Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:23:29.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of the protein requirements of the mature breeding ewe

2.* Protein utilization in the pregnant ewe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. J. Robinson  and
T. J. Forbes
J. J. Robinson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough and The Queen's University of Belfast
T. J. Forbes
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough and The Queen's University of Belfast
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. An experiment was carried out in which protein utilization in the pregnant ewe was studied using the nitrogen balance technique.

2. Eight diets supplying four different intakes of crude protein and two different intakes of energy were each offered to eight individually penned ewes.

3. The mean crude protein intakes per day were 7·2, 5·5, 4·1 and 3·0 g/kg W0·73 (where W = body-weight) and the metabolizable energy intakes 134 and 113 kcal/kg W0·73.

4. N balances were carried out at 10–12, 14–16 and 18–20 weeks of gestation on five ewes from each treatment.

5. The apparent digestibility of both dry matter and crude protein decreased with decreasing protein intake. With the high energy intake, the apparent dry-matter digestibility was increased and the apparent digestibility of crude protein decreased. Stage of gestation had no significant effect on the apparent digestibility of either of these constituents.

6. N retention was not affected by the number of foetuses carried. With the higher energy intake and the higher protein intakes, the absolute retention of N was significantly increased at all stages of gestation. N retention increased with advancing pregnancy; the retentions at 10–12, 14–16 and 18–20 weeks of gestation being 0·086, 0·114 and 0·163 g/kg W0·73 per day respectively.

7. The efficiency of utilization of apparently digested N was calculated from the regression of retained N as a percentage of apparently digested N against apparently digested N.

8. The daily intakes of apparently digested N required for maximum efficiency were 0·551 and 0·620 g/kg W0·73 on the high and low energy intakes respectively. The daily intake for maximum efficiency decreased with advancing pregnancy, the values being 0·623, 0·587 and 0·567 g/kg W0·73 for the 10–12, 14–16 and 18–20 weeks of gestation respectively.

9. The levels of N retained at maximum efficiency were 0·235 and 0·202 g/kg W0·73 per day for the high and low energy intakes respectively. The levels of N retained increased during pregnancy from 0·170 g/kg W0·73 per day at 10–12 weeks to 0·286 g/kg W0·73 at 18–20 weeks. The requirements for zero N balance were 0·072 and 0·153 g apparently digested N/kg W0·73 per day for the high and low energy intakes respectively. The requirement for zero N balance decreased from 0·176 g/kg W0·73 per day at 10–12 weeks to 0·071 g/kg W0·73 at 18–20 weeks.

10. The results are discussed in relation to other research findings and current recommendations.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1967 , pp. 879 - 891
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1967

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Annison, E. F. & Lewis, D. (1959). Metabolism in the Rumen. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Clapperton, J. L. & Martin, A. K. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 46, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Mitchell, H. H. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1964). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burroughs, W., Gall, L. S., Gerlaugh, P. & Bethke, R. H. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, M. I. (1961). In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of the Ruminant, p. 205 [Lewis, D., editor.] London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Cloete, J. H. L. (1939). Onderstepoort J. vet. Sci. Anim. Ind. 13, 417.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. C. & Topps, J. H. (1963). J. Anim. Prod. 5, 269.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. C. & Topps, J. H. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 127.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. & Williams, A. J. (1962). Aust. J. agric. Res. 13, 894.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953 a). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 43, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953 b). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 43, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houpt, T. R. (1959). Am. J. Physiol. 197, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosterman, E. W., Bolin, D. W., Buchanan, M. L., Bolin, F. M. & Dinusson, W. E. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosterman, E. W., Buchanan, M. L., Bolin, D. W. & Bolin, F. M. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, L. E., Peckham, H. E. & Crampton, E. W. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1959). Feeds and Feeding, 22nd ed. Iowa: The Morrison Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Moustgaard, J. (1962). In Nutrition of Pigs and Poultry, p. 189. [Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D., editors.] London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism. Vol. 1, p. 381. [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B., editors.] New York and London: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1957). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 504.Google Scholar
Packett, L. V. & Groves, T. D. D. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1959). Scientific Principles of Feeding Farm Livestock, p. 105. London: Farmer and Stock-Breeder Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. & Forbes, T. J. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rombauts, P. (1959). C.r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris, 248, 1859.Google Scholar
Somers, M. (1961). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 39, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stielau, W. J. (1960). S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 3, 433.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. (1965). Biometrics 21, 739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. & Aitken, F. C. (1959). Tech. Commun. Commonw. Bur. Anim. Nutr. 20.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V. J., Nottle, M. C., Moir, R. J. & Underwood, E. J. (1953). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 6, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar