Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-03T23:56:24.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of bypassing the rumen with supplements of protein and energy on intake of concentrates by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
C. Fraser  and
R. Pirie
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB2 9SB
R. Pirie
Affiliation:
The 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. Two experiments were conducted with young early-weaned lambs to measure the voluntary intake of dry concentrates when additional protein or lactose was given as a fluid preparation from a bottle.

2. The voluntary intake of a barley–urea diet (130 g crude protein/kg) was increased by 10–15% as a result of giving 2·3 g nitrogen/d as a fish-protein concentrate in fluid suspension. Amounts greater than 2·3 g N/d did not further increase voluntary intake but increased growth rate and food conversion ratio. Urea given as a solution in water in the same way in amounts equivalent to 4·6 N/d had no effect on voluntary intake.

3. The voluntary intake of a high-protein barley–fish-meal diet was decreased by giving 10 or 20% of the estimated intake as lactose by bottle. The results indicated that maximum energy intake was achieved with the basal diet, since the decrease in energy intake was about equal to the amount given in the solution bypassing the rumen.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , September 1973 , pp. 361 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

Andrews, R. P., Kay, M. & Ørskov, E. R. (1969). Anim. Prod. 11, 173.Google Scholar
Baumgardt, B. R. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 235 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 226 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 451.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Moir, R. J. (1965). Aust J. agric. Res. 16, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Reid, G. W. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 107.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 415.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 25A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C., Mason, V. C. & Mann, S. O. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 243.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C., McDonald, I. & Corse, E. L. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1971). Aust. J. agric. Res. 22, 307.Google Scholar