Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:28:05.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake and utilization of energy from ammonia-treated and untreated wheat straw by steers and wether sheep given a basal diet of grass pellets and hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. J. Oosting ,
H. A. Boekholt ,
M. J. N. Los  and
C. P. Leffering
S. J. Oosting
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Section Tropical Animal Production, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. A. Boekholt
Affiliation:
Department of Human and Animal Physiology, Wageningen Agricultural University, Haarweg 10, 6709 PJ Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. J. N. Los
Affiliation:
Department of Human and Animal Physiology, Wageningen Agricultural University, Haarweg 10, 6709 PJ Wageningen, The Netherlands
C. P. Leffering
Affiliation:
Department of Human and Animal Physiology, Wageningen Agricultural University, Haarweg 10, 6709 PJ Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments, experiment 1 with six steers in a 3 × 3 Latin-square design and experiment 2 with four wether sheep in a cross-over design, were conducted to study the effect of species and ammonia treatment on intake and utilization of the energy of untreated wheat straw. Treatments were: (1) untreated wheat straw offered ad libitum on top of a basal diet (B) consisting of hay (0·25) and grass pellets (0·75) (UWS), (2) ammoniated wheat straw offered ad libitum plus B (AWS) and (3) ammoniated wheat straw offered at a restricted level plus B (AWS-). B was offered as a maintenance diet for both species and AWS- was only studied in steers. Voluntary intake of AWS zvas higher than that of UWS. No significant differences emerged between whole rations UWS and AWS with regard to energy digestion (ED), energy metabolizability (ρ = metabolizable energy (ME) I gross energy (GE)) and losses of digestible energy (DE) in urine and methane (average 187 J/KJ DE), but the efficiency of utilization of ME for growth (kg) was significantly higher for AWS than for UWS. ED and ρ of the straw part of the ration was significantly higher for AWS than for UWS. AWS- and AWS did not differ significantly with regard to ED, ρ and DE losses in methane and urine. Steers had a higher intake per kg0·75 per day than wether sheep. Across species, digestible energy intake (DEI) of the whole ad libitum fed diets was related to live weight (M)0·946 (s.e. of exponent 0·0152). ED and ρ of the straw part of the rations did not differ significantly between species, but steers had a significantly higher ED and ρ of β than wether sheep. Steers excreted a significantly lower proportion of DE in urine and a significantly higher proportion of DE in methane than did wethers. Total energy losses in urine and methane, however, did not differ between species.

Keywords

ammonia treatmentenergy consumptionfood intakesteerswetherswheat straw
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 227 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Bird, P. R. 1974. Sulphur metabolism and excretion studies in ruminants. XIII. Intake and utilization of wheat straw by sheep and cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Science 25: 631–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. 1989. Energy metabolism in animals and man. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. and Davidson, J. L. 1966. The voluntary intake of food by sheep and cattle in relation to their energy requirements for maintenance. Animal Production 8: 75–83.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. 1965. Report of subcommittee on constants and factors. In Energy Metabolism (ed. Blaxter, K. L.), pp. 441–443. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Brouwer, B. O. 1990. DBSTAT user's guide. Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. 1986. An introduction to rumen studies. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. 1991. Quantitative aspects of microbial metabolism in the rumen and hindgut. In Ruman microbial metabolism and ruminal digestion (ed. Jouany, J.-P.), pp. 217–239. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Dias-da-Silva, A. A. and Sundstol, F. 1986. Urea as a source of ammonia for improving the nutritive value of wheat straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. 1977. Nutritional status and intake regulation in sheep. VII. Relationships between the voluntary intake of herbage by sheep and the protein/energy ratio in the digestion products. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 907–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC. 1972. Units of metabolic body size for comparisons amongst adult sheep and cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 9: 352–355.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC, Searle, T. W. and Griffiths, D. A. 1974. Basal metabolic rate in lambs and young sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25: 957–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, H. 1971. The relation between various energy parameters, chemical composition and digestibility of some pasture swards in a subtropical environment. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11: 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellaway, R. C. 1969. Estimation of digestible energy intake of ruminants. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 9: 578–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. and Tolkamp, B. J. 1991. Toward a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Moe, P. W., Tyrrell, H. F. and Flatt, W. P. 1970. Partial efficiency of energy use for maintenance, lactation, body gain and gestation in the dairy cow. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. Schiirch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 65–67. Juris Druck and Verlag, Zurich.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. R., Baldwin, R. L. and Koong, L. J. 1982. Estimation of stoichiometric parameters for rumen fermentation of roughage and concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 55:411–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. and Ternouth, J. H. 1981. Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. I. The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time in the reticulo-rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, P. V., Garret, W. N., Hinman, N., Garcia, I. and Castillo, J. 1973. A system for expressing the net energy requirements and net energy content of feeds for young sheep. Journal of Animal Science 36:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shetty, P. S. 1990. Physiological mechanisms in the adaptive response of metabolic rates to energy restriction. Nutrition Research Reviews 3: 49–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, A. T., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Orskov, E. R. 1989. Influence of ammonia treatment and supplementation on the intake, digestibility and weight gain of sheep and cattle on barley straw diets. Animal Production 48: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J. and Ketelaars, J. J. M. H. 1993. The effect of ad libitum feeding on the efficiency of energy utilization in growing and lactating cattle. Animal Production 56: 431–432 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. 1958. Gas analysis in open circuit respiration chambers. In First symposium on energy metabolism. Principles, methods and general aspects, Copenhagen. European Association of Animal Production, publication no. 8, pp. 132–137.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. 1982. Animal factors affecting feed intake. In Nutritional limits to animal production from pastures (ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 183–198. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar