Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2017
Adapting the 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine - Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle to BRaNDS
Software – Considering Metabolizable Protein
A.S. Leaflet R3133 concentrate, to develop some degree of a sliding
scale based on dietary composition
Garland Dahlke, Extension Program Specialist; 3. Consideration of nitrogen recycling in rations of
Patrick Gunn, Assistant Professor; fairly low crude protein, but containing adequate
Dan Loy, Professor, TDN
Iowa Beef Center
Existing and Proposed Calculations
Summary and Implications
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and The 2016 Model is as follows:
Medicine - Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (NASEM),
formally referred to as the National Research Council 1. MTP
(NRC), has long been the standard of formulation for beef MTP = MCP x .8 x .8
cattle rations. However, the changes presented in the 8th MCP = (42.73 + 0.87 x TDN x DMI) / 1000 if EE < 3.9%
Edition (2016) regarding the empirical method of MCP = (53.33 + 0.96 x FFTDN x DMI) / 1000 if EE >=
formulation appear to only work well with cows and more 3.9%
mature stocker cattle consuming medium- to high-quality FFTDN = TDN – 2.25 x EE
forage (51.5-64% TDN) when the microbial efficiency of
converting diet TDN to microbial protein are adjusted from 2. MPfeed
the current recommendation back to previously published MPfeed = RUP x 0.8 if the ration is < 100% forage
efficiencies. MPfeed = RUP x 0.6 if the ration is 100% forage
Introduction 3. Recycled N (RN)
The NASEM, formally referred to as the National RN =(-0.1113 + 0.996 x 2.71828182845904^(-0.0616 x
Research Council (NRC), has been and remains the standard CP)) x(0.745 x ((CP x 0.01 x DMI ) / 6.25) x 1000 - 11.98)
of formulation in beef cattle rations. As developments in
research-based knowledge occur, this publication is The proposed adjustment to the model is:
updated. The recently-released 2016 text, now in the 8th
edition, has continued to carry this torch regarding beef 1. MTP (for cows, gestating heifers, and potentially larger
nutrition insight. We have developed some suggested stocker cattle outside of a feedyard )
modifications required with the current model contained in MTP = MCP x .8 x .8
this publication to improve its effectiveness in its use for the The microbial efficiency is the point of interest in the
formulation of the dietary protein component in mature calculation of the MCP value. This efficiency can be
cattle consuming forage rations. The first motive for this influenced by a number of items such as pH, maturity of the
discussion was an apparent inconsistency between the animal, fat levels in the ration and digestibility of the diet.
existing model outputs and the observed practical result of These points have been reflected in the use of TDN, eNDF
aforementioned classes of cattle nutritionally supported on and now FFTDN in the calculation of the MCP fraction.
solely medium- to high-quality forages (51.5-64% TDN).; The adjustment in the current NASEM publication seems to
the second motive was the necessity to allow a smooth work well for growing cattle in a feedyard or supplemented
transition in formulation software as diet ingredients are generously, but in initial uses, does not appear to work well
added using the nutrient specifications recorded on the for grazing cattle or those fed medium- to high-quality
individual feedstuffs. forage. To maintain credibility of the NASEM work it is
proposed that in situations where cattle with a fully
The primary points of discussion will concern: functional rumen (a liberty taken and determined to be 50%
1. Adjusting the efficiency value of converting of mature weight for programming), provided good to
TDN to microbial protein or MCPtdn medium quality forage and not supplemented to the point
2. Modifying the MPfeed conversion factor of the where low rumen pH will influence microbial activity to a
rumen undegradable protein (RUP) intestinal noticeable extent, the earlier published (NRC 1996, 2000)
digestibility from a strict 60% for all forage and microbial efficiencies be utilized with the gradual reduction
80% for diets containing any amount of of efficiency to the currently proposed calculation. This
Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2017
addresses the range of possible diets observed for a given To solve problem “A”, ADF content is used since this
animal outside of the feedyard. If these same animals are component generally increases as digestibility decreases,
placed into the feedyard, it appears that the 2016 proposed and is commonly reported in a feed analysis generated from
MCP equations work fine. On paper and in practice this a commercial feed testing lab. For the purpose here an ADF
seems to work out reasonably well. Thus, it is proposed that content of 25% or less would be considered a supplemented
the following “triggers” be used in the model to ration while a ration of 45% or higher would be
differentially calculate MTP based on forage TDN: unsupplemented. Addressing item “B” then, a smooth
transition is created between these two points in order to
IF TDN >=64 then MCP = (0.13 x TDN x DMI) / 1000 address the situation where only minimal or high quality
IF TDN <= 51.5 then MCP = (42.73 + 0.87 x TDN x DMI) / forage is provided. The proposed formula is as follows:
1000
IF TDN is between 51.5 and 64 then MCP = (MEF x TDN x IF ADF% <= 25 then 0.8,
DMI) / 1000 IF ADF% >= 45 then 0.6
MEF = (0.29 x TDN - 5.9)*0.01 Otherwise, (45-ADF%)*0.01+0.6
2. MPfeed 3. Recycled N (RN)
The multipliers of 0.6 and 0.8 for 100% forage and all other RNnew (NASEM, 2016)=(-0.1113 + 0.996 x
diets, respectively, in the current model indicate 2.71828182845904^(-0.0616 x CP)) x(0.745 x ((CP x 0.01 x
digestibility differences in rumen undegradable crude DMI ) / 6.25) x 1000 - 11.98)
protein (RUP) from grain and forage sources. Two problems Vs
occur when used in practice. (A) There could be questions RNold (NRC, 1985)=((121.7 - 12.01 x CP + (0.3235x CP x
in terms of what may or may not be a forage when a CP)) / 100 ) x CP x .01 x DMI / 6.25 x 1000
nontraditional feedstuff is used. (B) The possibility of
minimal concentrate supplementation to an overwhelmingly
forage-based diet, yielding a ration that is less than 100%
forage and using the multiplier of 0.8 instead of 0.6; a
seemingly slight difference which can lead to a large change
in formulation results.
Figure 1. Grams N Recycled in Cow – DMI equal to 17 Kg
Grams Recycled N
% CP
Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2017
When RDP is less than MCPtdn, the RN value is added to lactation and pregnancy (MPdef). Using the current body
the RDP value and the lower value of MCPtdn or condition score, the MP (MPbcs) available in this weight
(RDP+RN) is used to calculate the final MCP value. The from the current score to the next lower score is calculated.
response of the 1985 RN (old) and NASEM value (new) at a Total tissue yield is calculated and a weight loss can be
fixed DMI are shown in Figure 1. In the previous version of determined from the MP demand.
the BRaNDS software the old RN was used and done so
seemingly successfully. Use of the RN will have a MPdef / MPbcs x WTBCS x -1
particularly large impact in cows eating corn silage-, range-
and warm season annual grass-based rations since these are MPbcs = (0.200886 - 0.0066762 x BCS) x WTBCS
forages that generally have limiting RDP relative to TDN.
The concept of recycling seems better represented by the old ADF = acid detergent fiber –measured as a percent
RN equation since it shows more recycling at low crude CP = crude protein –measured as percent
protein intakes as one would expect. The range of data over DMI = dry matter intake –measured in Kg
which new and old were developed is not known by this EE = ether extract –measured as %
author so where the curves illustrated begin to misrepresent EQSBW = equivalent shrunk body weight –measured in Kg
reality is unknown, but for now it seems that retaining the FFTDN = fat free TDN = TDN – 2.25 x EE
old RN for cow diets as being discussed here is satisfactory. MCP = microbial crude protein – measured in grams
MCPtdn = microbial crude protein from TDN intake –
Allowable Weight Gain from MP measured in grams
MEF = microbial efficiency calculation based on year 2000
The rest of the protein calculations are as presented in the update NRC Beef publication.
NASEM text. To wrap up this discussion the above items MP = metabolizable protein –measured in grams
are then used as follows to determine allowable tissue MPbcs = grams of metabolizable protein in 1 body
growth from MP. Total MP Intake is determined by adding condition score worth of weight in current state
MTP with MPfeed. From this value the requirements for MPdef = gram deficient of MP
maintenance, pregnancy, lactation are subtracted. This MPfeed = metabolizable protein from rumen undegraded
remaining fraction can be used for weight gain. Referring to protein intake –measured in grams
the NASEM text the calculation for shrunk body weight MPg = metabolizable protein available for gain –measured
gain allowed by MP (MPg) intake is: in grams
MSBW = mature shrunk body weight = mature weight x .96
SWG = (29.4 x RE + NPg) / 268 (Kg)
MTP = microbial true protein – measured in grams
NPg = net protein for gain –measured in grams
The NPg is calculated as: RDP = rumen degraded protein –measured in grams
RUP = rumen undegraded protein –measured in grams
NPg = MPg x Max[0.492 or (0.834 – 0.00114 x EQSBW)] SRW = standard reference weight –set to 478kg for cows
and stocker cattle
EQSBW = SBW x ( SRW / MSBW) TDN = total digestible nutrients (%)
If MP Intake is too low and Nitrogen recycling in WTBCS = MSBW x 0.071 (Kg)
inadequate tissue is used to supply MP for maintenance,
Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2017
Results and Discussion reference, the 1996/2000 NRC model compared with some
The table that follows provides results from running the actual trial data.
2016 NASEM model, the proposed model and, for
Table 1. Open mature cows (≥ 3 yrs of age), Mixed ration of baled cornstalks, corn gluten feed, corn silage, corn grain
TDN = 46.9, CP = 6.5
Energy-limited gain modeled as 0.53 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was 0.44 lbs per head per day
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 122 135 123
MTP (grams) 364 353 297
MPfeed (grams) 211 281 281
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) 0.74 0.99 0.76
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
Table 2. Mid-lactation mature cows, Legume + grass pasture, Spring-Summer
TDN = 57.5, CP = 14
Energy-limited gain modeled to 1.07 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was unknown, but cows seemed to maintain or gain in body condition score
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 103 88 107
MTP (grams) 555 475 555
MPfeed (grams) 205 179 239
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) 0.69 -1.35 0.83
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
Table 3. Mid-lactation mature cows, grazing Stockpiled tall-fescue and orchardgrass
TDN = 58.5, CP = 16.1
Energy-limited gain modeled to 0.87 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was -0.22 lbs per day
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 97 83 102
MTP (grams) 539 451 539
MPfeed (grams) 225 200 267
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) -0.33 -2.18 0.42
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2017
Table 4. Third trimester mature cows, Silage + urea in dry lot
TDN = 62, CP = 8.1
Energy-limited gain on paper to 0.39 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was not known other than cows maintained body condition
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 99 102 107
MTP (grams) 414 387 414
MPfeed (grams) 176 220 220
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) -0.02 0.29 0.40
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
Table 5. First trimester heifer, Grass pasture
TDN = 64, CP = 10.4
Target Gain = 1.00 lbs per day.
Energy-limited gain modeled to 1.47 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was not known other than heifers grew and maintained body condition
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 110 91 114
MTP (grams) 420 343 419
MPfeed (grams) 107 95 127
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) 1.44 0.71 1.52
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
Table 6. Third Trimester Heifer, Silage + Urea in Dry Lot
TDN = 60, CP = 8.1
Target Gain = 1.00 lbs per day.
Energy-limited gain modeled to 0.7 lbs per head per day,
Actual gain was 0.71 lbs. per day
Proposed Model 2016 NASEM Model 1996/2000 Model
% of MP Supplied 101 104 105
MTP (grams) 453 445 453
MPfeed (grams) 224 254 254
ADG allowed by MP (lbs) 0.75 0.77 0.78
Comment: Differences in MTP across models are from MEF, RN, and digestion coefficients on RUP
