatives. ³DOMR: digestible organic matter apparently digested in the rumen. ⁴SEM: standard error of mean. ⁵Means within same row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Effect of the polymer-coated urea product and Optigen on blood metabolites of goats¹.

Item	Control	Urea	Optigen	PCU	SEM5	P-value6
Total protein (g L-1)	85.84	83.07	87.54	87.79	1.892	0.850
Albumin (g L-1)	37.66	36.97	35.49	39.49	1.305	0.804
Cholesterol (mg dL-1)	50.68 ab	44.65 b	55.95 ab	57.75 a	1.936	0.038
TG2 (mg dL-1)	29.37	31.32	32.30	25.62	1.366	0.356
Urea (mg dL-1)	29.23 a	29.47 a	25.60 b	27.40 ab	0.557	0.014
ALT3 (U L-1)	21.15 c	24.55 a	22.59 ab	23.48 a	0.485	0.050
AST4 (U L-1)	92.68	96.76	95.39	104.92	2.504	0.386

• ¹Control (canola meal as dietary N source); Urea (0.5% urea); Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen), and Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU, 0.7% - patent number: A01K5/00). ²TG: three glycerides. ³ALT: alanine aminotransferase. ⁴AST: aspartate aminotransferase. ⁵SEM: standard error of mean. ⁶Means within same row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).

Milk production was changed by treatments, and there was a significant difference between Urea and Control goats. Milk production increased (p > 0.001) in Optigen and PCU goats versus other treatments. Feed conversion ratio was better (p > 0.05) in PCU and Optigen goats than other treatments. Milk composition (fat, lactose, protein, solids, and total solids non-fat) was not affected (p > 0.05) by treatments (Table 5).

Table 5
Effect of the Polymer-Coated Urea product and Optigen on milk yield and contents of goats¹.

Item	Control	Urea	Optigen	PCU	SEM2	P-value3
Milk yield (g day-1)	1857.13b	2100.89 ab	2335.4a	2317.8 a	62.466	< 0.001
Feed conversion ratio	1.17 a	1.02 b	0.9bc	0.86c	0.044	0.021
Fat (g day-1)	4.41	4.2	3.68	3.66	0.215	0.134
Total solid non-fat (g day-1)	8.91	8.55	8.073	8.37	0.440	0.946
Lactose (%)	4.63	4.71	4.45	4.61	0.224	0.986
Protein (%)	3.09	3.145	2.968	3.075	0.071	0.885
Energy (MJ kg-1)	67.67	74.54	71.36	77.63	2.183	0.464

• ¹Control (canola meal as dietary N source); Urea (0.5% urea); Optigen (Alltech. Inc., Lexington, KY) (0.55% Optigen), and Polymer-Coated Urea (PCU, 0.7% - patent number: A01K5/00). ²SEM: standard error of mean. ³Means within same row with different superscripts differ (p < 0.05).

Discussion

Feed intake and digestibility

It was observed due to supplementing slow-release urea in a high-forage diets, dry matter intake decreased (Neal, Eun, Young, Mjoun, & Hall, 2014). Cherdthong, Wanapat and Wachirapakorn (2011) found that the urea and slow-release urea (urea-calcium sulfate and urea-calcium chloride) did not influence dry matter intake. However, Pinos-Rodríguez, Peña, González-Muñoz, Bárcena and Salem (2010) observed that consuming slow-release urea did not affect dry matter intake. The results of this research are consistent with the results of the present exp. The mechanism of supplementing slow-release urea on feed intake is difficult to explain but can be related to forage content and synchronization with non-starch carbohydrates of diet and slow-release urea percent in diet. Feed intake and digestibility are intimately related to each other and may affect N availability in rumen (Köster et al., 1996). Some studies reported positive influences on digestibility and feed intake when ruminants consuming slow-release urea instead to feed grade urea. Cherdthong et al. (2011) conducted a study on supplementing calcium-urea in diet of dairy cows that fed rice straw and results showed calcium-urea mixture increased organic matter intake and digestibility, compared to feed grade urea. Owens, Lusby, Mizwicki, and Forero (1980) compared effect of supplementing feed grade urea and lipid coated slow-release urea on steers fed cottonseed hulls and found slow-release urea increased cottonseed hull intake but digestibility did not change. In contrast, Taylor-Edwards et al. (2009) and Galo, Emanuele, Sniffen, White and Knapp (2003) fed polymer-coated urea to dairy cows using corn silage base diet and did not observe any improvement in dry matter intake or digestibility. However, the effect of urea and non-protein nitrogen sources on digestibility depends on their concentration, physical structure and adaptation period. Increased digestibility of Optigen and coated urea could be due to these treatments supplied enough nutrients for microorganisms in the rumen.

Microbial nitrogen synthesis

The role of supplementing ruminant diets with non-protein nitrogen is supplying ammonia for ruminal bacteria as a nitrogen source for synthesizing amino acids. Although, high releasing of ammonia can exceed the nitrogen utilization capacity of bacteria and reduce productive performance (Calomeni et al., 2015). It has been reported, oils can defaunation the rumen (Puniya, Singh, & Kamra, 2015), so maybe due to this fact, existence of paraffin (oil) as a coated material in the polymer-coated urea which increased microbial protein synthesis by eliminating protozoa. The synthesis of microbial nitrogen for ‘coated urea’ was greater than other treatments and this difference was also observed in other parameters of microbial nitrogen synthesis. Optigen and control treatments had the greater microbial synthesis, respectively, which indicates using non-protein nitrogen may increase the synthesis of microbial protein, although this difference was not significant. The purpose of any nutritional strategy that is designed to improve microbial protein synthesis is accomplished by improving the final production of the animals or increase efficiency of animal production. Cherdthong et al. (2011) reported an increase in total milk yield by dairy cows fed urea-calcium.

Blood metabolites

Mazinani et al. (2018) reported that supplementing urea can elevate blood urea concentration more than canola meal and it is due to rapid hydrolysis of urea to ammonia in the rumen. excess ammonia is absorbed into the blood from the rumen wall and then taken to the rumen where urea is usually detoxified. part of this urea can recycle by the rumen while the excess amount is excreted in the urine (Lapierre & Lobley, 2001). Other authors have reported that slow-release urea reduced blood urea concentration compared with feed grade urea (Cherdthong et al., 2011; Taylor-Edwards et al., 2009), that agrees with present results.

Milk production and composition

Xin, Schaefer, Liu, Axe and Meng (2010) showed different slow-release urea sources did not affect milk fat. Cameron, Klusmeyer, Lynch, Clark, and Nelson (1991) found milk production was increased by supplementing urea, whereas protein and fat concentrations were not altered. In another study, Supplementing slow-release urea increased milk protein (Tye, Yang, Eun, Young, & Hall, 2017). Dennis, Unruh-Snyder, Neary and Nennich (2012) reported that goats' milk composition was not affected by dietary protein concentration, and this agrees with the present results. Xin et al. (2010) also observed no change in milk protein with a slow-release urea treatment. It can be concluded that feed efficiency was improved with the addition of urea and other non-protein nitrogen sources and increased milk efficiency. According result, coated urea and Optigen had better feed conversion ratio grade compared with control or feed grade urea. In recent study slow-release urea increased milk production but no impact on milk composition. This results was in contract with Santos and Huber (1996) reported that replacing part of soybean meal by Optigen or feed grade urea had no impact on milk yield but agreed with Inostroza, Shaver, Cabrera and Tricárico (2010) reported of increasing milk production when Optigen partially replaced with feed grade urea.

Conclusion

This study revealed the benefits of supplementing Saanen goat diet with polymer-coated urea. Adding polymer-coated urea in the diet positively influenced dry matter intake, milk yield, and feed conversion ratio. The Microbial nitrogen synthesis in the polymer-coated urea goats showed a tendency to higher compared to other treatments. Based on economical, this experiment demonstrated that the polymer-coated urea can be utilized as a non-protein nitrogen supplement and Supply part of rumen digestible protein while reducing feed and finial goat production costs. In future studies, it is suggested that the effect of polymer-coated urea be investigated in large scale animals such as dairy cows and feedlot steers.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank to Dr. Hossein Rajaei-Sharifabadi for his valuable guidance and the manager of Ferdowsi University farm, Mr. Amin Mehrjerdi for his assistance.

This work was supported by the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad [grant numbers 37756].

References

• Alipour, D., Saleem, A. M., Sanderson, H., Brand, T., Santos, L. V, Mahmoudi-Abyane, M., … McAllister, T. A. (2020). Effect of combinations of feed-grade urea and slow-release urea in a finishing beef diet on fermentation in an artificial rumen system. Translational Animal Science, 4(2), 839-847. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa013
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txaa013
• Amills, M., Capote, J., & Tosser‐Klopp, G. (2017). Goat domestication and breeding: a jigsaw of historical, biological and molecular data with missing pieces. Animal Genetics, 48(6), 631-644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12598
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12598
• Association of Official Analytical Chemistis [AOAC]. (2005). Official methods of analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists International Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC.
• Baker, F. H., & Miller, M. E. (2019). Sheep and goat handbook (Vol. 4). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Calomeni, G. D., Gardinal, R., Venturelli, B. C., Freitas Júnior, J. E., Vendramini, T. H. A., Takiya, C. S., ... Rennó, F. P. (2015). Effects of polymer-coated slow-release urea on performance, ruminal fermentation, and blood metabolites in dairy cows. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 44(9), 327-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902015000900004
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902015000900004
• Cameron, M. R., Klusmeyer, T. H., Lynch, G. L., Clark, J. H., & Nelson, D. R. (1991). Effects of urea and starch on rumen fermentation, nutrient passage to the duodenum, and performance of cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(4), 1321-1336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78288-X
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78288-X
• Chen, X. B., & Gomes, M. J. (1992). Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives: an overview of the technical details Rowett Research Institure.
• Chen, X. B., Mejia, A. T., Kyle, D. J., & Ørskov, E. R. (1995). Evaluation of the use of the purine derivative creatinine ratio in spot urine and plasma samples as an index of microbial protein supply in ruminants studies in sheep. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 125(1), 137-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960007458X
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960007458X
• Cherdthong, A., Wanapat, M., & Wachirapakorn, C. (2011). Effects of urea-calcium mixture in concentrate containing high cassava chip on feed intake, rumen fermentation and performance of lactating dairy cows fed on rice straw. Livestock Science, 136(2-3), 76-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.08.002
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.08.002
• Cochran, R. C., Adams, D. C., Wallace, J. D., & Galyean, M. L. (1986). Predicting digestibility of different diets with internal markers: evaluation of four potential markers. Journal of Animal Science, 63(5), 1476-1483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351476x
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1986.6351476x
• Dennis, T. S., Unruh-Snyder, L. J., Neary, M. K., & Nennich, T. D. (2012). Effects of co-grazing dairy heifers with goats on animal performance, dry matter yield, and pasture forage composition. Journal of Animal Science, 90(12), 4467-4477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4643
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4643
• Galo, E., Emanuele, S. M., Sniffen, C. J., White, J. H., & Knapp, J. R. (2003). Effects of a polymer-coated urea product on nitrogen metabolism in lactating Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 86(6), 2154-2162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73805-3
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73805-3
• Inostroza, J. F., Shaver, R. D., Cabrera, V. E., & Tricárico, J. M. (2010). Effect of diets containing a controlled-release urea product on milk yield, milk composition, and milk component yields in commercial Wisconsin dairy herds and economic implications. The Professional Animal Scientist, 26(2), 175-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30577-5
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30577-5
• Köster, H. H., Cochran, R. C., Titgemeyer, E. C., Vanzant, E. S., Abdelgadir, I., & St-Jean, G. (1996). Effect of increasing degradable intake protein on intake and digestion of low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage by beef cows. Journal of Animal Science, 74(10), 2473-2481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74102473x
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74102473x
• Lapierre, H., & Lobley, G. E. (2001). Nitrogen recycling in the ruminant: a review. Journal of Dairy Science, 84, E223-E236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70222-6
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70222-6
• Mazinani, M., & Rude, B. (2020). Population, world production and quality of sheep and goat products. American Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 15(4), 291-299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2020.291.299
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2020.291.299
• Mazinani, M., Naserian, A. A., Mesgaran, M. D., & Valizadeh, R. (2018). Effects of adding coated urea on in vitro gas production of dairy cow. Biosciences, Biotechnology Research Asia, 15(2), 343-350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13005/bbra/2638
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13005/bbra/2638
• Neal, K., Eun, J.-S., Young, A. J., Mjoun, K., & Hall, J. O. (2014). Feeding protein supplements in alfalfa hay-based lactation diets improves nutrient utilization, lactational performance, and feed efficiency of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(12), 7716-7728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8033
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8033
• Owens, F. N., Lusby, K. S., Mizwicki, K., & Forero, O. (1980). Slow ammonia release from urea: Rumen and metabolism studies. Journal of Animal Science, 50, 527-531.
• Pinos-Rodríguez, J. M., Peña, L. Y., González-Muñoz, S. S., Bárcena, R., & Salem, A. (2010). Effects of a slow-release coated urea product on growth performance and ruminal fermentation in beef steers. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 9(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2010.e4
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2010.e4
• Puniya, A. K., Singh, R., & Kamra, D. N. (2015). Rumen Microbiology: From Evolution to Revolution Springer New Delhi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2401-3
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2401-3
• Romero-Huelva, M., Ramírez-Fenosa, M. A., Planelles-González, R., García-Casado, P., & Molina-Alcaide, E. (2017). Can by-products replace conventional ingredients in concentrate of dairy goat diet? Journal of Dairy Science, 100(6), 4500-4512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2016-11766
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2016-11766
• Santos, F. P., & Huber, J. T. (1996). Quality of bypass proteins fed to high-producing cows is important. Feedstuffs, 68(32). Retrieved from https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US9740371
  » https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US9740371
• Soest, P. J. van, Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583-3597. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
• Spanghero, M., Nikulina, A., & Mason, F. (2018). Use of an in vitro gas production procedure to evaluate rumen slow-release urea products. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 237, 19-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.12.017
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.12.017
• Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Alexander, L. V, Allen, S. K., Bindoff, N. L., … Emori, S. (2013). Technical summary. In Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 33-115). New Yourk, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor-Edwards, C. C., Elam, N. A., Kitts, S. E., McLeod, K. R., Axe, D. E., Vanzant, E. S., … Harmon, D. L. (2009). Influence of slow-release urea on nitrogen balance and portal-drained visceral nutrient flux in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science, 87(1), 209-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0913
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0913
• Tedeschi, L. O., Callaway, T. R., Muir, J. P., & Anderson, R. C. (2011). Potential environmental benefits of feed additives and other strategies for ruminant production. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 40, 291-309.
• Tye, B. M., Yang, S.-Y., Eun, J.-S., Young, A. J., & Hall, J. O. (2017). An investigation of feeding high-moisture corn grain with slow-release urea supplementation on lactational performance, energy partitioning, and ruminal fermentation of dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 97(4), 742-752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2016-0220
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2016-0220
• Tyrrell, H. F., & Reid, J. T. (1965). Prediction of the Energy Value of Cow’s Milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 48(9), 1215-1223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(65)88430-2
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(65)88430-2
• Xin, H. S., Schaefer, D. M., Liu, Q. P., Axe, D. E., & Meng, Q. X. (2010). Effects of polyurethane coated urea supplement on in vitro ruminal fermentation, ammonia release dynamics and lactating performance of Holstein dairy cows fed a steam-flaked corn-based diet. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 23(4), 491-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90153
  » https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90153

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Mar 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  03 Mar 2021
• Accepted
  20 Sept 2021