Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:30:58.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of defaunation of the rumen on the growth of cattle on low-protein high-energy diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. H. Bird  and
R. A. Leng
S. H. Bird
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
R. A. Leng
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
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 defaunation of the rumen of cattle on low-protein diets was studied using animals given free access to a basal diet of liquid molasses and 1500 g oaten straw/head per d. These diets induced moderate numbers of protozoa in the rumen.

2. Nonyl phenol ethoxylate (trade name teric GN9) was used for defaunation; 100 g teric GN9 was found to be sufficient to eliminate protozoa from the rumen.

3. In cattle given the basal diet without bypass protein supplementation, defaunation had no effect on growth rates. Addition of 240 g of a feed pellet containing bypass protein increased growth rate significantly. Growth rates were significantly increased by 43 % in cattle on the higher protein intake and where protozoa were removed. Intake of molasses was apparently stimulated by a protein supplementation but not by defaunation and this finding is discussed.

4. The results demonstrate that in cattle given a molasses-based diet, low in bypass protein, growth rates can be stimulated by defaunation without an effect on feed intake, the main effect apparently arising through an increased efficiency of utilization of feed.

Type
Short Papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , July 1978 , pp. 163 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Abou Akkada, A. R. & el Shazeley, K. (1964). Appl. Microbiol. 12, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, S., Baigent, D. R., Dixon, R. & Leng, R. A. (1978). Proc. Aust. Soc. anim. Prod. 12, 137.Google Scholar
Christiansen, W. C., Kawashima, R. & Burroughs, W. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 730.Google Scholar
Kempton, T. J., Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1977). World Anim. Rev. 22, 2.Google Scholar
Klopfenstein, T. J., Purser, D. B. & Tyznik, W. J. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leng, R. A. & Leonard, G. J. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leng, R. A. & Preston, T. R. (1976). Trop. Anim. Prod. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Marty, R. J. & Preston, T. R. (1970). Rev. Cuba. Cienc. Agric. (Engl. ed.) 4, 183.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. (1972). World Rev. Nutr. Dietet. 17, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. (1977). Trop Anim. Prod. 2, 125.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. & Willis, M. B. (1970). Intensive Beef Production. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1962). J. gen. Microbiol. 28, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 341.Google Scholar
Wright, D. E. & Curtis, M. W. (1976). N.Z. J. agric. Res. 19, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar