Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:40:45.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion of concentrates in sheep

4.* The effects of urea on digestion, nitrogen retention and growth in young lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
C. Fraser  and
I. McDonald
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9 SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9 SB
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9 SB
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. The effects of adding increasing supplements of urea to mainly barley diets for early-weaned lambs were investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment the passage of nutrients along the alimentary tract was studied by taking samples of abomasal, ileal and rectal contents and using a marker technique. In the second experiment, feed consumption and rate of gain were recorded over the growth period up to 40 kg live weight, and nitrogen balances were carried out. In the second experiment a barley-fish meal diet was also included.

2. The fermentation of organic matter in the rumen increased with the amount of urea in the diet and levelled off when the diet contained about 12% crude protein.

3. Urea supplementation had significant effects in increasing N retention and rate of live-weight gain and in decreasing feed conversion ratio, but supplementation beyond about 12% crude protein in dry matter had no further effect on these measurements. In each instance results with the barley–fish meal diet were better than the results with any of the barley-urea diets.

4. From the concentrations of diaminopimelic acid (DAPA) in abomasal fluid it was estimated that microbial protein was produced in the rumen at a rate of 15.6% g/100 g organic matter fermented. This ratio did not appear to alter significantly with urea supplementation, but the comparison depends on the assumption that the concentration of DAPA in the bacterial protein did not itself change with urea supplementation.

5. Using results from both experiments, it was calculated that the retained N on the urea-supplemented barley diets was approximately 47% of the amount of protein N absorbed in the small intestine.

6. It is suggested that barley diets for early-weaned lambs can with advantage be supplemented with non-protein N to increase the crude protein in the dry matter up to about 12%. When barley diets are given with a protein supplement the addition of non-protein N is unlikely to be beneficial unless the protein supplement is given in such a way that it is not subject to degradation to yield ammonia in the rumen.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , May 1972 , pp. 491 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Bauchop, T. & Elsden, S. R. (1960). J. gen. Microbial. 23, 457.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 4th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Wcston, R. H. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p.474 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1970). Aust.J. agric. Hes. 21, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D., Moir, R. J. & Somers, M. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, K., Bailey, F. J. & Annison, E. F. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, L.. G. (1968). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 19, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieson, J. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 30A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1970). Proc. 4th Nutr. Conf. Fred Mfrs, Univ. Nottm p.20.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 a). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. K., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 b). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, H. R., Van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1969). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernahr. Futtermittelk. 249, 373.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & Clare, N. T. (1963). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 6, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar