Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:40:29.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of nitrogen metabolites as indices of nitrogen utilization in sheep given frozen and dry mature herbages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. R. Egan  and
R. C. Kellaway
A. R. Egan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Private Bag 1, Glen Osmond, South Australia
R. C. Kellaway
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Private Bag 1, Glen Osmond, South 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. Twenty herbages at different stages of maturity containing from 0·77 to 5·23 g nitrogen/100 g organic matter were harvested, and green herbages were rapidly frozen and stored at - 1·5°. Each herbage was offered at levels approximating to ad lib. to a group of three sheep, individually penned. Intake, digestion and retention of N were studied during a 10 d collec-tion period after a 9 d preliminary period.

2. General regressions relating apparently digested N (NA, g/d), urinary N excretion (UN, g/d) and retention of N (NR, g/d) to N intake (NI, g/d) were established: NA= 0·88NI-3·25 (±1·14; SEb = ±O·013); UN = 2·48+0·35 NI+O·0049 NI2 (±3·09; SEb1, =±0·156; SEb2 = ±0·003); NR = 0·25 NI- 1·92 (±2·40; SEb = ·o·029). These equations accounted for 99% of the variability in N apparently digested, 86% of the variability in urinary N excreted, and 63 % of the variability in N retained.

3. Concentrations of ammonia and trichloroacetic-acid-precipitable N in the reticulo-ruminal digesta and of urea and a-amino-N in plasma were determined immediately before feeding, and at I and 4 h after feeding. Relationships between concentrations of metabolites in the reticulo-ruminal digesta and in plasma, and N intake, N apparently digested, urinary N output and retained N were examined. Estimates of urinary N loss and of retained N based upon metabolite concentrations at individual sampling times were characterized by high residual variabilities. Error terms were in some instances reduced significantly when both thebasal (before feeding) metabolite concentrations and the increments in metabolite concentra-tions after feeding were included in the one equation. The best relationships, based on plasma urea concentrations, accounted for only 74 % of variability in urinary N output.

4. In multiple regressions a significant portion of the variability in urinary N output and in retained N which was not accounted for by N intake could be accounted for by inclusion of metabolite values.

5. The concentration of urea in plasma was the most effective basis for prediction of N utilization. However, no prediction equation accounted for more than 90% of the total variabilityin N output, and no equation accounted for more than 71 % of the total variability in N retention. The feasibility of developing techniques for examination of efficiency of N utilization by a particular class of animal, based upon digesta and plasma metabolite con-centrations is discussed.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , November 1971 , pp. 335 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Abou Akkada, A. R. & Osman, H. El S. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allden, W. G. & Jennings, A. C. (1969). Aust. J. agric. Res. 20, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, M. I. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). Adv. Protein Chem. 9, 23.Google Scholar
Cline, J. H., Hershberger, T. V. & Bentley, O. G. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 4th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son.Google Scholar
el-Shazly, K. (1958). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 51, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, L. J., Bunting, S. L. & Rosenberg, L. E. (1963). Clin. Chem. 9, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, Y., Shimbayashi, K. & Yonemura, T. (1967). Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 38, 110.Google Scholar
Jasiorowski, H. (1960). Proc. int. Grassld Congr. VIII Reading p. 538.Google Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1957). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, H. A. & Wallace, H. S. (1954). Aust. J. Chem. 7, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A. & Hawke, J. C. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 16, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J. & Forbes, T. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1968). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 7, 359.Google Scholar