Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:46:52.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the capture of dietary nitrogen by micro-organisms in the forestomachs of the young steer. Experiments with [15N]urea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. N. Salter ,
R. H. Smith  and
D. Hewitt
D. N. Salter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. For a period of at least 2 weeks before an experimental collection each of four young steers received total daily intakes consisting of approximately (g/kg) 600 straw and 400 concentrates with the nitrogen provided mainly as urea and in which the main energy source was starch (tapioca) for diet 1 and glucose for diet 2. Concentrates were given twice daily at about 09·00 and 17·00 hours, straw at 17·00 hours only. The value for the ratio, rumen-degradable N: metabolisable energy (g/MJ) in the daily intake was estimated to be approximately 1·2.

2. On the day that an experimental collection was to be made the urea normally given in the feed at 09·00 hours was labelled with 15N. This urea and sometimes the appropriate energy source were added either as a single dose (SD) at 09·00 hours or in three equally-divided doses (DD) at 09·00, 11·00 and 13·00 hours. Treatments, given in a Latin-square design, were: (A), starch (SD)+ urea (SD); (B), starch (SD) + urea (DD); (C), glucose (SD) + urea (DD); (D), glucose (DD) + urea (DD). Doses of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 144Ce (as cerous chloride) were given as markers with the urea.

3. After these doses were given, samples of abomasal and duodenal digesta were taken periodically for 72 h. It appeared that virtually all the PEG had left the rumen by this time and mean recovery of 144Ce relative to PEG was approximately 90%. From recoveries of non-ammonia-15N (microbial 15N) at the abomasum, estimated relative to PEG, values for mean fractional efficiencies of conversion of urea-N to microbial-N were calculated to be 0·59, 0·59, 0·40 and 0·41 for treatments A, B, C and D respectively. Values for treatments A and B were significantly greater than those for treatments C and D but no other differences were significant. Examination of duodenal samples led to similar conclusions.

4. It was concluded that starch was a more suitable energy source than glucose for maximal capture of ammonia-N for microbial synthesis but that spreading the urea and glucose doses in an attempt to match energy and ammonia release rates had no significant effect on capture efficiency.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 427 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Blake, J. S. (1981). Studies with 15N on amino acid metabolism in rumen bacteria. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I., Jaffray, A. E. & White, F. (1971). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error p. 98. London: Crosby and Lockwood.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. (1981). Agriculture and Environment 6, 295–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulden, J. D. S. & Salter, D. N. (1979). Analyst 104, 756–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, J. E. & Ellis, W. C. (1968). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 16, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1981). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, W. M. & Owens, F. N. (1973). Journal of Animal Science 36, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. B., Milne, J. A., Wilson, S. & Spence, A. M. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marty, R. J. & Preston, F. R. (1970). Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agricola 4, 183–186.Google Scholar
Mathison, G. W. & Milligan, L. P. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 25, 351–366.Google Scholar
Meggison, P. A., McMenniman, N. P. & Armstrong, D. G. (1979). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 38, 147A.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & MacRae, J. C. (1976). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 110A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Macleod, N. A. (1982). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 41, 76A.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N., Daneshvar, K. & Smith, R. H. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 197–209.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977 a). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 54A.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977 b). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1979). Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Animal Nutrition and Metabolism 23, 143–161.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 399–415 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I. editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Streeter, C. L., Little, C. O., Mitchell, G. E. & Scott, R. A. (1973). Journal of Animal Science 37, 796–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar