Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T10:33:02.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of protein- and non-protein-nitrogen supplements to maize silage on total amino acid supply in young cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. R. Cottrill ,
D. E. Beever ,
A. R. Austin  and
D. F. Osbourn
B. R. Cottrill
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
A. R. Austin
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
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. A total of six diets based on maize silage were formulated to examine the effect of protein- and non-protein-nitrogen, and energy supplementation on the flow of amino acids to the small intestine and the synthesis of microbial amino acids in the rumen of growing cattle. All diets contained 24 g totai nitrogen (N)/kg dry matter (DM), of which 550 g N/kg total N was supplied by either urea or fish meal. Four diets contained low levels of barley (estimated total dietary metabolizable energy content of 10·4 M J/kgDM) and urea-N and fish meal-N were supplied in the ratios 3:1, 1·4:1, 0·6:1 and 0·3:1. The other two diets contained between 300 and 400 g barley/kg total diet (11·3 MJ metabolizable energy/kg DM) and the urea-N to fish meal-N ratios were 3:1 and 0·3:1.

2. On the four low-energy diets, fish meal inclusion tended to reduce the extent of organic matter (OM) digestion in the rumen but significantly increased duodenal amino acid supply (P < 0·05) in a quadratic manner. Microbial-N synthesis was increased by the two intermediate levels of fish meal supplementation but declined at the highest level of inclusion. With increasing levels of fish meal inclusion, a greater proportion of the dietary protein was found to escape rumen degradation and the apparent degradabilities of fish meal and maize-silage protein of all four diets were estimated to be 0·22 and 0·73 respectively.

3. The substitution of barley for part of the maize silage enhanced duodenal supply of amino acids, irrespective of the form of the N supplement, and stimulated microbial amino acid synthesis. For all diets efficiency of microbial-N synthesis was found to vary between 22·5 and 46 g N/kg rumen-digested OM. Contrary to what was found for low-energy diets, the inclusion of fish meal tended to reduce the flow of dietary protein to the small intestine, but these differences were not statistically significant.

4. The results appertaining to microbial synthesis, dietary protein degradabilities and duodenal amino acid flow for all diets are discussed in relation to the Agricultural Research Council (1980) proposals for the protein requirements of ruminants, and the production responses observed when similar diets were fed to growing cattle.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , November 1982 , pp. 527 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, p. 121. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Harrison, D. G., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Osbourn, D. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Cammell, S. B. (1976). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 86, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). J. agric, Sci., Camb. 88, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M. P. & Robinson, I. M. (1962). J. Bact. 84, 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Tech. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley no. 24.Google Scholar
Canaway, R. J. & Thomson, D. J. (1977). Tech. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley no. 23.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N. Z. Jl Sci. Tech. 36A.Google Scholar
Cottrill, B. R. & Osbourn, D. F. (1977). Anim. Prod. 24, 127.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. & McDonald, P. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M. E. & Beever, D. E. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 48, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1974). Aust. J. agric. Res. 25, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvelpund, T. & Moller, P. D. (1980). Publs. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 27.Google Scholar
Jarrett, I. G. (1948). J. Counc. Sci. Ind. Res. Aust. 21, 311.Google Scholar
Ling, J. R. & Buttery, P. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. (1974). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeng, W. J. & Baldwin, R. L. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, J. R. & Annison, E. F. (1976). Publs. Eur. Ass. Amin. Prod. no. 16.Google Scholar
Moir, R. J., Somers, M. & Bary, A. C. (1967). Sulph. Inst. J. 3, 15.Google Scholar
Moore, S. (1963). J. biol. Chem. 233, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Nolan, J. V. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 48, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Evans, R. T. & Beever, D. E. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. & Wilkinson, J. M. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 46, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar