Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:32:29.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization of diets containing acetate salts by growing lambs as measured by comparative slaughter and respiration calorimetry, together with rumen fermentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

F. D. Deb. Hovell ,
J. F. D. Greenhalgh  and
F. W. Wainaman
F. D. Deb. Hovell
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29SB
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29SB
F. W. Wainaman
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29SB
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, growing lambs were given concentrate diets in which 14 or 19% metabolizable energy (ME) provided by barley was replaced by sodium, calcium and potassium salts of acetic acid. As the proportion of ME as acetate was increased, energy retention decreased. ME intake was 9271, 9430 and 9217 ± 67 kJ/d and energy retention was 2698, 2422 and 2280 ± 71 kJ/d for the diets containing 0, 14 or 19% ME as acetate respectively. There were no differences in protein deposition. The efficiency of utilization of acetate for energy retention (kf) was calculated by difference to be 3 and 10 ± 13% respectively for the diets containing 14 and 19% ME as acetate.

2. In a second experiment, growing lambs were given concentrate diets in which 4 or 16% ME provided by barley was replaced by salts of acetic acid, and utilization was measured by indirect calorimetry. There were no significant differences in the utilization of the diets for maintenance (km) or energy retention (kf). The km values were 82.4 ± 2.3 and 81.2 ± 0.7%, and kf values were 67.4 ± 4.5 and 65.8 ± 2.7% respectively for the diets providing 4 and 16% ME as acetate. The kf of the additional acetate in the diet providing 16% ME as acetate was calculated by difference to be 54%.

3. The acetate and Ca concentrations of the rumen digesta were increased by including acetate salts in the diet, but Na and K concentrations were not affected.

4. It is concluded that the best explanation for the poor utilization of acetate in the comparative slaughter experiment is that acetate was poorly utilized for lipogenesis. The calorimetry experiment contained relatively large errors, but the results suggest that acetate may be utilized efficiently in some circumstances. It is suggested that these results and apparently conflicting results in the literature may be explained by the concept that the efficient utilization of acetate is dependent upon the supply of glucose or glucose precursor.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , May 1976 , pp. 343 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 2, Ruminants. London:Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant, p. 272 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Washington, DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. II, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis, 10th ed.Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Ballard, F. J., Hanson, R. W. & Kronfeld, D. S. (1969). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 28, 218.Google Scholar
Balmain, J. H., Folley, S. J. & Glascock, R. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 56, 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Brown, R. E. & Davis, C. L. (1970). Arch Biochem. Biophys. 140, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Mellenberger, R. W. & Derrig, R. G. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967 a). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, 2nd ed.London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967 b). In Proceedings of the First University of Nottinghm Nutrition Conference, p. 30 [Swan, H. and Lewis, D., editors]. Loughborough: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1964). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 11, p. 441.Google Scholar
Bull, L. S., Reid, J. T. & Johnson, D. E. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. E. (1960). Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, Lond. no. 48.Google Scholar
Gitelman, H. J. (1967). Analyt. Biochem. 18, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumaa, K. A., Greenbaum, A. C. & McLean, P. (1973). Eur. J. Biochem. 34, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB. (1972). The utilisation of salts of volatile fatty acids by growing lambs. PhD Thesis. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB. & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 28A.Google Scholar
Hovell, F. D. DeB. & Ørskov, E. R. (1972). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingle, D. L., Bauman, D. E. & Garrigus, U. S. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, A. H. & Pearson, A. M. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 125.Google Scholar
McClymont, G. L. (1952). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B 5, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1965). The utilization of volatile fatty acids by growing lambs. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Allen, D. M. (1966 a). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 295.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Allen, D. M. (1966 b). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 509.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Allen, D. M. (1966 c). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 519.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. DeB. & Allen, D. M. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 307.Google Scholar
Ørsltov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1970). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 12, p. 121.Google Scholar
Paladines, O. L., Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A. & Van Niekerk, B. D. H. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 145.Google Scholar
Poole, D. A. & Allen, D. M. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 695.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F., Balch, C. C., Campling, R. C. & Fisher, L. J. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Škarda, J. & Bartoš, S. (1969). J. Endocr. 44, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. (1967). Revta cub. Cienc. agric. (Engl. edn) I, I.Google Scholar
Vermorel, M. (1968). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 8, 453.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Blaxter, K. L. (1969). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 12, p. 429.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Paterson, D. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63, 253.Google Scholar
Walker, D. J. & Forest, W. W. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar