Journal of Animal Production Advances

Synchronous Least-Cost Ration Formulation for

Lactating Barki Ewes using Nonlinear
Programming
Aboamer A. A., El-Sayed H. M., Abo El-Nor S. A. H., Khorshed M. M., Kholif A. M., Saleh H.
M., Khattab I. M. and Khattab M. S. A.

J Anim Pro Adv 2015, 5(8): 733-746

DOI: 10.5455/japa.20150816041529

Online version is available on: www.grjournals.com

 ISSN: 2251-7677 ABOAMER ET AL.

Original Article

Synchronous Least-Cost Ration Formulation for

Lactating Barki Ewes using Nonlinear
Programming
1
Aboamer A. A., 2El-Sayed H. M., 1Abo El-Nor S. A. H., 2Khorshed M. M., 1Kholif A. M.,
3
Saleh H. M., 4Khattab I. M. and 1Khattab M. S. A.
1
Dairy Science Department, National Research Center, Dokki, Giza ,12622, Egypt.
2
Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Kaliobeya, 11241, Egypt.
3
Nuclear Research Center, Cairo, Atomic Energy Authority, 13759, Egypt.
4
Animal Nutrition Department, Desert Research Center, 11753, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
Least-cost procedures do not always produce the most practical rations for ruminants. The aim of this work
was to incorporate the concept of synchronizing ruminal energy and protein digestion in the traditional least-
cost procedure, in order to produce more appropriate and practical rations for lactating Barki ewes. The degree
of dietary nutrient synchrony is measured using the synchrony index (SI) reported by Sinclair et al., (1993). In a
preliminary study, degradation kinetics of seven commonly used feedstuffs were estimated using nylon bag
technique. The observed patterns of crude protein (CP) and organic matter (OM) degradability of feedstuffs
were largely varied and greatly depend on the rumen outflow rate (fraction/h). We developed a new user-
friendly software application ‘Lacto-sheep’ based on the C# language and the. NET Framework 4.0 to facilitate
the processes of ration formulation. Simplex and Hybrid local search solvers in Microsoft Solver Foundation
3.1 have been used to solve both linear and nonlinear programming models, respectively. Example synchronous
least-cost ration (SLCR) and least-cost ration (LCR) formulations of 35.46 kg (body weight) lactating ewe
based on the NRC recommendation is presented. SLCR and LCR showed two different patterns of N/OM
release within a day. The calculated SI was about 0.87 and 0.60, respectively. As cost is often a limiting factor
in the traditional least cost ration formulation therefore, LCR did not contain any source of protein-rich sources.
We conclude this synchronous least-cost procedure is more appropriate to produce practical rations.

Keywords: Synchronous least-cost ration, degradation kinetics, lacto-sheep, linear, nonlinear programming,
lactating barki ewes.
Abbreviations: Synchrony index (SI), crude protein (CP), organic matter (OM), synchronous least-cost ration
(SLCR), least-cost ration (LCR).


Corresponding author: National Research Centre, Cairo, 12622, Egypt.
Received on: 07 Jun 2015
Revised on: 17 Jun 2015
Accepted on: 16 Aug 2015
Online Published on: 30 Aug 2015
733 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …
Introduction
Feed costs account for 50-80% of the total
costs in animal production (Pond et al., 1995) and
in milk production they are the largest expense
(Bath, 1985). The most common procedure for
formulating ration is the least-cost ration
optimization based on linear programming
technique, starting with Waugh (1951). Traditional
least-cost procedure rely on the assumption that the
same level of performance will be achieved if a
minimum level of each required nutrient is met,
regardless of the source of nutrients. This appears to
be true for mono-gastric animals, while digestion
and metabolism of ruminants, depend much on
rumen microbial metabolism (Khezri, et al., 2009).
The microbial protein synthesis in the rumen
provides more than a half of the amino acids
absorbed and it may be maximized, if the
fermentable energy availability and that of N not
degraded by the microbes in the rumen are
synchronized (Ørskov, 1992). This increase in
microbial efficiency then should translate into an
increase in animal performance. Therefore, guiding
the farmers on the proper use of available feed
resources to meet their animal’s nutrient
requirements at low cost considered an important
mean to enhance milk production efficiency with
better economic returns. The aim of this work was
to incorporate the concept of synchronizing ruminal
energy and protein digestion in the traditional least-
cost procedure for producing more appropriate and
practical rations.
Materials and Methods
In Situ Characterization of Feedstuffs
Incubation Procedure
The nylon bag technique as described by
Ørskov et al., (1980) was applied for degradability
coefficients determination. Feedstuffs evaluated
included five sources of concentrates (yellow corn,
sugar beet pulp, soya meal, undecorticated
cottonseed meal and coarse wheat bran) and two
sources of roughages (berseem hay and wheat
straw). Three rumen-fistulated Barki rams (55 ± 1.9
kg BW) were used as replicates to determine in situ
734
N and OM degradability. All samples were ground
to pass a 2 mm screen and dried at 60°C for 48
hours in a forced air oven. Polyester bags (100%
Dacron polyester) 7×15 cm with a pore size of 47
μm were used. Approximately 2.5-3.0 g samples for
roughages and 3.0-4.0 g samples for concentrates
were weighted and inserted into a previously
weighted, clean, dry and numbered bag. All feeds
were incubated simultaneously in all rams using
duplicates bags per feed at each time point. The
bags were incubated starting 1h after the ram was
offered the morning meal. The incubation times
were 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48 and 72 hours for
concentrates and 4, 8, 16, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours
for roughages. After incubation, the bags with
residues were taken out of the rumen, dipped
immediately into cold water to stop microbial
activity, then washed under running cold water until
the water was clear, after which the bags were
drained, dried for 72 h at 60 °C, cooled in a
desiccator and weighed. The residues were removed
and then analyzed for ash and Kjeldahl-N according
to AOAC (1990). The solubility was defined as
weight loss after soaking the bags, with the
substrate, for 1 hour in water at 38°C then washing
and drying in a similar way. The ruminal
disappearance rate of test feed at each individual
incubation time was calculated as the difference
between the contents in the initial samples and the
residues remaining after incubation in the rumen
and expressed as a percentage of the content of the
initial sample.
Calculation of the Degradability Coefficients
Data about ruminal disappearance
characteristics of OM and CP were fitted to the
exponential equation following the procedure
described by Ørskov and McDonald (1979) and
using the NEWAY program (Chen, 1997).
p = a + b (1 − e-ct),
Where: p = disappearance rate at time t (%), a
= the intercept of the degradation curve at time zero
(%), b = the fraction of OM and CP which will be
degraded when given sufficient time for digestion in
the rumen (%), c = a rate constant of degradation of
fraction b (h-1), and t = time of incubation (h). In
order to determine the presence of a lag phase, the
J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
 ABOAMER ET AL.
data were also fitted to a first-order model
containing a lag phase:
p = a (up to time t0)
p = a + b (1 − e−ct) (from time t0 onward)
Where a, b, and c are as described above and t0
is the lag phase (h). The effective degradability
(ED) of OM and CP were, therefore, calculated
using the following equation. ED = a + b {c / (c +
k)} Where k assuming the rate of particulate
outflow from the rumen, k, is 0.02 or 0.05 or 0.08 h-
1 be formulated from the available feed resources at
. The effective extent of degradation (P) was
calculated hourly using the equation: P = a +
{[(bc)/(c + k)][1 − e−(c + k)t]}, where k is the
fractional outflow rate of solids from the rumen. For
components that contained a lag phase, degradation
was calculated as:
P = a (up to lag)
P = a + {[(bc)/(c + k)][1 − e−(c + k)(t −
lag)
](e−k*lag)} from lag time onwards.
Formulation of Rations using the Developed
Software Application (Lacto-Sheep)
A new software application ‘Lacto-sheep’ was
being developed in order to facilitate the processes
of formulating and evaluating the alternative least-
cost rations.
Programming Languages and Operating
System
The written software 'Lacto-Sheep’ is a user
friendly windows form application that was
developed based on the C# language and the .NET
Framework 4.0. Application could be installed and
run on any computer running 64-bit version of
Microsoft Windows 7. Simplex and Hybrid local
search (HLS) solvers in Microsoft Solver
Foundation 3.1 have been used to solve both linear
and nonlinear programming models, respectively.
Application Design
Figure (1) illustrates the sequence of operations
to be performed to gain, the output of the written
application “Lacto-Sheep”.
Experimental Rations Formulation
Using the raw material proximate analysis,
prices, limits and the determined degradability
coefficients, two diets were formulated to meet the
recommended requirements from CP, ME and TDN
735 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
according to NRC (1975). The formulation assumed
that the animals were fed a concentrate feed mixture
(CFM) in two equal meals at 0900 and 1400,
roughages in one meal at 10:00, the concentrate to
roughage ratio was 70:30, and had a ruminal
outflow rate of 0.05/h.
Least-Cost Ration (LCR)
The least-cost ration that, meet the animal’s
nutrient requirements according to NRC (1975) will
lowest cost depend on the assumption that nutrients
from different feeds are used additively on the basis
of their assigned nutritive value. Simplex, the
default solver for the linear programming models in
Microsoft Solver Foundation 3.1 will be used to
solve to find the optimal solution for the following
linear objective function:
𝑛
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 = ∑ 𝑐𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑗=1
Subject to the linear constraints:
𝑛
𝑏𝑖 ≥ 𝑜𝑟 = 𝑜𝑟 ≤ ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑗=1
𝑥𝑗 ≥ 0 𝑜𝑟 ≥ 𝐿𝑗 𝑜𝑟 ≤ 𝑈𝑗
Where: Z = ration total cost, cj = market price
per unit (LE/kg) of feedstuff j, xj = no. of units (kg)
of feedstuff j, bj = constraints, i.e. maximum or
equal or minimum amount of nutrient components i
required (i = DMI, ME, CP, TDN), ai = amount of
nutritive components i contained in one unit of
feedstuff j, Lj = lower limits of feedstuff j, Uj =
upper limits of feedstuff j.
Feed additives (NaCl, Mineral mixture,
Dicalcium phosphate and AD3E) were excluded
from the model because they are usually supplied as
a percentage of the total CFM, being 1%, 0.5%, 1%
and 0.01%, respectively. Nutrient composition,
nutritive values, prices, minimum and maximum
limits of the examined feedstuffs are presented in
Table (1).
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …

736 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746

 ABOAMER ET AL.

Table 1: Chemical composition, nutritive values, prices, minimum and maximum limits of feedstuffs (on DM basis).
Chemical Composition (%) Nutritive value1 Price2 Limit3 (%)
Feedstuff
OM CP CF EE NFE TDN (%) ME (Mcal/kg) (EGP/kg) Min Max
Concentrate
Yellow corn 99.04 9.25 2.59 4.28 82.92 90.02 3.15 2.5 0 60
Sugar beet pulp 95.94 10.25 22.08 1.10 62.51 73.95 2.68 1.65 0 27.5
Undecort. cottonseed meal 93.68 30.06 25.03 6.53 32.06 66.39 2.25 2.8 0 50
Soya meal 48% 93.80 52.71 8.01 1.65 31.43 82.27 3.15 4.2 0 50
Coarse wheat bran 90.04 16.75 13.25 4.31 55.73 69.54 2.57 1.6 0 17.5
Roughage
Berseem 83.39 18.44 33.83 2.61 28.51 54.11 2.11 0.32 57.14 57.14
Rice straw 79.98 3.25 38.93 0.69 37.11 43.64 1.31 0.3 0 100
1
Values for each feed ingredients have been taken from nutrient tables (CLFF, 2001 and NRC, 1975).
2
Based on market prices at the beginning of experiment in Feb. 2014, the prices for NaCL, mineral mixture, dicalcium phosphate and AD3E were 0.20, 5, 2.4 and 15
EGP/kg, respectively.
3
Given feedstuff limit as a percentage of maximum DMI of its’ category (concentrate or roughage).

737 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746

 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …

Using data obtained form in situ studies, the

Synchronous Least-Cost Ration (SLCR)
In addition to the considerations for the least
cost ration, the synchronization between the hourly
release of OM and N in the rumen was taken into
account during formulation. An additional
constraint was added to ensure that, ration will have
a synchrony index (SI) greater than or equal 0.87.
quantity of N and OM released each hour for each
feed ingredient from each feeding time was
calculated as the difference between that released at
successive hours and allocated to the appropriate
hour of the day. From the hourly quantity of N and
OM released, a synchrony index (SI) of N to OM
was calculated as described by Sinclair et al.,
(1993):

√[(25 − h𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦𝑁/𝑂𝑀)2 ]
25 − ∑1−24
𝑆𝐼 = 24
25

The daily quantity of N and OM released was Foundation 3.1 will be used to solve to find the
calculated as the sum of the hourly quantities optimal solution for the following linear objective
released. HLS, the default solver for the nonlinear function:
programming models in Microsoft Solver
𝑛

𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 = ∑ 𝑐𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑗=1
Subject to the linear constraints:
𝑛

𝑏𝑖 ≥ 𝑜𝑟 = 𝑜𝑟 ≤ ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑗=1

𝑥𝑗 ≥ 0 𝑜𝑟 ≥ 𝐿𝑗 𝑜𝑟 ≤ 𝑈𝑗
And the nonlinear constraint:

2
√[(25 − (∑𝑛𝑗=1 h𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑁𝑗 / ∑𝑛𝑗=1 h𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑂𝑀𝑗 )) ]
25 − ∑1−24 24 ≥ SI
25

Where: Z = ration total cost, cj = market price
per unit (LE/kg) of feedstuff j, xj = no. of units (kg)
of feedstuff j, bj = constraints, i.e. maximum or
equal or minimum amount of nutrient components i
required (i = DMI, ME, CP, TDN), ai = amount of
nutritive components i contained in one unit of
feedstuff j, Lj = lower limits of feedstuff j, Uj =
upper limits of feedstuff j, Nj = hourly quantity of N
released in one unit of feedstuff j, OMj = hourly
quantity of N released in one unit of feedstuff j, SI
= synchrony index.
Experimental Rations
The ingredients and chemical composition of
the experimental rations are presented in Table (2).

738 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746

 ABOAMER ET AL.

Table 2: Ingredients and chemical composition of the experimental rations.

Experimental ration
Item R1 R2
Ingredients, g
Yellow Corn 535.4 400.1
Sugar beet pulp 327.5 305.1
Undecorticated cottonseed meal 0.0 108.1
Soya meal 48% 0.0 17.8
Coarse wheat bran 208.6 194.3
NaCL 10.7 10.3
Mineral mixture 5.4 5.1
Dicalcium phosphate 10.7 10.3
AD3E 1.1 1.0
Roughages, g
Berseem 1468.8 1368.0
Rice straw 216.6 201.8
Chemical composition, % (on DM basis)
OM 92.10 92.15
CP 10.72 12.27
CF 17.93 17.91
EE 1.99 2.08
NFE 61.46 59.89
Ash 7.90 7.85
*
TDN 70.04 69.16
ME* 2.50 2.48
*
Calculated using values for each feed ingredients from nutrient tables (CLFF, 2001 and NRC, 1975).
R1: least-cost ration, R2: synchronous least-cost ration.

Results and Discussion fraction (a) was assumed to contain non-structural

In Situ Characterization of Feedstuffs
In situ OM degradability coefficients for tested
feedstuffs are presented in Table (3). Data shows
large differences among feeds in their effective
degradability (ED) and degradation kinetics of OM.
The ED of OM had been greatly differed depending
on the rumen microbes' activity (Khattab et al.,
2012) and rumen outflow rate (fraction/h). Waldo et
al., (1972) reported that, the amount of feed
digested in the rumen is a balance between the
inherent digestion rate and the passage rate of
undigested feed from the rumen. In this study, the
rumen outflow rate was assumed to be 0.05 h-1. The
same had been used by Richardson et al., (2003) in
his study. Erdman et al., (1986) reported that, the
rate of passage for corn, soya meal, cottonseed meal
and alfalfa hay were 0.044, 0.048, 0.049 and 0.037,
respectively. So that, our assumed rate (0.05 h-1)
might be appropriate for concentrates, but high for
roughages. The rapidly or instantaneously degraded
739 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
carbohydrates which are often water soluble and are
composed of sugar, starches and pectins; while (b)
represents a slowly degradable structural
carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicellulose) fraction
that degraded at rate (c) (Nocek and Russell, 1988).
Of the two main energy sources, there were no
great differences between corn and beet pulp in
their ruminal availability of OM. The effective
degraded fraction of OM (EDOM) for both corn and
beet pulp were 51.6% and 53%, respectively.
However, the percentage of the soluble fraction (a)
to the total EDOM was varied. Corn OM had more
soluble fraction than beet pulp OM. This agree with
other observation that corn demonstrated more rapid
DM disappearance within 2 h than beet pulp (Nocek
et al., 1979). This may be due to that, sugar beet
pulp is rich in pectin and pectins are often
associated with the cell wall, but they are not
covalence linked to the lignified portion of the wall
(Bailey and Ulyatt, 1970). The rapidly degraded
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …

fraction (a) of corn OM was higher than beet pulp
OM, being 50.58% and 30.19% of the total EDOM,
respectively. However, the rate of degradation (c) of
slowly degradable OM fraction (b) was
considerable higher for beet pulp than corn (4.5 vs.
3.3% h-1). Compared with previous results for corn
DM, the observed rate of degradation (c) for corn
OM was in near to 3.71% that reported by Nocek et
al., (1979), but lower than 5.25% found by Ledoux
et al., (1985). In contrast, Nocek et al., (1979)
reported a lower rate of degradation (c) for beet
pulp OM (2.33%) compared with that observed.
The lag period is assumed to be the amount of time
for cellulolytic bacteria to attach to the fibrous
component of the feed (Akin, 1988). In the current
study, beet pulp OM had less lag time than corn
OM (1.2 vs. 2.8 hrs.). These suggest that, ruminal
microbes were able to rapidly attach to the fiber
contained in the beet pulp.

Table 3: In situ OM degradability for tested feedstuffs.

OM degradability coefficient ED, %
Feedstuff
a, % b, % c, h-1 lag, h PD, % 0.02 0.05 0.08
Concentrate
Yellow corn 26.1 73.9 0.033 2.8 100 69.6 51.6 43.3
Sugar beet pulp 16 82.5 0.045 1.2 98.5 72 53 43.1
Undecorticated cottonseed meal 28 72 0.008 0 100 53 40.2 36.1
Soya meal 48% 35.1 64.9 0.050 1.4 100 82.8 67.1 58.7
Coarse wheat bran 33.2 53.5 0.065 0 86.7 75.6 66.1 60.6
Roughage
Berseem hay 40.7 42.23 0.032 0 82.9 66.7 57.2 52.8
Rice straw 13.4 38.6 0.033 2.4 52 36.5 27.2 22.8
*
In situ degradability; a = soluble fraction, b = potentially degradable fraction, c = rate of degradation of the potentially
degradable fraction (fraction/h), lag = lag time (h), PD (potential degradability) = a + b, ED = Effective degradability with
different outflow rates (0.02, 0.05 and 0.08; fraction/h).

Of the two protein sources, great difference
was observed between cottonseed meal and soya
meal in their total EDOM. The cottonseed meal OM
had the lowest ability to be degraded in the rumen
compared with soya meal OM (40.2% vs. 67.1%).
This is in agreement with that found by Erdman et
al., (1986) who reported that, the potential
degradability (PD) of DM was lower for cottonseed
meal than soya meal. The rapidly degraded fraction
(a) for cottonseed meal OM represent larger part of
the total EDOM compared with soya meal (69.65%
vs. 52.31%). However, the residual potentially
degradable fraction (b) was degraded at a slower
rate (0.8% vs. 5% h-1, respectively), and with no lag
time. Nocek et al., (1979) reported that the rate of
degradation of the slowly degradable fraction of the
DM for cottonseed meal was lower than soya meal
(2% vs. 4.2% h-1). The same trend but with more
high rate of degradation (5.7 and 8.6% h-1,
respectively) were found by Erdman et al., (1986).
For wheat bran, the EDOM was 66.1 % and it
was somewhat near to that obtained for soya meal
OM. The rapidly soluble fraction (a) represented
about 50.23% of the total EDOM and was quickly
degraded at the rate of 6.5% h-1 with no lag time.
This is near to the rate of degradation (c) of the
wheat bran DM (7.16% h-1) that found by Nocek et
al., (1979). For roughage ingredients, berseem hay
OM had a greater ability to be degraded in the
rumen than rice straw OM. The EDOM were being
57.2 and 27.2%, respectively. The rapidly soluble
fractions (a) represented about 71.15% and 49.26%
of the total EDOM of berssem hay and rice straw,
respectively. Although, the rate of degradation (c)
was approximately the same in both; berseem hay
did not have lag time. The rapidly degraded fraction
(a) and the rate of degradation (c) of berseem hay
OM was lower than obtained for Alfalfa hay DM by
Erdman et al., (1986) which were 19.3% and
4.4%h-1, respectively. However, the rate of

740 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746

 ABOAMER ET AL.

degradation (c) was higher than 2.9% h-1 that
reported by Nocek and Russell, (1988).
Table (4) shows the in situ CP degradability
coefficients for tested feedstuffs. The observed
patterns of CP degradability of feed ingredients
were largely varied and greatly depend on the
rumen outflow rate (fraction/h). The rapidly or
instantaneously degraded fraction (a) was assumed
to contain soluble NPN plus a rapidly degradable
protein fraction, while (b) represents a slowly
degradable true protein fraction that degraded at
rate (c) (Nocek and Russell, 1988). High level of
ammonia-N might led to increase the amount of
substrate available for microbial protein synthesis in
the rumen (Ebeid et al., 2013). Of the two main
energy sources, Corn CP had greater ability to be
degraded in the rumen than beet pulp. The effective
degraded fraction of CP (EDCP) for corn was higher
than beet pulp (44.1% vs. 36.6%).

Table 4: In situ CP degradability for tested feedstuffs.

CP degradability coefficient ED, %
Feedstuff
a, % b, % c, h-1 lag, h PD, % 0.02 0.05 0.08
Concentrate
Yellow corn 32.1 67.9 0.002 6.4 100 66.1 44.1 38.4
Sugar beet pulp 13.5 86.5 0.01 2 100 62.8 36.6 28
Undecorticated cottonseed meal 24.5 69.4 0.031 0 93.9 74.5 63.4 58.3
Soya meal 48% 18.7 81.3 0.0343 0.1 100 79.9 58.1 47.8
Coarse wheat bran 30.5 61.8 0.14 1.1 92.3 83.4 73.6 66.5
Roughage
Berseem hay 50.5 40.7 0.03 1.8 91.2 74.1 64.4 60.1
Rice straw 24 0.1 0.02 230.3 24.1 24 24 24
*
In situ degradability; a = soluble fraction, b = potentially degradable fraction, c = rate of degradation of the potentially
degradable fraction (fraction/h), lag = lag time (h), PD (potential degradability) = a + b, ED = Effective degradability with
different outflow rates (0.02, 0.05 and 0.08; fraction/h).

The percentage of rapidly degradable fraction
(a) relative to the total EDCP had been greatly
differs, being 72.79% and 36.89% for corn and beet
pulp, respectively. The results in agree with that
found by Nocek et al., (1979) who demonstrated
more rapid N disappearance rate within 2 h for corn
than beet pulp. The soluble fraction (a) of corn CP
was higher at 32.1% than 24.1% reported by
Erdman et al., (1986). However, the potentially
degraded fraction (b) was degraded at the rate 0.2%
h-1, which was greatly lower than the range (3 to
4.4%) reported by Nocek et al., (1979) and Erdman
et al., (1986). The observed rate of degradation (c)
for beet pulp CP was near at 1% to that 0.76% h-1
reported by Nocek et al., (1979). Furthermore, beet
pulp CP has less lag time than corn CP (2 vs. 6.4
hrs.). Of two protein sources, in contrary to what
was previously found in their OM degradation
patterns, cottonseed meal and soya meal have
convergent values for CP effective degradability
fractions, which were 63.4 and 58.1, respectively.
Likewise, the rates of CP degradation were also
741 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
convergent at 3.1 and 3.43% h-1 for cotton meal and
soya meal, respectively. These results are in
agreement with those (3.43 and 3.35% h-1) obtained
by Nocek et al., (1979). Cotton meal CP has a
slightly higher percentage of the soluble fraction (a)
relative to the total EDCP than soya meal CP, being
38.64% and 32.19%, respectively. Nocek et al.,
(1979) reported that, cottonseed meal had a higher
N disappearance rate than soya meal.
Wheat bran CP has the greatest ability to be
degraded in the rumen. The EDCP was 73.6% of the
total CP. However the percentage of the soluble
fraction (a) was 41.44% of the total EDCP and was
degraded very fast (14% h-1). Nocek et al., (1979)
reported that, the N disappearance rate was 12.1 and
14.58% h-1 at 1 to 2 h and 2 to 48 h after
degradation, respectively.
For roughage ingredients, berssem hay CP had
the greatest value for both ED fraction and the
percentage of the soluble fraction (a) relative to the
total EDCP compared with other feedstuffs. Berseem
hay had higher EDCP than rice straw, being 64.4%
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …
and 24%, respectively. The most of berseem hay CP
was soluble, while all of rice straw CP was soluble.
The percentage of the soluble fraction (a) to the
total EDCP was 78.42% vs. 100% for berseem hay
and rice straw, respectively. The soluble fraction (a)
of berseem hay CP was greater than that (50.5 vs.
27.7 %) reported by Erdman et al., (1986).
However, the rate of degradation (c) was slightly
low (3 vs. 3.9% h-1).
Despite the widespread use of the in situ
method or nylon bag technique to estimate
degradation of feeds in the rumen (Orskov and
McDonald, 1979; Nocek, 1988; Hoffman et al.,
1993), a standardized method has not adopted
(Marinucci et al., 1992, Madsen and Hvelplund,
1994; Nocek, 1988) primarily because of the large
number of variables that are involved (e.g., bag pore
size, ratio of sample size to bag surface area, sample
particle size, animal’s diet, incubation time, rumen
outflow rate, interpretations of the data, etc.).
Moreover, many factors, such as species, varieties
and growing and processing conditions of the
forage have effects on the results obtained from in
situ technique (Offner et al., 2003).
Formulation and Evaluation of Rations using
the Developed Software Application (Lacto-Sheep)
In order to clarify the differences among
formulated rations (see Table 2) the following
evaluation was conducted.
Rations Formulation and Dry Matter Intake
742
For the concentrate feed mixture (CFM) meal,
Figure (1) illustrates the proportion of the daily
DMI from various concentrated feedstuffs to the
maximum limit of DMI from concentrates in
experimental rations. As can be discerned from
Figure (2), R1 had the higher depending on corn
(44.1%) compared with R2 (35.4%). As cost is
often a limiting factor in the least cost ration
formulation. Therefore, it is not surprising that,
sugar beet pulp and coarse wheat bran were used at
the maximum limit in all rations. Where, they have
a suitable content of nutrients with favorable price.
In contrast, R1 did not contain any source of
protein rich sources. This situation often occurs in
traditional balancing ration programs that used
linear programming to find the least cost ration,
where the inclusion and exclusion of any feed
ingredients depend on its cost. Bhagat and Bajaj
(2015) found that, the least cost feeding plan
reduced the ration cost and used only 4 ingredients
as compared with 16 in the original feeding plan.
For the roughage meal, Figure (3) illustrates the
proportion of the daily DMI from berseem and rice
straw to the maximum limit of DMI from roughages
in experimental rations. R1 and R2 contain the same
quantity of berseem and rice straw. There was no
feed refusal left after feeding on the CFM meal or
berseem. In contrast, residual amounts form rice
straw had been observed in all groups. The
observed daily intake from rice straw was 183.6 and
171.0 g/d for R1 and R2, respectively.
J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
 ABOAMER ET AL.

Nutrient Requirements versus Feed Supply
Table (5) shows the nutrient requirements
versus supply for groups fed on experimental
rations. As seen from the data, all the formulated
rations were meeting the requirements needed by
the ewes and the observed reduction in DMI did not
considerably affect the daily nutrient intakes.
The total daily cost that calculated based on the
average body weight for groups (35.71, kg) clarify
that, there were no large differences in the total
daily cost among rations. However, R2 had the
slightly higher cost.

Table 5: Nutrient requirements versus supply for animals fed on experimental rations.
Item Experimental ration
R1 R2
Average body weight, kg 36.72 34.20
Daily nutrient intake
DMI, kg/d 1.42 1.35
CP, g/d 152.2 165.7
TDN, kg/d 0.97 0.92
ME, Mcal/d 3.49 3.34
NRC requirements
DMI, kg/d (Max) 1.54 1.44
CP, g/d (Min) 160.1 149.1
TDN, kg/d (Min) 1.00 0.93
ME, Mcal/d (Min) 3.60 3.35
Cost* (EGP/ d) 2.71 2.85
*
Calculated based on the average body weight for groups (35.46, kg).
R1: least-cost ration, R2: synchronous least-cost ration.

Predicted Rumen Kinetics
The experimental ration shows two different
patterns within a day. R2 was considered to be
synchronous (SI = 0.87). In contrast, R1 is
considered to be asynchronous (SI = 0.60) for their
hourly release of N: OM in the rumen. The same
classification has been applied by Richardson et al.,
743 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
(2003), who used three diet synchrony indices 0.86
(synchronous), 0.76 (intermediate), and 0.63
(asynchronous). Kolver et al., (1998) suggested that
the poor efficiency with which ruminant animals
utilize N may be partially attributed to differences
in the pattern of protein and energy absorption
following a meal. The predicted hourly ratios of N:
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …
OM release in the rumen for ewes fed on the
experimental rations are demonstrated in Figure (4).
Although, the amount of N in diet R2 and R3
appeared to be synchronized to OM, there were still
many differences between them. In order to clarify
the differences among rations in their patterns of
hourly N: OM release, the following measurements
were determined at a permissible range of
synchronization of SI about 0.87 for all rations: 1)
Error I: represents the total number of hours that
predicted N: OM ratios were out of the permissible
range of synchronization. 2) The Error II: represents
the total number of hours that predicted N: OM
ratios were within the permissible range but below
Table (6) shows the synchrony indices and
some statistical measurements for the predicted
hourly ratios of N: OM release in the rumen of ewes
fed on the experimental rations. When SI was low,
there was insufficient N to support maximum
microbial protein synthesis (Nocek and Russell
1988).
As shown by the data, R1 had the lower
minimum value of N: OM (13.50) compared with
R2. In the same trend, R1 had the lowest Q1 and
Q3. Results clarify that, over 75% of the day, the
predicted hourly available N (g) for each kilogram
OM truly digested in the rumen for R1 would be in
the range of 13.50 to 16.92 g, which was
insufficient to support maximal microbial protein
synthesis. In contrast, R2 was predicted to provide
more hourly available N (21.26 to 23.47 g).
744
the optimal value (25). 3) The Error III: represents
the total number of hours that predicted N: OM
ratios were within the permissible range but over
the optimal value (25).
Despite the presence of synchronization, when
Error II was increased, there was somewhat
insufficient N to support maximal microbial protein
synthesis. In contrast, when Error III increased,
there was an excessive release of N and it will
create an unaccounted shortfall of N later. So
increasing Error II and/or Error III means that, the
available degradable nitrogen was not supplied in
optimal quantity.
On the other hand, excessive increase of N
soon after feeding could create an unaccounted
shortfall of N later. Consequently, the diets will not
appear to be limited for nitrogen, but their SI value
would not account for imbalances that occur
between N and OM over a short time interval.
Results show that, R1 and R2 had convergent
values, being 36.02 and 36.95, respectively.
As can be seen from Table (6), R1 had the
highest Error I (24 hrs.). This is an indication of the
great absence of synchronization between energy
and protein. However, R2 spent the half of the day
at a rate within the permissible range, but below the
optimal value (25). Furthermore, R2 would expect
to spend about 3 hrs. Through them the hourly N
release would be within the permissible range, but
above the optimal value (25).
J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
 ABOAMER ET AL.

Table 6: Experimental rations synchrony indices and some statistical measurements for the predicted
hourly ratios of N: OM release in the rumen.
Item Experimental ration
R1 R2
SI 0.60 0.87
Min 13.50 21.26
Q1 13.68 21.44
Q2 14.26 21.86
Q3 16.92 23.47
Max 36.02 36.95
IQR 3.24 2.03
Error I (hrs.) 24 12
Error II (hrs.) 0 9
Error III (hrs.) 0 3
Q1 = 1st quartile; Q2 = 2nd quartile; Q3 = 3rd quartile; IQR (interquartile range) = Q3 – Q1; Error I = Total
number of hours that, predicted hourly ratios of N:OM release in the rumen is out of the upper and lower
limits of SI; Error II = Total number of hours that, predicted hourly ratios of N:OM release in the rumen is
inside the range of SI but below the optimal value (25); Error III = Total number of hours that, predicted
hourly ratios of N:OM release in the rumen is inside the range of SI but over the optimal value (25).
R1: least-cost ration, R2: synchronous least-cost ration.

Despite the presence of synchronization, when
Error II was increased, there was somewhat
insufficient N to support maximal microbial protein
synthesis. In contrast, when Error III increased,
there was an excessive release of N and it will
create an unaccounted shortfall of N later. So
increasing Error II and/or Error III means that, the
available degradable nitrogen was not supplied in
optimal quantity.
References
Akin DE (1988). Biological structure of lignocellulose and its
degradation in the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 21(2):
295-310.
AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists:
Official methods of analysis. 16th Ed. Vol. 1,
“Agricultural, Chemicals, Contaminants, Drugs".
Washington, D. C., USA.
Bailey RW and Ulyatt MJ (1970). Pasture quality and
ruminant nutrition: II. Carbohydrate and lignin
composition of detergent-extracted residues from pasture
grasses and legumes. New Zealand J. Agri. Res., 13(3):
591-604.
Bath DL (1985). Nutritional requirements and economics of
lowering feed costs. J. Dairy Sci., 68(6): 1579-1584.
Bhagat AA and Bajaj VH (2015). Least cost ration
formulation for dry pandharpuri buffalo. Int. J. Sci. Res.,
4(2): 366-367.
Chen XB (1997). Neway Excel: A utility for processing data
of feed degradability and in-vitro gas production (version
5.0). Institute, Rowett Res., UK.
745 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746
Ebeid HM, Kholif AM, Farghly MS and Khattab MSA (2013).
Effect of Propionibacteria Supplementation to Sheep
Diets on Rumen Fermentation, Nutrients Digestibility
and Blood Metabolites. Sci. Int., 1: 299-303.
Erdman RA, Vandersall JH, Russek-Cohen E and Switalski G
(1986). Simultaneous measures of rates of ruminal
digestion and passage of feeds for prediction of ruminal
nitrogen and dry matter digestion in lactating dairy cows.
J. Anim. Sci., 64(2): 565-577.
Hoffman PC, Sieveret SJ, Shaver RD, Welch DA and Combs
DK (1993). In situ dry matter, protein and fiber
degradation of perennial forages. J. Dairy Sci., 76: 2632-
2643.
Khattab MS, El-Nor SAHA, El-Sayed HMA, El-Bordeny NE,
Abdou MM and Matloup OH (2012). The effect of
replacing corn with glycerol and fibrinolytic enzymes on
the productive performance of lactating goats. Int. J.
Dairy Sci., 7(4): 95-102.
Khezri A, Rezayazdi K, Mesgaran MD and Moradi-Sharbabk
M (2009). Effect of different rumen-degradable
carbohydrates on rumen fermentation, nitrogen
metabolism and actation performance of Holstein dairy
cows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 22(5): 651-658.
Kolver E, Muller LD, Varga GA and Cassidy TJ (1998).
Synchronization of ruminal degradation of supplemental
carbohydrate with pasture nitrogen in lactating dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci., 81(7): 2017-28.
Ledoux DR, Williams JE, Stroud TE, Garner GB and Paterson
JA (1985). Influence of forage level on passage rate,
digestibility and performance of cattle. J. Anim. Sci.,
61(6): 1559-1566.
Madsen J and Hvelplund T (1994). Prediction of In Situ
Protein Degradability in the Rumen Results of an Eurean
Ringstest. Livest. Prod. Sci., 39: 201-212.
 SYNCHRONOUS LEAST-COST RATION FORMULATION FOR …

Marinucci MT, Dehority BA and Loerch SC (1992). In Vitro

and In Vivo Studies of Factors Affecting Digestion of
Feeds in Synthetic Fiber Bags. J. Anim. Sci., 70: 296-
307.
Nocek JE (1988). In situ and Other Methods to Estimate
Ruminal Protein and Energy Digestibility: A Rev. J.
Dairy Sci., 71(8): 2051-2069.
Nocek JE and Russell JB (1988). Protein and energy as an
integrated system. Relationship of ruminal protein and
carbohydrate availability to microbial synthesis and milk
production. J. Dairy Sci., 71(8): 2070-2107.
Nocek JE, Cummins KA and Polan CE (1979). Ruminal
disappearance of crude protein and dry matter in feeds
and combined effects in formulated rations. J. Dairy Sci.,
62(10): 1587-1598.
NRC (1975). National Research Council. Nutrient
requirements of sheep (5th Ed.). Washington, D.C., Nat.
Acad. Press., USA. pp. 72.
Offner A, Bach A and Sauvant D (2003). Quantitative Review
of In Situ Starch Degradation in the Rumen. Anim. Feed
Sci. Tech., 106: 81-93.
Ørskov ER (1992). Protein Nutrition in Ruminants (2nd Ed.).
Acad. Press Inc., London. pp. 160.
Ørskov ER and McDonald I (1979). The estimation of protein
degradability in the rumen from incubation
measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J.
Agri. Sci., 92: 499-503.
Ørskov ER, De b Hovell FD and Mould F (1980). The use of
the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs.
Trop. Anim. Prod., 5: 195-213.
Pond WG, Church DC and Pond KR (1995). Basic animal
nutrition and feeding (4th Ed.). Wiley J and Sons, New
York, USA. pp. 608.
Richardson JM, Wilkinson RG and Sinclair LA (2003).
Synchrony of nutrient supply to the rumen and dietary
energy source and their effects on the growth and
metabolism of lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 81(5): 1332-1347.
Sinclair LA, Garnsworth PC, Newbold JR and Buttery PJ
(1993). Effect of synchronizing the rate of dietary energy
and nitrogen release on rumen fermentation and
microbial protein synthesis in sheep. J. Agri. Sci.,
120(02): 251-263.
Steen RJW (1996). Beef cattle feeding and nutrition (2nd Ed.).
Edited by Tilden WP and Cecava MJ, Acad. Press Inc.,
USA. pp. 390.
Waldo DR, Smith LW and Cox EL (1972). Model of cellulose
disappearance from the rumen. J. Dairy Sci., 55(1): 125-
129.
Waugh FV (1951). The minimum-cost diary feed. J. Farm
Econ., 33: 299-310.

746 J. Anim. Pro. Adv., 2015, 5(8): 733-746