Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:18:17.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet selection of sheep: sodium bicarbonate, but not the offering of hay, modifies the effect of urea on diet selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. M. James ,
I. Kyriazakis ,
G. C. Emmans  and
B. J. Tolkamp
S. M. James
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
I. Kyriazakis*
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B. J. Tolkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
† Corresponding author. E-mail: i.kyriazakis@ed.sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The hypotheses tested were that the expected preference of sheep for a food with adequate rumen degradable protein (RDP) supplemented with urea would be reduced both by the addition of a buffer (sodium bicarbonate (SB)) and by offering ad libitum access to hay. A control food (C), calculated to be adequate in its ratio of effective RDP to fermentable metabolizable energy (fME), was formulated. Other foods were made by adding 12·5 (U1) or 25 (U2) g urea per kg fresh matter (FM) to C and 20 g SB per kg FM to C, U1 and U2. The acid buffering capacity (ABC) of each food was measured in vitro. The experiment consisted of two successive periods, each of 4 weeks. Ninety-eight female, Texel ✕ Greyface sheep were randomly allocated to 14 groups each with seven animals. Groups 1 to 6 were offered one of: C, U2, C + SB, U2 + SB, C with hay or U2 with hay throughout the experiment. Groups 7 to 10 were offered the choices of C v. U1 or C v. U2, either with or without hay in a change-over design; animals that received hay during period 1 (groups 8 and 10) did not do so during period 2 and vice versa (groups 7 and 9). Groups 11 to 14 (no. = 7) were offered the choices of C v. U1 or C v. U2, either with or without SB supplemented to both foods, in a change-over design. Adding either urea, or SB, or both to C had no effects on intake or live-weight gain when offered alone. Both supplements significantly (P 0·001) increased the ABC of food C. Throughout the experiment hay consumption was very low (overall mean: 23 (s.e. 2·5) g hay per sheep day). Offering hay caused no change in the preference for the urea-supplemented foods. Sheep offered the choices C v. U1 or C v. U2, with neither hay nor SB, selected 0.466 (s.e. 0·036) and 0.588 (s.e. 0·025) kg/kg total food intake (TFI) of U1 and U2 respectively. The proportions of the urea-supplemented foods were significantly reduced (P 0.01) by SB supplementation: to 0.348 (s.e.0·045) and 0·406 (s.e.0·059) kg/kg TFI of U1 and U2 respectively. The effect of SB addition on the diet selection of sheep could be due to its buffering properties. When SB is added to both foods the need for urea to be used as a buffer is reduced with a consequent decrease in the proportion selected as the urea-supplemented food. Effects of diet on buffering may override other diet selection objectives, such as the avoidance of an excess intake of RDP.

Keywords

buffersfood preferencesproteinsheepurea
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 357 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Arsenos, G. and Kyriazakis, I. 2001. Does previous protein feeding affect the response of sheep towards foods that differ in their rumen availability, but not content, of nitrogen? Physiology and Behavior 72: 533–541.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. B. 1961. Saliva secretion and its relation to feeding in cattle. 3. The rate of secretion of mixed saliva in the cow during eating with an estimate of the magnitude of total daily secretion of mixed saliva. British Journal of Nutrition 15: 443–451.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, R. A., Welsch, C., Garner, G. B. and Muhrer, M. E. 1961. Effect of sixteen times a day feeding on urea utilisation. Journal of Animal Science 20: 926 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. V. and Gous, R. M. 1991. The response of growing pigs to a choice of diets differing in scaling of foraging velocity and encounter rate in mammalian herbivores. Functional Ecology 10: 234–244.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. R., Howe, W. M., Martz, F. A. and Merilan, C. P. 1963. Effects of frequency of feeding on urea utilisation and growth characteristics in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 46: 131–134.Google Scholar
Campion, D. P. and Leek, B. F. 1996. Mechanical stimulation of rumination in sheep by the intraruminal addition of inert fibre particles. Animal Science 62: 71–77.Google Scholar
Campion, D. P. and Leek, B. F. 1997. Investigation of ‘fibre appetite’ in sheep fed a ‘long fibre-free’ diet. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 52: 79–86.Google Scholar
Carter, R. R. and Grovum, W. L. 1990. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by sheep. 5. The inhibitory effect of hypertonicity in the rumen. British Journal of Nutrition 64: 285–299.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W. 1968. Problems in feeding urea to ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 27: 207–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, S.D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Nolan, J. V. 1995. Diet selection in sheep — the role of the rumen environment in the selection of a diet from 2 feeds that differ in their energy density. British Journal of Nutrition 74: 35–54.Google Scholar
Cooper, S.D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1996. The effects of physical form of feed, carbohydrate sources, and inclusion of sodium bicarbonate on the diet selection of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1240–1251.Google Scholar
Crawford, R. J., Shriver, B. J., Varge, G. A. and Hoover, W. H. 1983. Buffer requirements for maintenance of pH during fermentation of individual feeds in continuous cultures. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 1881–1890.Google Scholar
Denholm, A. M. and Ling, J. R. 1987. Whole animal and rumen digestive parameters of sheep given a concentrate diet supplemented with sodium bicarbonate. Archives of Animal Nutrition, Berlin 4: 327–334.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R. W., Riley, J. L. and Cook, H. M. 1975. Changes in motility and pH in the digestive tract of experimentally overfed sheep. American Journal of Veterinary Research 30: 827–829.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Jamot, J., Chenost, M., Besle, J. M. and Chiofalo, V. 1992. The influence of urea treatment on the intake of wheat straw in sheep. Annales de Zootechnie 41: 169–185.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection by animals: theory and experimental design. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50: 59–64.Google Scholar
Engku Azahan, E. A. and Forbes, J. M. 1992. Effects of intraruminal infusions of sodium salts on selection of hay and concentrate foods by sheep. Appetite 18: 143–154.Google Scholar
Erdman, R. A. 1988. Dietary buffering requirements of the lactating dairy cow: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 3246–3266.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P. 1999. The effect of nutrients on feed intake in ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58: 523–531.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. and Shariatmadari, F. 1994. Diet selection for protein by poultry. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 50: 7–24.Google Scholar
Ha, J. A., Emerick, R. J. and Embry, L. B. 1983. In vitro effect of pH variations on rumen fermentation and in vivo effects of buffers in lambs before and after adaptation to high concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 56: 698–706.Google Scholar
Hart, S. P. and Doyle, J. J. 1985. Adaptation of early-weaned lambs to high concentrate diets with three grain sources with or without sodium bicarbonate. Journal of Animal Science 61: 975–984.Google Scholar
Hart, S. P. and Polan, C. E. 1984. Effects of sodium bicarbonate and disodium phosphate on animal performance, ruminal metabolism, digestion, and rate of passage in ruminating calves. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 2356–2368.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W., Clark, D. A. and Hodgson, J. 1992. Discrimination and patch choice by sheep grazing grass-clover swards. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 183–194.Google Scholar
James, S. M. and Kyriazakis, I. 1999. The effect of consumption of foods that differ in energy density and/or sodium bicarbonate supplementation on subsequent diet selection in sheep. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 114.Google Scholar
James, S. M., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 2001. Diet selection of sheep: effects of adding urea to foods with different protein contents. Animal Science 73: 183–195.Google Scholar
Jasaitis, D. K., Wohlt, J. E. and Evans, J. L. 1987. Influence of feed ion content on buffering capacity of ruminant feedstuffs in vitro . Journal of Dairy Science 70: 1397–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, L. P. 1996. Dynamics of allantoin metabolism in sheep. Differences between Merino selection lines in microbial yield from the rumen and utilisation of protein for wool growth. Ph.D. thesis, University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Kenney, P. A., Black, J. L. and Colebrook, W. F. 1984. Factors affecting the diet selection by sheep. III. Dry matter content and particle length of forage. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 511–563.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1997. The nutritional choices of farm animals: to eat or what to eat? In Animal choices (ed. T., J. M. Forbes Lawrence, L. J. Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 20, pp. 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein. Animal Production 52: 337–346.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51: 189–199.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1993. Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen ✕ 6.25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 617–629.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1997. Food intake and diet selection in sheep: the effect of manipulating the rates of digestion of carbohydrates and protein of the foods offered as a choice. British Journal of Nutrition 77: 243–254.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Tolkamp, B. J. and Emmans, G. C. 1999. Diet selection and animal state: an integrative framework. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58: 765–772.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1993. GENSTAT 5 release 3.2 reference manual, second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Leshner, A. I., Siegel, H. I. and Collier, G. 1972. Dietary self-selection by pregnant and lactating rats. Physiology and Behavior 8: 151–154.Google Scholar
Lobley, G. E., Connell, A., Lomax, M. A., Brown, D. S., Milne, E., Calder, A. G. and Farningham, D. A. H. 1995. Hepatic detoxification of ammonia in the ovine liver: possible consequences for ammonia acid catabolism. British Journal of Nutrition 73: 667–685.Google Scholar
Loosli, J. K. and Warner, R. G. 1958. Distillers grains, brewers grains, and urea as protein supplements for dairy rations. Journal of Dairy Science 41: 1446–1450.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1990. UK tables of nutritive value and chemical composition of feedingstuffs (ed. Givens, D. I. and Moss, A. R.). Rowett Research Services Ltd, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1993. The determination of neutral detergent (plus amylase) fibre (NDF) of feedingstuffs, appendix III. In Prediction of the energy values of compound feedingstuffs for farm animals: summary of recommendations of a working party sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. MAFF publications, London.Google Scholar
Minitab Inc. 1996. Minitab for Windows release 11. 1. Minitab Inc., State College, 3081 Enterprise Drive, PA 16801–3008.Google Scholar
Musten, B., Peace, D. and Anderson, G. H. 1974. Food intake regulation in the weanling rat: self-selection of protein and energy. Journal of Nutrition 104: 563–572.Google Scholar
Nomani, M. 1973. Effect of dietary source and level of protein on voluntary dry matter intake and the metabolism of nitrogen in growing ruminants. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Cammell, B. B. and Outen, G. E. 1970. Some effects of feeding supplements of maize meal and sodium bicarbonate upon the digestion of forage cellulose by sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 29: 12A.Google Scholar
Parker, D. S., Lomax, C. J., Seal, C. J. and Wilton, J. C. 1995. Metabolic implications of ammonia production in the ruminant. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 549–563.Google Scholar
Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Penning, P. D., Harvey, A. and Orr, R. J. 1994. Diet preference of sheep. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 465–478.Google Scholar
Provenza, F. D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48: 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, P. A., Oltjen, R. R. and Bond, J. 1969. Effects of soybean oil, urea, roughage and a progestigin on the utilisation of corn based finishing rations by beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 28: 256–262.Google Scholar
Qi, K., Owens, F. N. and Lu, C. D. 1994. Effects of sulphur deficiency on performance of fibre-producing sheep and goats — a review. Small Ruminant Research 14: 115–126.Google Scholar
Russell, J. B., Sharp, W. M. and Baldwin, R. L. 1979. The effect of pH on maximum bacterial growth rate and its possible role as a determinant of bacterial composition in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 48: 251–255.Google Scholar
Shain, D. H., Stock, R. A., Klopfenstein, T. J. and Herold, D. W. 1998. Effects of degradable protein intake level on finishing cattle performance and ruminal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 76: 242–248.Google Scholar
Shain, D. H., Stock, R. A., Klopfenstein, T. J. and Huffman, R. P. 1994. Level of ruminal degradable nitrogen in finishing beef cattle diets. Journal of Animal Science 74: (suppl. 1) 239 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Dewhurst, R. J., Friggens, N. C., Kyriazakis, I., Veerkamp, R. F. and Oldham, J. D. 1998a. Diet choice by dairy cows. 1. Selection of feed protein content during the first half of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2657–2669.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Kyriazakis, I. 1997. Measuring diet selection in dairy cows: effect of training on choice of dietary protein level. Animal Science 64: 197–207.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J. D., Lewis, M., Dewhurst, R. J. and Newbold, J. R. 1998b. Diet choice by dairy cows. II. Selection for metabolisable protein or for rumen degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2670–2680.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, second edition. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Visek, W. J. 1968. Some aspects of ammonia toxicity in animal cells. Journal of Dairy Science 51: 286–295.Google Scholar
Welch, J. G. 1967. Appetite control in sheep by ingestible fibres. Journal of Animal Science 26: 849–854.Google Scholar
Wilson, G., Martz, F. A., Campbell, J. R. and Becker, B. A. 1975. Evaluation of factors responsible for reduced voluntary intake of urea for ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 41: 1431–1437.Google Scholar