Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:55:17.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary content of plant protein on the utilization of urea in the bovine rumen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2009

J. Anna Nikolić ,
M. Jovanović ,
D. Stošić  and
A. Pavličević
J. Anna Nikolić
Affiliation:
Institute for the Aplication of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Forestry, Zemun/Beograd, Yugoslavia
M. Jovanović
Affiliation:
Institute for the Aplication of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Forestry, Zemun/Beograd, Yugoslavia
D. Stošić
Affiliation:
Institute for the Aplication of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Forestry, Zemun/Beograd, Yugoslavia
A. Pavličević
Affiliation:
Institute for the Aplication of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and Forestry, Zemun/Beograd, Yugoslavia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Four young Friesian bulls with rumen fistulas were given four isocaloric all-concentrate diets containing different amounts and sources of nitrogen in a Latin square arrangement. Diet HP (high-protein) contained 2·31% plant nitrogen; diet MPU (medium-protein with urea) 1·67% plant nitrogen and 0·69% urea nitrogen (total 2·36%); diet LPU (low-protein with urea) 0·95% plant nitrogen and 0·69% urea nitrogen (total 1·65%); diet HPU (high-protein with urea) 2·28% plant nitrogen and 0·69% urea nitrogen (total 2·97%), calculated on an air-dry basis.

2. The rumen pH varied between 5·8 and 6·1 with diets HP, MPU and HPU, but was significantly lower with diet LPU with values between 5·4 and 5·8.

3. The results showed no differences between the isonitrogenous diets HP and MPU except that replacement of plant nitrogen with urea was followed by an increase in the concentration of ammonia in the rumen. With the diets containing urea, the concentrations of rumen ammonia varied inversely with the amount of dietary plant nitrogen supplied, indicating a negative effect of plant nitrogen on urea utilization.

4. Concentrations of alkali-labile nitrogen (amide) were not increased with diets containing urea except with diet HPU, which produced the highest concentrations of ammonia in the rumen.

5. The concentration of true protein in the rumen and the amino acid distribution were similar with all four diets, indicating the ability of the microflora to adapt to qualitative and quantitative differences in dietary nitrogen intake.

6. Ration acceptability was lower with diets LPU and HPU than with diets HP and MPU.

7. Large differences between individual animals in rumen pH, percentage of dry matter and total nitrogen concentration in the rumen were noted.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 237 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Bergen, W. G., Purser, D. B. & Cline, J. H. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caffrey, P. J., Hatfield, E. E., Norton, H. W. & Garrigus, U. S. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1968). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W., Clark, J., Opliger, P. & Lavker, R. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djordjević, D., Jovanović, M.Stošić, D., Nikolić, D. & Jovančević, V. (1970). Proceedings of the First Yugoslav International Conference of Animal Production p. 302.Novi Sad, Yugoslavia:štamparski pogon SNP-a.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, F. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmanuel, B., Lawlor, M. J. & McAleese, D. M. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, F. V., Pilgrim, A. F. & Weller, R. A. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hembry, F. G., Pfander, W. H. & Preston, R. L. (1969). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 28, 492.Google Scholar
Hoshino, S., Sarumaru, K. & Morimoto, K. (1966). J. Dairy Sci. 49, 1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. A., MacLeod, R. A. & Blackwood, A. C. (1964). Can. J. Microbiol. 10, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, M. J., Giesecke, D. & Walser-Kärst, K. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1961). In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of the Ruminant p. 127 [Lewis, D., editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1963). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 4. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council.Google Scholar
Nikolić, J. A., Jovanović, M., Stošić, D. & Pavličević, A. (1970). Proceedings of the First Yugoslav International Conference of Animal Production p. 303.Novi Sad, Yugoslavia:štamparski pogon SNP-a.Google Scholar
Oltjen, R. R., Putnam, P. A. & Davis, R. E. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, E. C. (1967). In Urea as a Protein Supplement p. 329 [Briggs, M. H., editor]. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packett, L. V. & Groves, T. D. D. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, R. H. & Smith, J. A. B. (1943). Biochem. J. 37, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, D. B. & Buechler, S. M. (1966). J. Dairy Sci. 49, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, D. B. & Moir, R. J. (1959). Aust. J. agric. Res. 10, 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, P. A., Yarns, D. A. & Davis, R. E. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D. & Tsien, W. S. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhuland, L. E. (1960). Nature, Lond. 185, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ševković, N., Stošić, D., Rajić, I., Zotović, M. & Bezbradica, Lj. (1970). Proceedings of the First Yugoslav International Conference of Animal Production p. 300.Novi Sad, Yugoslavia:štamparski pogon SNP-a.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Rook, J. A. F. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stošić, D.Čuperlović, M. (1967). Savremena Poljoprivreda 15, 197.Google Scholar
Tillman, A. D. & Sidhu, K. S. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 28, 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, J. E., Bulen, W. A., Vanecko, S. & Burrell, R. C. (1953). Analyt. Chem. 25, 1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, A. I. (1967). In Urea as a Protein Supplement p. 185 [Briggs, M. H., editor]. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Reid, R. S. & Kay, M. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Work, E. (1951). Biochem. J. 49, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar