Enzymatic Hydrolysate of Fish, Spray-Dried Fish Solubles, and Soybean Protein Concentrate in Milk Replacers for Calves 1"2

J. T. HUBER and O. F. CAMPOS Department of Animal Science

Michigan State University East Lansing 48824

ABSTRACT

Holstein calves (120) were fed milk replacers as the only nutrients from 4 to 46 days of age. All milk replacers con- tained 20% crude protein and differed in protein source: 1) 100% milk protein; 2) 67% milk protein, 33% soybean protein concentrate; 3) 67% milk protein, 33% enzymatic hydrolysate of fish; 4) 67% milk protein, 16.5% soybean protein concentrate, 16.5 % enzymatic hydrolysate of fish; 5) 67% milk protein, 16.5% soybean protein concentrate, 16.5 % spray- dried fish solubles; 6) 67% milk protein, 24.75% soybean protein concentrate, 8.25% spray-dried fish solubles.

Substitution up to 33% of dietary protein with soybean protein concentrate or combinations of soybean, enzymatic hydrolysate of fish, or spray-dried fish solubles produced 14% lower weight gains than all milk protein, but 33% replace- ment with enzymatic hydrolysate of fish produced 27% lower weight gains. Feed consumed per kilogram of gain was least for all milk, most for 33% fish hydrolysate, and intermediate for other rations. Scour scores did not differ between diets.

INTRODUCTION

Calf performances on milk replacers con- taining fish protein concentrate (FPC) or soybean protein concentrate (SPC) depend on characteristics of the product, proportion replaced, crude protein percent of the replacer,

Received March 17, 1982. 1Published with approval of the Director of the

Agricultural Experiment Station as Journal Article No. 10353.

2Partially supported from grant provided by the National Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Beltsville, MD.

age of calf, and whether starter is used in the feeding program. Performances were poor for calves fed high FPC when milk replacers were the only sources of nutrients (15, 22, 24). Average daily gains and feed efficiencies were not reduced significantly when FPC furnished up to 40% of the dietary protein in calf milk replacers (15, 24, 25) or when replacers con- tained higher FPC but grain and hay also were fed (18).

Replacement of up to 30% of the milk protein by SPC in milk replacer reduced health and performance of calves (23). Higher re- placement with SPC (44 to 70%) was more detrimental (16, 23). In contrast, growth was satisfactory when SPC supplied more than 50% of the total milk repIacer protein (2, 4, 21).

A proposed cause for poor growth from protein sources other than milk was low protein digestibility and poor nitrogen retention (14, 24), probably caused by impaired curd formation in the abomasum and reduced rennin, pepsin, and HC1 secretion (23, 27). Theoretically, enzymatic hydrolysate of fish protein would eliminate the poor digestibility of this source by calves. Spray-dried fish solubles is a by-product of the fish industry of high protein content and solubility, features desirable in calf milk replacers.

The objective of this experiment was to compare an enzymatic hydrolysate of fish, spray-dried fish solubles, and soybean protein concentrate as partial replacements for milk protein in milk replacers for young calves.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty Holstein calves (85 males and 35 females) born in the Michigan State University herd or purchased from a nearby dairy farm were allotted at birth to one of six treatments in a randomized block design. Blocks were based on time of birth or purchase and sex (except for one male that was placed in a block of females because of

1982 J Dairy Sci 65:2351-2356 2351

2352 HUBER AND CAMPOS

TABLE 1. Ingredient composition of milk replacer diets.

Treatments a 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP

67% MP 67% MP 16.5% SPC 16.5% SPC 24.75% SPC 100% MP 33% SPC 33% EHF 16.5% EHF 16.5% SDFS 8.25% SDFS

Ingredients (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Dried skim milk (34% CP) 48 29 29 29 29 29 Dried whey (12% CP) 30 30 30 30 30 30 Animal fat (10%

lecithin) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cerelose . . . . 9 9 9 8.8 9.1 Soy protein cone.

(68% CP) . . . . 10 . . . . 5 5 7.3 Fish hydrolysate (63%

CP) . . . . . . . . 10 5 . . . . . . . . Fish soluble (64% CP) . . . . 5.2 2.6 Vitamins b " 1"" "1"" 1 "1"" 1 1 Minerals c 1 1 1 1 1 1

aMp, Milk protein; SPC, soybean protein concentrate; EHF, enzymatic hydrolysate of fish; SDFS, spray- dried fish solubles.

bcontaining vitamins A (4,400 IU/kg), D (2,200 IU/kg), E (220 mg/kg) and certain B-complex vitamins (thiamine, pyridoxine, pantothenic acid, folic acid, and cyanocobalamine).

CContaining Mg, Cu, Co, Zn, Fe, Mn, and I.

availability of calves at that time). All calves remained with their dams for approximately 24 h, after which they were housed in individual pens outdoors (calf hutches) or indoors. Calves of the same block were housed similarly. First colostrum was force fed, and for at least 2 more days calves received approximately 3 liters of colostrum per day. From 4 to 46 days of age each calf was fed its designated milk replacer as the only source of nutrients at 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 12% of body weight for wk 1 through 6, respectively. The solids content of all milk replacers mixed with water was 14%. Calves were fed one-half of their daily ration in the morning and the remainder in the evening from open pails. Clean, fresh water was available at all times.

Experimental treatments differed by the source of protein in various mixtures: 1) 100% milk protein (MP); 2) 67% as MP, 33% as soybean protein concentrate (SPC); 3) 67% as MP, 33% as enzymatic hydrolysate of fish (EHF); 4) 67% as MP, 16.5% as SPC, 16.5% as EHF; 5) 67% as MP, 16.5% as SPC, 16.5% as spray-dried fish solubles (SDFS); and 6) 67% as MP, 24.75% as SPC, 8.25% as SDFS.

Ingredients and chemical composition of milk replacers are in Tables 1 and 2. Milk replacer rations were prepared by Milk Spe- cialties Incorporated (Dundee, IL). The EHF and SDFS were supplied by Zapata Haynie Corporation (Houston, TX). The hydrolysate was prepared with pancreatin according to the method of Hale and Bauersfeld (10), and the solubles by spray-drying concentrated fish stickwater from which solids had been removed by screening and oil by centrifuging. Calcium and phosphorus percents were lower for milk- substitute diets, but concentrations met sug- gested allowances of National Research Council (17) for milk replacers. Milk and soy rations (treatments 1 and 2) were slightly low in iron (17). Inclusion of fish protein in milk replacers raised iron content.

When a calf assigned to the experiment died prior to completion of treatment, the first calf available thereafter was a replacement. All animals that died during treatment were sub- mitted for necropsy at Michigan State University Veterinary Clinic.

Calves were weighed for 2 consecutive days at the beginning and at the end of the trial.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 65, No. 12, 1982

PROTEIN SUBSTITUTES IN MILK REPLACERS 2 3 5 3

TABLE 2. Chemical composition of milk replacer diets.

Treatments a 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP

67% MP 67% MP 16.5% SPC 16.5% SPC 24.75% SPC 100%o MP 33% SPC 33% EHF 16.5% EHF 16.5% SDFS 8.25% SDFS

Items (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Dry matter b (%) 91.4 90.9 87.3 89.0 90.1 90.9 Crude protein b (%) 21.0 21.1 20.8 20.8 20.5 20.7 Ether extract b (%) 14.7 16.0 16.9 16.9 16.4 16.2 Ash b (%) 7.3 6.5 6.7 6.6 7.3 6.8 Ca c (%) .87 .71 .70 .70 .63 .67 pd (%) .71 .64 .59 .61 .62 .61 Fe c (mg/kg) 73 72 150 103 160 92

aMp, Milk protein; SPC, soybean protein concentrate; EHF, enzymatic hydrolysate of fish; SDFS, spray- dried fish solubles.

bMethods described in (1). CDetermined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (19). dDetermined by the colorimetric procedure described by Fiske and Subbarrow (9).

Weights also were taken at weekly intervals during treatment. For statistical analyses, weight gains, dry matter intakes, and feed efficiencies were divided into three periods: 4 to 25 days, 25 to 46 days, and 4 to 46 days of age.

Daily observations were on each animal for scouring by fecal consistency rated on an index of 1 to 4, with 1 very fluid and 4 normal.

Data were analyzed in a completely ran- domized block design, and Tukey's test was used for comparison of means.

RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION

The essential amino acid (EAA) composition of milk replacers is in Table 3. As percent of dry matter, EAA were 5 to 10% lower in diets containing alternate protein sources than in all-milk but differed little for percent of total nitrogen. Differences in total protein were small between diets, so EAA content of replacers reflects actual intake by calves. Mean intake of replacers for all groups was about 28 kg for 6 wk, which would be equal in solids content to 200 kg of whole milk.

Dry matter intake was not significantly different between diets, but there was some relationship between growth rate and con- sumption (Table 4). This was expected because animals were fed according to weight.

Average daily gains (Table 4) during the initial period (4 to 25 days) were highly variable and did not differ (P>.05) between diets. However, treatments 1 and 4, which had greatest gains to 6 wk, were also highest during the first 3 wk. During the later period (25 to 46 days) gains were higher (P<.05) for the MP diet than for 33% replacement of dietary protein with EHF. Other milk replacers showed intermediate gains. Trend for gain was the same during the entire period (4 to 46 days). Because of similar intakes but poor growth, animals fed 33% protein from EHF showed poorer (P<.05) ratios of feed to gain compared to the MP group. Feed to gain was intermediate for the other replacers. Calf performance on diet 2, containing 33% protein from SPC, agrees with earlier data (16, 23) in which replacement of milk protein with SPC slightly diminished gains and feed efficiencies. In this study, SDFS solubles satisfactorily replaced SPC at 16 and 8% of the total protein. However, these results contradict those reported by Campos et al. (5, 6), who showed lower average daily gains and poorer feed efficiencies for a diet in which SDFS replaced 16% of the total protein and SPC 16% compared to one with 33% as SPC.

Lower concentration of proteolytic enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract of calves (23, 27) and lower capacity of calf's digestive enzymes

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 65, No. 12, 1982

23 54 HUBER AND CAMPOS

TABLE 3. Amino acid con ten t of milk replacer diets, a

Trea tments b

67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 16.5% SPC 16.5% SPC 24.75% SPC

100% MP 33% SPC 33% EHF 16.5% EHF 16.5% SDFS 8.25% SDFS Amino acids (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Lysine (% of DM) 1.53 1.53 1.52 1.55 1.45 1.46 Histidine (% of DM) .48 .46 .42 .46 .47 .47 Arginine (% of DM) .64 .87 .64 .81 .81 .86 Threonine (% of DM) .97 .92 .82 .88 .91 .93 Valine (% of DM) 1.24 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.06 1.09 Methionine (% o f DM) .48 .38 .44 .43 .43 .42 Isoleucine (% of DM) 1.01 .97 .92 .96 .90 .94 Leucine (% of DM) 2.05 1.86 1.79 1.84 1.72 1.78 Phenylalanine (% of DM) .91 .89 .79 .87 .82 .87 EAA c (% of total DM) 9.31 8.86 8.48 8.92 8.57 8.82

(% of total N) 45 44 45 46 45 45

aAnalyzed by ion exchange chromatography on an amino acid analyzer by National Marine Fisheries Service, College Park, MD.

bMp, Milk protein; SPC, soybean protein concentrate; EHF, enzymat ic hydrolysate of fish; SDFS, spray dried fish solubles.

CDM, Dry mat te r ; EAA, essential amino acids.

TABLE 4. Dry mat te r intakes, average daily gains, feed efficiencies and scour scores of calves fed milk replacers varying in protein sources (20 calves/ treatment) .

Trea tments a

67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 67% MP 16.5% SPC 16.5% SPC 24.75% SPC

100% MP 33% SPC 33% EHF 16.5% EHF 16.5% SDFS 8.25% SDFS SE Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Dry mat te r intake (~/animal/day) 4--25 days 54515 543 b 509 b 547 b 530 b 510b 19

26--46 days 856 b 834 b 782 b 847 b 828 b 795b 30 4--46 days 701 b 686 b 643 b 694 b 676 b 649b 23

Initial weight (kg) 44.9 b 44.5 b 42.2 b 44.9 b 43.5b 42.5b 1.7

Average daily gain ~/animal /day~. 4--25 days 168 u 127 ~ 118 b 177 b 136 b 104b 33

2 6 - 4 6 days 666 b 573 bc 489 c 569 bc 577 bc 584 bc 35 4 - 4 6 days 416 b 350 bc 304 c 372 bc 359 bc 345 bc 24

Feed/gain (DM) d 1.72 b 2.01 bc 2.16 c 1.91 bc 1.93 bc 1.93 bc .15

Scour scores e 4 - 2 5 days 2.9 b 2.9 b 2.8 b 2.8 b 2.9 b 2.7 b .12

26--46 clays 3.3 b 3.2 b 3.4 b 3.4 b 3.2 b 3.3 b .16

aMp, Milk protein; SPC, soybean protein concentrate ; EHF, enzymat ic hydrolysate o f fish; SDFS, spray- dried fish solubles.

b'CMeans in rows no t sharing the same superscript differ (P<.05) .

dDM, Dry matter .

e l , Fluid; 2, semi-fluid; 3, semi-solid; 4, normal.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 65, No. 12, 1982

PROTEIN SUBSTITUTES IN MILK REPLACERS 23 55

to hydro lyze nonmi lk prote in (12) have been ci ted as possible explanat ions for observed lower digestibilities by calves fed milk replacers conta ining nonmi lk prote in sources. These observat ions led to the possibil i ty of sup- p lementa l p ro teo ly t i c enzymes or predigest ion of nonmi lk prote in with p ro teo ly t i c enzymes in milk replacers. In in vitro condi t ions, Chow and Bell (7) showed that the a m o u n t o f t r icholor- acetic acid soluble prote in could be increased great ly by enzymat ic t r ea tment of pea products . However , there is exper imenta l evidence that enzyme addi t ion or predigest ion of mi lk replacers conta ining pea pro te in (3), soybean prote in (10, 13), or fish prote in (8, 20, 26, 28) did n o t improve nut r ien t digestibil i ty or calf performance.

In our trial, mi lk replacers conta ining 33% of their pro te in f rom E H F showed lowest weight gains and feed efficiencies. However , com- bining EHF and SPC to make 33% of the total pro te in in the replacer diet improved gains and feed efficiencies compared to SPC or EHF alone. A c o m p l e m e n t a r y e f fec t of the prote in sources might have occurred.

Diarrhea was no t a serious p rob lem with no differences (P>.05) be tween diets in scour scores (Table 4). As expected , scouring was less during the lat ter (26 to 46 days) than the initial per iod (4 to 25 days).

During the ent ire exper iment , 8 calves died after commenc ing t rea tment , bu t none o f these deaths could be related to a part icular diet. Number of dead calves were 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, and 1 for diets 1 through 6, respectively.

In conclusion, the partial rep lacement of milk prote in wi th EHF, SDFS, or SPC con- centrate can be expec ted to decrease weight gains and feed efficiencies in young calves fed only milk replacers. Economics will dictate whe ther such subst i tutes are feasible in herd rep lacement diets.

REFERENCES

1 Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1975. Official methods of analysis. 12th ed. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem., Washington, DC.

2 Barr, G. W., S. R. Martin, M. L. Kakade, P. J. Ryan, and F. M. Crane. 1978. Influence of modified protein in milk replacers on calf performance and health. J. Dairy Sci. 61 : 169. (Abstr.)

3 Bell, J. M., B. E. Harvey, and G. I. Christison. 1979. Effects of addition of enzymes carboxy- methytcellulose to pea flour used for calf milk

replacers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59:43. 4 Bringe, A. N., and G. W. Barr. 1979. Effect of

protein source of milk replacer on performance of dairy calves in cold housing. J. Dairy Sci. 62(Suppl. 1):100. (Abstr.)

5 Campos, O. F., J. T. Huber, and W. G. Bergen. 1982. Partial substitution of milk protein with spray-dried fish solubles or soy protein concentrate in calf milk replacers. J. Dairy Sci. 65:1240.

6 Campos, O. F., J. T. Huber, J. L. Morrill, R. K. Brownson, A. D. Dayton, H.J.S. Harrison, and R. G. Warner. 1982. Spray-dried fish solubles or soy protein concentrate in milk replacer formulations. J. Dairy Sci. 65:97.

7 Chow, C., and J. M. Bell. 1976. Effects of various heat and pH treatments on digestibility of protein in pea protein concentrate (Pisum sativum). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56:559.

8 Dodsworth, T. L., J. B. Owen, I. M. Mackie, A. H. Ritchie, and E. R. Orskov. 1977. Fish protein hydrolysate as a substitute for milk protein in calf feeding. Anim. Prod. 25:19.

9 Fiske, C. M., and I. Subbarow. 1925. The colori- metric determination of phosphorus. J. Biol. Chem. 66:375.

10 Fries, G. F., C. A. Lassiter, and C. F. Huffman. 1958. Effect of enzyme supplementation of milk replacers on the growth of calves. J. Dairy Sci. 41:1081.

11 Hale, M. B., and P. E. Bauersfeld, Jr. 1978. Page 14 in Preparation of Menbadan hydrolysate for possible use in a milk replacer. Marine Fisheries Rev., Aug.

12 Jenkins, K. J. 1981. Pepsin and pancreatin sup- plementation of calf milk replacer containing soy protein. Can. J. Anita. Sci. 61:469.

13 Jenkins, K. J., S. Mahadevan, and B. Emmons. 1980. Susceptibility of proteins used in calf milk replacers to hydrolysis by various proteolytic enzymes. Can. J. Anita. Sci. 60:907.

14 Matre, T. 1970. Proteinkvaliteten i keilmjolker- statningar til kalvar. Pages 150-157 Proc. Mtg. Cattle Exp. Agric. Coll. Norway.

15 Matre, T. 1977. Mackarel flour as protein source in milk replacers for calves. Norges Landbrukshogsk. Foringsfors. Beret. 56: NR 53.

16 Morrill, J. L., S. L. Melton, A. D. Dayton, E. J. Guy, and M. J. Pallansch. 1971. Evaluation of milk replacers containing a soy protein concentrate and high whey. J. Dairy Sci. 54:1060.

17 National Research Council. 1978. Nutrient re- quirements of domestic animals. No. 3. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.

18 Opstevedt, J., G. Sobstad, and P. Hansen. 1978. Functional fish protein concentrates in milk replacers for calves. J. Dairy Sci. 61:72.

19 Perkin-Elmer. 1963. Analytical methods for atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Norwalk, CT.

20 Petchey, A. M., J. B. Owen, I. M. Mackie, A. H. Ritchie, and E. R. Orskov. 1979. A comparison of undried and dried fish-protein hydrolysate as a protein source for calf milk replacers. Anim. Prod. 28:191.

21 Polzin, H. W. 1978. Soy protein concentrate in

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 65, No. 12, 1982

2356 HUBER AND CAMPOS

milk replacers. Proc. 38th Annu. Mtg. Nutr. Counc. Am. Feed Manuf. Assoc.

22 Ramsey, H. A. 1975. Fish flour as an ingredient o f milk replacers. J. Dairy Sci. 58:741. (Abstr.)

23 Roy, J.H.B., I.J.F. Stobo, S. M. Shotton, P. Gan- derton, and C. M. Gilles. 1977. The nutritive value of non-milk proteins for the pre-ruminant calf. The effect of replacement of milk protein by soya bean or fish-protein concentrate. Br. J. Nutr. 38:167.

24 Sleiman, F. T., and J. T. Huber. 1971. Fish protein concentrate and whey protein in milk replacer diets. J. Anim. Sci. 33:1170. (Abstr.)

25 St. Laurent, G. J., and G. J. Brisson. 1972. Nutritive value of FPC for young calves. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52:585.

26 Toullec, R., P. Partureau-Mirand, J. L. Paruelle, and R. Guilhermet. 1972. Utilization of protein by the preruminant fattening calf. Aliment Vie 61:57.

27 Williams, V. J., J.H.B. Roy, and C. M. Gilles. 1976. Milk substitute diet composit ion and abomasal secretion in the calf. Br. J. Nutr. 36:317.

28 Wilson, K. L. 1973. The nutritive value of en- zymatic-predigestion of fish protein concentrate for young calves. Diss. Abstr. 23:5084B.

Journal o f Dairy Science Vol. 65, No. 12, 1982