Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:51:22.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of silages Digestion of nitrogenous constituents in sheep receiving diets of grass silage and grass silage and barley.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. C. Thomas ,
D. G. Chamberlain ,
N. C. Kelly  and
M. K. Wait
P. C. Thomas
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
D. G. Chamberlain
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
N. C. Kelly
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
M. K. Wait
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
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.

Two experiments were conducted to study the digestion of nitrogenous constituents in the rumen, small intestine and caecum and colon of sheep given diets of grass silage or grass silage and barley. Three silages were used. One was made from first-harvest grass in the spring and the others from regrowth grass cut in either early autumn or late autumn. All were of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and were preserved with formic acid.

Expt 1 involved a comparison between the spring silage given alone (644 g dry matter (DM)/d) and the spring silage supplemented with barley (151 g DM/d). The intakes (g/d) of total nitrogen for the silage diet and for the supplemented diet were 14.89 and 17.36. Corresponding values (g/d) for N passage were 15.55 and 18.53 (P < 0.01) at the duodenum, 6.01 and 7.09 at the ileum and 5.06 and 5.52 in the faeces. The barley supplement had no significant (P < 0.05) effect on rumen ammonia-N- concentration.

Expt 2 involved a comparison between the two autumn-cut silages each offered at a level of feeding of approximately 700 g DM/d. The intakes (g/d) of total N for the early-cut silage and for the late-cut silage were 21.67 and 15.62 respectively. Corresponding values (g/d) for N passage were 17.10 and 16.96 at the duodenum, 6.65 and 6.80 at the ileum and 4.5 and 5.22 in the faeces. The concentration of NH3-N in the rumen was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with the early-cut silage than with the late-cut silage.

In both experiments the rates of bacterial crude protein (N × 6.25) synthesis in the rumen, estimated using α, ε-diaminopimelic acid as a marker, were low, 142 and 161 g crude protein/kg organic matter apparently digested in the rumen for the spring silage and the spring silage and barley diets respectively, and 68 and 103 g crude protein/kg organic matter apparently digested in the rumen for the early-cut autumn silage and the late-cut autumn silage respectively. For all diets there was a relatively low contribution of bacterial crude protein to the duodenal passage of crude protein and the amounts of individual amino acids ingested in the diets had a marked influence on the amino acids passing to the duodenum and as a consequence on the mixture of amino acids taken up from the small intestine.

The results are discussed in relation to the nutritive value of silage N for ruminants.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , May 1980 , pp. 469 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Cumb. 88, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. (1975). Agric. Prog. 50, 53.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G. & Thomas, P. C. (1979). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 30, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, C. J. F. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 474 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, N. C. & Thomas, P. C. (1978). Br. J. Nurr. 40, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H. A. & Ling, J. R. (1979). Proc. Nurr. Soc. 38, 80A.Google Scholar
McDonald, L. & Thomas, P. C. (1978). Proc. 10th int. Duiry Congr. p. 63.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Spackman, D. M. & Stein, W. M. (1958). Analyt. Chem. 30, 1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshima, M. & McDonald, P. (1978). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 29, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Chamberlain, D. G. & Alwash, A. H. (1976). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 31, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Kelly, N. C., Chamberlain, D. G. & Wait, M. K. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar