Evidence Hub

Effects of feeding rumen-protected lysine during the postpartum period on performance and amino acids profile in dairy cows: A meta-analysis

U. Arshad, F. Peñagaricano, H. M. White

Journal of Dairy Science, 2024

23 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Lysine is one of the limiting AA in the diets of dairy cows and is typically fed as rumen-protected Lys (RPL). We hypothesized that supplementation of RPL during the postpartum period would improve the productive performance in dairy cows. Objectives were to use meta-analytic methods to explore the effects of feeding RPL on performance and blood AA profile in lactating dairy cows. An additional objective was to identify an optimal concentration (%) of Lys in metabolizable protein (LYSMP) and determine if responses to LYSMP were associated with the concentration (%) of Met in metabolizable protein (METMP). The literature was systematically reviewed and 13 experiments, comprising 40 treatment means and 594 lactating cows, were included in the meta-analysis. All experiments had a non-supplemental control (CON; n = 17 treatment means), or a supplemental group (RPL; n = 23 treatment means). Cows supplemented with RPL were supplied additionally with a mean (±standard deviation) 19.3 ± 10.3 g/d metabolizable Lys (5.1 to 40.6 g/d). Meta-analytical statistics were used to estimate the weighted mean difference in STATA. Mixed models were fitted to the data to investigate the linear and quadratic effects of LYSMP, METMP, and interactions between LYSMP and METMP. All models included the random effect of experiment and weighting by the inverse of the standard errors of the means squared. Cows that began receiving RPL in early lactation (≤90 d in milk) or for an extended duration (≥70 d…

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: 23 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