![]() |
![]() |
| Anim Biosci > Volume 39(1); 2026 > Article |
|
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Tahir H, Naveed S, Haque MN.
Data curation: Tahir H, Qamar S, Anwar S, Binyameen M.
Formal analysis: Ahmad N, Tausif MA, Hussain I.
Methodology: Tahir H, Azam BE, Anwar S, Ali M.
Software: Qamar S, Binyameen M, Akhtar MU.
Validation: Azam BE, Binyameen M, Akhtar MU.
Investigation: Tahir H, Azam BE, Tausif MA, Hussain I.
Writing - original draft: Tahir H, Ali M.
Writing - review & editing: Tahir H, Naveed S, Ahmad N, Azam BE, Tausif MA, Qamar S, Anwar S, Binyameen M, Hussain I, Ali M, Akhtar MU, Haque MN.
FUNDING
This research work was funded by the “Punjab Agriculture Research Board” (Grant No. PARB-20-116) under the project “Matching the fodder production with the nutrient requirement for cattle and buffalo for improved milk production of Punjab, Pakistan”.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Livestock and Dairy Development Department (L&DD), Punjab, Pakistan, for preparing and providing the diets for this experiment. We also acknowledge the support of farm and laboratory staff at the Buffalo Research Institute, Pattoki, Pakistan, in data collection and sample analysis.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.
| Item | Dietary treatments1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| LSLP | LSHP | HSLP | HSHP | |
| Ingredient (% of DM, unless noted) | ||||
| Corn silage | 32.7 | 32.7 | 32.7 | 32.7 |
| Wheat straw | 25.1 | 25.0 | 25.1 | 25.0 |
| Ground corn grain | 8.58 | 8.58 | 21.5 | 21.4 |
| Wheat bran | 10.5 | 8.45 | 8.46 | 7.20 |
| Molasses | 3.64 | 3.13 | 3.47 | 2.79 |
| Soybean hulls | 16.9 | 14.7 | 5.42 | 2.96 |
| Canola meal | 0.52 | 2.88 | 1.08 | 3.23 |
| Soybean meal | 0.51 | 2.87 | 0.86 | 3.22 |
| Mineral mixture2) | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 |
| Urea 46% | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.47 |
| Oil3) | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.09 |
| Nutrient composition (% of DM) | ||||
| DM | 54.4 | 54.5 | 54.3 | 54.4 |
| Forage | 57.8 | 57.7 | 57.8 | 57.7 |
| Crude protein | 8.8 | 10.6 | 8.8 | 10.6 |
| Ash | 5.75 | 5.56 | 5.23 | 5.03 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 52.6 | 51.2 | 45.5 | 44.2 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 32.2 | 31.5 | 27.2 | 26.4 |
| NFC | 31.3 | 31.2 | 38.7 | 38.6 |
| Ether extract | 3.13 | 3.15 | 3.13 | 3.12 |
| Predicted nutritive value | ||||
| RUP (% CP) | 29.8 | 28.9 | 30.1 | 29.0 |
| RDP (% CP) | 70.2 | 71.1 | 69.9 | 71.0 |
| Metabolizable protein (g/kg) | 76.4 | 81.1 | 77.6 | 83.8 |
| Metabolizable energy (Mcal/kg) | 2.20 | 2.22 | 2.31 | 2.34 |
| NEL (Mcal/kg) | 1.41 | 1.43 | 1.49 | 1.51 |
| Sugar (% of DM) | 4.25 | 4.34 | 4.25 | 4.23 |
| Starch (% of DM) | 19.5 | 19.4 | 28.7 | 28.7 |
1) LSLP = low starch low protein (19.5% starch and 8.8% CP); LSHP = low starch high protein (19.5% starch and 10.6% CP); HSLP = high starch low protein (28.7% starch and 8.8% CP); HSHP = high starch high protein (28.7% starch and 10.6%).
| Treatments1) | p-value2) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| Item3) | LSLP | LSHP | HSLP | HSHP | SEM | S | CP | S×CP |
| DMI (kg/d) | 14.6 | 14.6 | 14.5 | 14.6 | 0.02 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.74 |
| Yield | ||||||||
| Milk (kg/d) | 8.60 | 8.76 | 8.54 | 8.62 | 0.352 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.79 |
| Fat (g/d) | 616 | 635 | 616 | 631 | 27.6 | 0.82 | 0.15 | 0.86 |
| Protein (g/d) | 321 | 321 | 313 | 325 | 13.4 | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.41 |
| Lactose (g/d) | 436 | 437 | 425 | 441 | 18.3 | 0.69 | 0.34 | 0.42 |
| Milk composition (%) | ||||||||
| Fat | 7.19 | 7.31 | 7.24 | 7.33 | 0.173 | 0.80 | 0.42 | 0.90 |
| Protein | 3.73 | 3.67 | 3.66 | 3.76 | 0.038 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.02 |
| Lactose | 5.05 | 4.98 | 4.96 | 5.10 | 0.054 | 0.81 | 0.41 | 0.02 |
| ECM (kg/d) | 13.2 | 13.6 | 13.2 | 13.5 | 0.548 | 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.99 |
| 4% FCM (kg/d) | 12.7 | 13.0 | 12.7 | 12.9 | 0.538 | 0.70 | 0.16 | 0.83 |
| 3.4% PCM (kg/d) | 8.48 | 8.64 | 8.30 | 8.63 | 0.688 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.81 |
| MkN (g/d) | 50.3 | 50.3 | 49.0 | 50.8 | 2.10 | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.41 |
| MkE (Mcal/d) | 9.26 | 9.16 | 9.12 | 9.42 | 0.381 | 0.73 | 0.13 | 0.78 |
1) LSLP = low starch low protein (19.5% starch and 8.8% CP); LSHP = low starch high protein (19.5 % starch and 10.6 % CP); HSLP = high starch low protein (28.7% starch and 8.8% CP); HSHP = high starch high protein (28.7% starch and 10.6%).
2) Main effects of dietary treatments: S = starch; CP = protein; S×CP = starch by protein interaction.
3) ECM = energy corrected milk, 4% FCM = fat corrected milk, 3.4% PCM = protein corrected milk, MkN = milk nitrogen, MkE = milk energy were calculated according to the equations presented previously [10].
| Treatments1) | p-value2) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| Item | LSLP | LSHP | HSLP | HSHP | SEM | S | CP | S×CP |
| Feed efficiency3) | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.021 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.74 |
| ECM: DMI4) | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.38 | 1.59 | 0.239 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.69 |
| 4% FCM: DMI4) | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.036 | 0.65 | 0.13 | 0.79 |
| 3.4% PCM: DMI4) | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.061 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.92 |
| Gross efficiency of MP5) | 0.29a | 0.27ab | 0.28ab | 0.27b | 0.012 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.63 |
| Metabolic efficiency of MP6) | 0.45a | 0.41b | 0.42ab | 0.39b | 0.019 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.66 |
| MNE (%)7) | 24.3a | 20.5b | 23.7a | 20.7b | 0.95 | 0.62 | 0.01 | 0.44 |
| MkN: MkE (g/Mcal)8) | 5.43 | 5.32 | 5.35 | 5.39 | 0.100 | 0.99 | 0.64 | 0.33 |
1) LSLP = low starch low protein (19.5% starch and 8.8% CP); LSHP = low starch high protein (19.5% starch and 10.6% CP); HSLP = high starch low protein (28.7% starch and 8.8% CP); HSHP = high starch high protein (28.7% starch and 10.6%).
2) Main effects of dietary treatments: S = starch; CP = protein; S×CP = starch by protein interaction.
4) Ratio of energy corrected milk (ECM), 4% fat corrected milk (FCM), and 3.4% protein corrected milk (PCM) with dry matter intake (DMI).
5) Gross efficiency of metabolizable protein (MP) = milk protein yield/MP intake [29].
6) Metabolic efficiency of MP = milk protein yield/(MP intake − MP for growth, maintenance, and pregnancy) [29].
7) Calculated from MNE = milk nitrogen efficiency = N in milk/N intake [10].
8) MkN: MkE = milk nitrogen: milk energy [10].
| Treatments1) | p-value2) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| Item | LSLP | LSHP | HSLP | HSHP | SEM | S | CP | S×CP |
| BW (Kg) | 549 | 556 | 544 | 551 | 14.5 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 0.92 |
| BCS | 3.30 | 3.28 | 3.33 | 3.28 | 0.090 | 0.76 | 0.55 | 0.76 |
| Rumen pH | 6.78 | 6.80 | 6.79 | 6.74 | 0.018 | 0.24 | 0.39 | 0.05 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 78.2 | 80.1 | 79.5 | 78.5 | 1.618 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 0.36 |
| Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 109 | 114 | 114 | 115 | 3.958 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.65 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 114 | 111 | 116 | 119 | 3.914 | 0.19 | 0.92 | 0.54 |
1) LSLP = low starch low protein (19.5% starch and 8.8% CP); LSHP = low starch high protein (19.5% starch and 10.6% CP); HSLP = high starch low protein (28.7% starch and 8.8% CP); HSHP = high starch high protein (28.7% starch and 10.6%).
| Treatments1) | p-value2) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| Item | LSLP | LSHP | HSLP | HSHP | SEM | S | CP | S×CP |
| CH4 (MJ)3) | 14.8a | 14.7b | 14.1c | 14.0d | 0.02 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.55 |
| CH4 (Mcal)4) | 3.55a | 3.51b | 3.38c | 3.34d | 0.003 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.55 |
| CH4 (g/d)5) | 248a | 245b | 236c | 234d | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.55 |
| CH4 (g/kg DMI)6) | 17.0a | 16.8b | 16.1c | 16.0d | 0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| CH4 (g/kg milk)7) | 30.0a | 29.1ab | 29.0ab | 28.3b | 1.57 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.75 |
1) LSLP = low starch low protein (19.5% starch and 8.8% CP); LSHP = low starch high protein (19.5% starch and 10.6% CP); HSLP = high starch low protein (28.7% starch and 8.8% CP); HSHP = high starch high protein (28.7% starch and 10.6%).
2) Main effects of dietary treatments: S = starch; CP = protein; S×CP = starch by protein interaction.

![]() |
![]() |