Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:20:16.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of formaldehyde-treated lucerne hay for protecting protein from ruminal degradation, and for increasing nitrogen retention, wool growth, live-weight gain and voluntary intake when fed to young sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. N. Barry
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mosgiel, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In three separate experiments, lucerne hay was sprayed with solutions of formaldehyde as it was being baled. Moisture content at baling was respectively 20, 28 and 34% in Expts 1, 2 and 3, the latter being considered higher than normal. Dry matter lost during 4 months of storage averaged 6·7% and was unaffected by formaldehyde treatment.

Increasing rates of formaldehyde application decreased the amount of plant nitrogen digested in the microbial stage of an in vitro system and increased the amount of nitrogen digested in the subsequent acid-pepsin stage (Expt 1 only). When the hays were fed at constant intake to sheep in metabolism cages, formaldehyde treatment depressed the concentration of ammonia and volatile fatty acids (VFA's) in rumen fluid and lowered the molar proportions of iso- and n-valeric acids, but caused either very little or no depression in apparent energy digestibility. It was concluded that formaldehyde treatment of the hays reduced protein degradation by rumen microorganisms and probably increased the amount of protein digested in the post-ruminal region of the digestive system, and that this was achieved without any serious effect on energy digestion.

The hays were also fed for 50 days at restricted and ad libitum intakes to young Komney sheep kept in outdoor pens, followed by a 55-day post-treatment period on spring pasture. Voluntary intake was high in both experiments and was unaffected by formaldehyde treatment in hay baled at normal moisture content. There was a tendency for formaldehyde treatment to cause a small increase in voluntary intake in hay baled at the highest moisture content, but this was counteracted by its effect in depressing digestibility, giving no increase in digestible dry-matter intake. Live-weight gains were low in relation to intake, giving a weight loss in most treatment groups. Formaldehyde treatment significantly reduced weight loss and the effect was still present at the end of the post-treatment period. From regressions of weight change on digestible energy intake, it was considered that formaldehyde treatment had brought about a small improvement in the efficiency with which energy was used below maintenance.

Wool growth rates appeared normal for the levels of intake achieved and were increased 14·5% by formaldehyde treatment at ad libitumintake and 5·5% at restricted intake. Residual responses to formaldehyde treatment in the post-treatment period averaged 8%. The total amount of extra clean wool produced from formaldehyde treatment over both periods was 46and94g respectively at the restricted and ad libitum intakes, representing only 1·5 and 3·0% of the annual fleece production. Wool growth on diets treated with formaldehyde in sheep feed at the maintenance level of energy intake is discussed in relation to the concentration of protein-bound sulphur-containing amino acids (SAA's) in the diet dry matter. It was concluded that large responses in wool growth from protein protection of forage diets are unlikely unless the concentration of SAA's in the dry matter can be considerably increased from their present low levels. It is suggested that the possibility of achieving this through plant breeding techniques be investigated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 379 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2. Ruminants. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Allden, W. G. (1968). Undernutrition of the Merino sheep and its sequelae. 1. The growth and development of lambs following prolonged periods of nutritional stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 621–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1972). The effect of feeding formaldehyde-treated casein to sheep on nitrogen retention and wool growth. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1973a). Effect of treatment with formaldehyde and intraperitoneal supplementation with DL-methionine on the digestion and utilization of a hay diet by sheep. 1. The digestion of energy and nitrogen. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 185–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1973b). Effect of treatment with formaldehyde and intraperitoneal supplementation with DL-methionine on the digestion and utilization of a hay diet by sheep. 11. Liveweight change and wool growth. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 191–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1953). Wool growth as affected by nutrition and climatic factors. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 43, 456–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, K. R., Barry, T. N., Duncan, S. J. & Kleim, C. (1973). Compensatory growth and reproductive performance in young sheep given differential nutrition from 9 to 18 months of age. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 1, 109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, G. M., Wickham, G. A. & Cockrem, F. (1969). Intravenous infusion of cystine and wool growth of Romney sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 580–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
el-Shazly, K. (1952). Degradation of protein in the rumen of sheep. 1. Some volatile fatty acids, including branched chain isomers found in vivo. Biochemical Journal 51, 640–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1970). Protected protein for wool growth. In Feeding Protected Protein to Sheep and Cattle. Proceedings, Australian Society of Animal Production, NSW Branch.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Nutrition and wool growth. The effect of protecting dietary protein from microbial degradation in the rumen. Australian Journal of Science 30, 215–17.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (1970). Amino Acid Content of Foods and Biological Data on Proteins. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (1970). Amino acid content of foods and feeds. Technical Communication, Commonwealth & Agricultural Bureaux, no. 19.Google Scholar
Hemsley, J. A., Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). Protection of forage protein from ruminal degradation. Proceedings of 11th International Grassland Congress, Australia, pp. 703–6.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. P. & Brunswick, L. F. C. (1974). Feed value of lucerne. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 128, 24–7.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. P., Brunswick, L. F. C. & Parker, J. (1972). Feeding value of lucerne. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 32, 54–63.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1952). The role of ammonia in ruminal digestion of protein. Biochemical Journal 51, 86–90.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1968). Nutritional aspects of protein metabolism in ruminants. Australian Veterinary Journal 44, 145–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C, Ulyatt, M. J., Pearce, P. D. & Hendlass, J. (1972). Quantitative intestinal digestion of nitrogen in sheep given formaldehydetreated and untreated casein supplements. British Journal of Nutrition 27, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertz, E. T. (1968). High lysine corn. Agricultural Science Review, USDA 6 (3), 1–6.Google Scholar
Oram, R. N. & Brock, R. D. (1972). Prospects for improving plant protein yield and quality by breeding. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 38, 163–8.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Pirie, R. (1973). The effect of bypassing the rumen with supplements of protein and energy on intake of concentrates by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 361–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, P. J. (1969). The growth and composition of wool. V. Stimulation of wool growth by the abomasal administration of varying amounts of casein. Australian Journal of Biological Science 22, 745–59.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Schinckel, P. G. (1961). Nitrogen utilisation and wool production by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 335–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Tunks, D. A. (1969). Evaluation of formaldehyde-treated casein for wool growth and nitrogen retention. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 775–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1971). Factors limiting the intake of feed by sheep. V. Feed intake and the productive performance of the ruminant lamb in relation to the quantity of crude protein digested in the intestines. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 307–20.Google Scholar