Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:26:22.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of subacute dietary nitrate on production traits and plasma analytes in Suffolk ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2009

R. R. Cockrum ,
K. J. Austin ,
P. A. Ludden  and
K. M. Cammack
R. R. Cockrum
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3684, USA
K. J. Austin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3684, USA
P. A. Ludden
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3684, USA
K. M. Cammack*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071-3684, USA
*
†E-mail: kcammack@uwyo.edu
Get access

Abstract

Elevated dietary nitrate (NO3−) is associated with production losses in ruminant livestock, resulting in substantial economic losses incurred by producers. Severe drought, fertilization practices and poorly maintained pastures increase the risk of elevated NO3− intake among cattle and sheep. Nitrate is metabolized to nitrite (NO2−) in the rumen and further reduced to ammonia. Ruminants consuming high dietary NO3− vary in ability to efficiently reduce excess NO2− to ammonia. This leads to methemoglobin formation and ultimately NO3− toxicity signs. Variation in individual tolerance to elevated dietary NO3− can be partially attributed to rate and duration of exposure, rate of elimination, metabolism, species and dose. Our objectives were to confirm and quantify variation in individual tolerance to subacute levels of dietary NO3−, and determine if individuals could be identified as highly or lowly tolerant to elevated dietary NO3− based on production traits, plasma analytes and(or) signs of subacute NO3− toxicity. Purebred Suffolk ewes were administered supplement mixed with tap water (control; n = 8) or potassium nitrate (NO3− treated; 300 mg NO3−/kg BW daily; n = 47) for 8 days. Coefficients of variation (CV) indicated that supplement intake was more variable in NO3− treated ewes (CV = 59.3%) than in control ewes (CV = 13.6%). Among NO3− treated ewes, six ewes highly tolerant and six ewes lowly tolerant to elevated dietary NO3− were identified based on individual performance, NO3− treated supplement intake, and signs of toxicity. Supplement intake was lower (P < 0.0001) in NO3− treated ewes than in control ewes, indicating elevated dietary NO3− influences feed intake. Supplement intake differed (P < 0.0001) between control, highly tolerant and lowly tolerant ewes. Supplement intake of highly and lowly tolerant ewes was 82% and 23%, respectively, of the control ewes’ intake. Weight change and plasma concentrations of NO2−, cortisol, glucose and retinol were not different (P ⩾ 0.38) among control, highly tolerant and lowly tolerant ewes. Plasma urea nitrogen (PUN) levels were not different (P = 0.25) between control and lowly tolerant ewes, but were lower (P = 0.02) in highly tolerant ewes than in control ewes. Furthermore, PUN and NO3− treated supplement intake were highly correlated (0.71; P < 0.0001) in lowly tolerant ewes. These results confirm and quantify variation in response to subacute levels of dietary NO3− and indicate that individuals can be identified as highly or lowly tolerant to elevated dietary NO3− based on their performance and NO3− toxicity signs.

Keywords

nitrate, sheep, tolerance, toxicity
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 702 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Adams, RS, McCarty, TR, Hutchinson, LJ 1992. Prevention and control of nitrate toxicity in cattle. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension. Department of Animal Science 92–107, 1–12.Google Scholar
Anderson, TA, Taylor, RE, Diven, RH, Hubbert, F Jr, Hale, WH 1962. Reliability of the liver biopsy technique for estimating hepatic vitamin A. Journal of Animal Science 21, 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Analytical Communities 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bruning-Fann, CS, Kaneene, JB 1993. The effects of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds on animal health. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 35, 237–253.Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, WH, Campbell, ER, Egan, L 2006. Green chemistry nitrate determination: an alternative nitrate analysis method. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://www.americanlaboratory.com/Google Scholar
Case, AA 1957. Some aspects of nitrate intoxication in livestock. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 130, 323–329.Google ScholarPubMed
Diven, RH, Reed, RE, Pistor, WJ 1964. The physiology of nitrite poisoning in sheep. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 111, 638–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, AV, van der Merwe, HJ, Slippers, SC 1996. A technique for obtaining liver biopsies from mature sheep. Small Ruminant Research 22, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, DJ, Rhodes, HA 1969. Nitrate and nitrite poisoning in cattle in Victoria. Australian Veterinary Journal 45, 590–591.Google ScholarPubMed
Jung, D, Biggs, H, Erikson, J, Ledyard, PU 1975. New colorimetric reaction for end-point, continuous-flow, and kinetic measurement of urea. Clinical Chemistry 21, 1136–1140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, DB, James, LF 1992. Economic impact of poisonous plants on livestock production. Journal of Range Management 45, 3–8.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, PB, Conway, A 1967. Performance and vitamin A status of sheep grazing high-nitrate pastures. Grass and Forage Science 23, 228–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnellmann, RG 2008. Toxic responses of the kidney. In Casarrett and Doull’s the basic science of poisons (ed. C Klaassen), 7th edition. pp. 583–608. The McGraw-Hill Co. Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, MJ, Davison, KL 1964. Nitrate accumulation in crops and poisoning in animals. Advances in Agronomy 16, 197–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaremcio, B 1991. Nitrate poisoning and feeding nitrate feeds to livestock. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www1.foragebeef.caGoogle Scholar
Young, JW 1976. Gluconeogenesis in cattle: significance and methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 60, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zraly, Z, Bendova, J, Svecova, D, Faldikova, L, Veznik, Z, Zajicova, A 1997. Effects of oral intake of nitrates on reproductive functions of bulls. Veterinary Medicine 42, 345–354.Google ScholarPubMed