Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:07:58.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The degradation of different protein supplements in the rumen of steers and the effects of these supplements on carbohydrate digestion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. B. McAllan ,
J. E. Cockburn ,
A. P. Williams  and
R. H. Smith
A. B. McAllan
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR†
J. E. Cockburn
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR†
A. P. Williams
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR†
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, 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. Four steers with simple rumen and abomasal cannulas were given diets consisting of ground and pelleted alkali-treated straw, rolled barley and tapioca supplemented with urea (diet U) or containing single-cell protein (diet SCP), maize-gluten meal (diet MGM) or rapeseed meal (diet RSM) in place of some of the tapioca. The isoenergetic diets were given in a 4 x 4 Latin square design in eight feeds/d at 3-h intervals and provided sufficient metabolizable energy to support a growth rate of approximately 0.5 kg/d. Chromic oxide and polyethylene glycol were given as markers and appropriate samples taken from the rumen and abomasum. Flows (g/d) at the abomasum of organic matter and nitrogenous and carbohydrate constituents were calculated.

2. Rumen ammonia levels were similar with all three protein supplements at about 9 mmol/l, which was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that in animals on diet U (16 mmol/l). Rumen liquid outflow rates (/h) were 0.099, 0.139, 0.125 and 0.160 for diets U, SCP, MGM and RSM respectively; the difference between diet U and diet RSM was significant (P < 0.05). Corresponding values for Cr2O3 outflow rates were 0.027, 0.032, 0.027 and 0.030/h respectively, which did not differ significantly from each other.

3. RNA, 35S and diaminopimelic acid (DAP) were used as microbial markers. Efficiencies of microbial-N (MN) synthesis, expressed as g MN/kg apparently digestible organic matter, truly digestible organic matter or carbohydrate fermented, were generally not significantly affected by the diet and averaged 29, 22 and 29 respectively based on mean RNA and 35S markers. Corresponding values derived from DAP of 22, 16 and 21 g MN/kg respectively were all significantly (P < 0.001) lower. Using 35S as microbial marker, MN flows at the abomasum as a proportion of non-ammonia-nitrogen flow were 0.78, 0.64, 0.51 and 0.78 for diets U, SCP, MGM and RSM respectively. Derived true rumen degradability values (g/g intake) of the total dietary N were 0.91, 0.79, 0.69 and 0.90 for diets U, SCP, MGM and RSM respectively. Protein supplement degradabilities for single-cell protein, maize-gluten meal and rapeseed meal were 0.73, 0.51 and 0.98 respectively.

4. Mouth-to-abomasum digestibility coefficients of the main neutral-sugar components of dietary poly-saccharides were 0.68, 0.63 and 0.61 for arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose on diet U. These values were generally significantly increased with protein supplementation, but to different extents depending on the source. Maximum digestibility values of 0.81, 0.79 and 0.76 were obtained for arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose with diet RSM. Starch-glucose digestibility was high (0.90) on all diets and unaffected by supplementation.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 1988 , pp. 669 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1984). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, Supplement no. 1. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Amaning-Kwarteng, K., Kellaway, R. C., Leibholz, J. & Kirby, A. C. (1986) British Journal of Nutrition 55, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, J. W. & Cox, G. M. (1962). Experimental Designs, 2nd ed., p. 50. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cockburn, J. C. & Williams, A. P. (1984) British Journal of Nutrition 51, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, J. E., Goodrich, R. D., Meiske, J. C. & Stern, M. D. (1987) Journal of Animal Science 64, 1801–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemeister, H. & Kaufmann, W. (1974) Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche Forschungsberichte 26, 199–204.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W. (1977). In Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, European Association of Animal Production, no. 22, pp. 130–132 [Tamminga, S., Conference Secretary]. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
Laycock, K. A. & Miller, E. L. (1981) Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 40, 103A.Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Griffith, E. S. (1987) Animal Feed Science and Technology 17, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B., Lewis, P. L. & Griffith, E. S. (1987) Archiv für Tierernährung 37, 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969) British Journal of Nutrition 23, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974) British Journal of Nutrition 31, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1983 a) British Journal of Nutrition 49, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1983 b) British Journal of Nutrition 50, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B., Williams, A. P., Cockburn, J. E., Griffith, E. S., Lewis, P. E. & Smith, R. H. (1986). Archiv für Tierenährung 4/5, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1954) Biochemical Journal 56, 120–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Reeds, P. J. (1980). In Protein Deposition in Animals, pp. 225–249 [Buttery, J.P., Lindsay, D. B., editors]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, J. (1985). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 25, Suppl., 9–20.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. & Hvelplund, T. (1985). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 25, Suppl., 101–124.Google Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Miller, E. L. (1980) British Journal of Nutrition 43, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, R. J. (1980). The use of dietary non-protein nitrogen compounds by the ruminant with particular emphasis on the glycosyl ureides. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H. F., van der Walt, S. I. & Schwartz, H. M. (1986) Journal of Animal Science 62, 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin no. 33. London: H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. & McDonald, I. (1981). In Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition, pp. 17–36 [Haresign, H.W., Cole, D. J. A., editors]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & MacLeod, N. A. (1983) Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42, 61A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., MacLeod, N. A. & Kyle, D. J. (1986) British Journal of Nutrition 56, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H. & Sniffen, C. J. (1985) Journal of Dairy Science 68, 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Brookes, I. M. & Armstrong, D. G. (1983) Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970) British Journal of Nutrition 24, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1971) British Journal of Nutrition 25, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1974) British Journal of Nutrition 31, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Hewitt, D. & Lewis, P. E. (1978) Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1972). Statistical Methods, pp. 91–97. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, M. D., Rode, L. M., Prange, R. W., Stauffacher, R. H. & Satter, L. D. (1983) Journal of Animal Science 56, 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S. (1979) Journal of Animal Science 49, 1615–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S. (1982). Nitrogen and Amino Acid Metabolism in Dairy Cows, pp. 87–91. Wageningen: PUDOC.Google Scholar
Technicon Instruments Corporation (1967). Methodology Sheet NIC. New York: Technicon Instruments Corporation.Google Scholar
Teller, E., Godeau, J.-M., Van Nevel, C. J. & Demeyer, D. I. (1985) Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 54, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verite, R., Journet, M. & Jarrige, R. (1979) Livestock Production Science 6, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard-Thomsen, K. (1985) Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 25, Suppl.125–131.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1962) Journal of General Microbiology 28, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. P. (1986) Research and Development in Agriculture 3, 1–5.Google Scholar
Williams, A. P. & Smith, R. H. (1974) British Journal of Nutrition 32, 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. P. & Smith, R. H. (1976) British Journal of Nutrition 36, 199–209.Google Scholar
Zinn, R. A., Bull, L. S. & Hemken, R. W. (1981) Journal of Animal Science 52, 857–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar