Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T20:56:54.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Undernutrition in sheep. The effect of supplementation with protein on protein accretion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

I. Fattet ,
F. D. Deb. Hovell ,
E. R. Ørskov ,
D. J. Kyle ,
K. Pennie  and
R. I. Smart
I. Fattet
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
F. D. Deb. Hovell
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
D. J. Kyle
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
K. Pennie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. I. Smart
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. In a comparative-slaughter experiment, individually rationed wether lambs initially of 42 kg were given 235, 362 or 456 kJ metabolizable energy (ME)/kg live weight (LW)0.75 per d as sodium hydroxide-treated barley straw with urea (six lambs per treatment), or NaOH-treated barley straw with urea plus 125 g/d white-fish meal to give 307 or 488 kJ ME/kg LW0.75 per d (seven lambs per treatment) for 92 d.

2. All unsupplemented lambs lost both fat and body protein. The changes in fat were – 3.53, – 2.75 and – 1.40 (SE 0.59) kg (initial value 8.6 kg), and the changes in body protein were –0.47, –0.09 and –0.14 (SE 0.13) kg (initial value 4.9 kg) for the three unsupplemented groups respectively. When supplemented with fish meal, fat was again lost as –1.53 and –0.93 (SE 0.55) kg, but wool-free body protein was increased, and gains were 0.48 and 0.89 (SE 0.12) kg for the two supplemented groups respectively. All animals lost wool-free body energy, total changes being –150, – 111, – 59 and –49 and – 16 MJ respectively. When corrected to an equal ME intake the supplemented lambs, when compared with the unsupplemented lambs, gained (instead of losing) body protein (P < 0.001) and lost less fat (P < 0.05). Wool growth did not respond to supplemental protein, but was related to ME intake with an increase of 0.78 g wool fibre for each additional MJ ME.

3. The maintenance requirements of the unsupplemented and supplemented groups respectively were estimated by regression analysis to be 554 and 496 kJ ME/kg LW0.75 per d. The apparent utilization of ME below energy equilibrium (km) was 0.31 (SE 0.08) for the unsupplemented animals, and 0.12 (SE 0.10) for the supplemented animals, well below akm, of 0.70 which current UK standards (Agricultural Research Council, 1980) would predict. Most of these differences could be reconciled if basal metabolism was assumed not to be constant.

4. It is concluded that lambs in negative energy balance can continue lean body growth at the expense of body fat, provided sufficient dietary protein is available. It is also concluded that since the animals at the lowest ME intakes required less ME than predicted by current feeding standards, the effect was that it would have been difficult to distinguish between the apparent utilization of ME for maintenance (km) and for fattening (kf).

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , November 1984 , pp. 561 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Atkinson, T., Fowler, V. R., Garton, G. A. & Lough, A. K. (1972). Analyst, London 97, 562–568.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1974). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10, 21 1–218.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1983). In Sheep Production. Proceedings, University of Nottingham 35th Easter School, pp. 21–58 [Haresign, W, editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. & Griffiths, D. A. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 33, 399–413.Google Scholar
Colebrook, W. F., Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A., Hogan, J. P., Reis, P. J. & Weston, R. H. (1968). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 7, 397–401.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, London 95, 183–193.Google Scholar
Downes, A. M., Reis, P. J. & Hemsley, J. A. (1976). In From Plant to Animal Protein, pp. 143–150 [Sutherland, T. M., McWilliam, J. R. and Leng, R. A., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Elimam, M. E. & Ørskov, E. R. (1981). Animal Production 32, 386.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J., Leng, R. A. & Corbett, J. L. (1972 a). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 483–497.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J., Leng, R. A. & Corbett, J. L. (1972 b). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, V. R., McWilliam, R., Pennie, K. & Ross, L. (1983). Animal Production 36, 517.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. (1983). Journal of Nutrition 113, 15–20.Google Scholar
Grabam, N. McC., Searle, T. W. & Griffiths, D. A. (1974). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 957–971.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB., Ørskov, E. R., Grubb, D. A. & MacLeod, N. A. (1983 a). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 173–187.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB., Ørskov, E. R., MacLeod, N. A. & McDonald, I. (1983 b). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 331–445.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (1978). Alimentation des Ruminants. Versailles: INRA Publications.Google Scholar
James, W. P. T. (1972). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 225–231.Google Scholar
Koong, L. J., Farrell, C. L. & Nienaber, J. A. (1982). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals [Ekern, A. and Sundstød, F, editors]. European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 29. Lillehammer, Norway:Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
Leat, W. M. F. & Cox, R. W. (1980). In Growth in Animals, pp. 137–174 [Lawrence, T. L. J., editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Australian Journal of Scientific Research 1(B), 93–129.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. & Ørskov, E. R. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 645–650.Google Scholar
Naismith, D. J. & Holdsworth, M. D. (1980). Nutrition and Metabolism 24, 13–22.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Grubb, D. A., Wenham, G. & Corrigall, W. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 553–558.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & MacLeod, N. A. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. (1969). Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 22, 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, E. & Ørskov, E. R. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 463–470.Google Scholar
Storm, E., Ørskov, E. R. & Smart, R. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viteri, F. E. & Torun, B. (1980). In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 6th ed., pp. 697–720. [Goodhart, R. S. and Shils, M. E., editors]. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Williams, A. J., Robards, G. E. & Saville, D. G. (1972). Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 25, 1269–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar