Evidence Hub

Prediction of microbial crude protein flow from the rumen of dairy cattle by means of dietary characteristics – a meta-analysis

N. Gresner, K. Wild, M. Rodehutscord, K. Südekum

Archives of Animal Nutrition, 2024

349 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Protein supply to ruminants relies mainly on the flow of microbial crude protein (MCP) from the rumen, which is commonly assumed to primarily depend on energy supply. This study evaluated this assumption with recent data and tested if ruminally fermented organic matter (FOM) was a better predictor of MCP flow than total-tract digestible organic matter (DOM) and if more variables could improve the prediction of MCP flow. A previously published data set was extended by additional studies resulting in a data set of 139 studies including 407 treatment means, typical to Central European rations. Either DOM or FOM had to be reported and estimates of MCP were all based on gastrointestinal measurements. Dietary treatments were restricted to a maximum concentrate proportion of 0.6 and a CP concentration from 10% to 20% of dietary dry matter (DM). Treatments with more than 1% of animal by-products were excluded. Mixed models with “study” as random effect were used to test the ratios between MCP and DOM or FOM. Dietary characteristics including DM intake, OM digestibility (OMD), OM fermentability (OMF), and ruminal N balance and dietary concentrations of CP, rumen-degraded CP (RDP), rumen-undegraded CP (RUP), neutral detergent fibre, starch, and ether extract were evaluated as additional variables to improve prediction accuracy. Regression of MCP flow against DOM (n = 324) or FOM (n = 349) revealed estimates of 139 g ± 36 g and 164 g ± 40 g of MCP for each kg of DOM or FOM,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 349 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free