Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:01:18.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional studies on East African herbivores

2.* Losses of nitrogen in the faeces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

Pamela Arman ,
D. Hopcraft  and
I. McDonald
Pamela Arman
Affiliation:
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
D. Hopcraft
Affiliation:
PO Box 44092, Nairobi, Kenya
I. McDonald
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. A series of nitrogen-balance trials was done using groups of four animals of various species of wild and domesticated ruminants using pelleted diets (Arman & Hopcraft, 1975)

2. Various herbivores were given grass or grass hays, legumes, herbs and shrubs. Food and faecal samples were analysed for N

3. With the pelleted diets, the N content of the faecal dry matter (DM) was low for eland (Taurotragus oryx Pallas), high for sheep and cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus) and intermediate for the three small antelope species (hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei Günther), Thomson's gazelle (Gazella thomsonii Günther) and duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia L.)). With the natural fodders, similar relationships were found, together with variations associated with the type of diet

4. Three forms of equation were used to express the relationship between faecal N and food N. One of the forms, the linear regression of g faecal N/kg DM intake v. g food N/kg DM intake, fitted the results less well than did the other two and was not used to estimate metabolic faecal N (MFN) losses

5. MFN was calculated by extrapolation of linear regressions of g faecal N/kg faecal DM v. g N intake/kg faecal DM for the pelleted diets. The range of values was (g N/kg faecal DM): Friesians 7·6, eland 8·1, zebu cattle 11·0 and small antelope and sheep 11·5–12·6. There were significant differences (P < 0·001) between species in slopes and intercepts

6. MFN was calculated from linear regressions of g faecal N/kg faecal DM v. g food N/kg food DM for all diets. This method gave the best fit for the pelleted diets. Values for these diets were (g N/kg faecal DM): eland 8·3, cattle and sheep 9·3–11·0 and small antelope 11·6–12·3. Species differences were significant (P < 0·001). With grasses, values ranged from 5·9 for non-ruminants (rabbit (domesticated), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus Pallas) and hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius L.)) plus eland and wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell), to 8·4 for the other ruminants (sheep, goat, hartebeest, gazelle, duiker, buffalo (Syncerus caffer Sparrman)), kob (Adenota kob thomasi Sclater), reedbuck (Redunca redunca Pallas) and topi (Damaliscus korrigum Ogilby). For ruminants (sheep, hartebeest, duiker and kob), excluding eland, given legumes the value was 8·6, and for sheep and duiker given herbs the value was 14·7. With shrubs, faecal-N losses were variable and sometimes high

7. With the pelleted diets, true digestibilities of crude protein (N×6·25) varied from 0·84 to 0·91

8. The results are discussed in relation to the digestive physiology and feeding habits of the various species, and there is an examination of the feasibility of using linear regressions of crude protein in the diet v. N in the faecal DM for evaluating the quality of the diets selected by free-ranging East African herbivores.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 265 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Arman, P. & Hopcraft, D. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1964). In The Role of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Protein Metabolism [Munro, H. N., editor]. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Bredon, R. M., Harker, K. W. & Marshall, B. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hironaka, R., Bailey, C. B. & Kozub, G. C. (1970). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. (1968). Symp. zool. Soc. Lond. 21, 179.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. & Stewart, D. R. M. (1972). Mammalia 36, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E., Phillips, G. D., McGregor, A., Hungate, D. P. & Buechner, H. K. (1959). Science, N.Y. 130, 1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, A. D. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majumdar, B. N. (1960). J. agric. Soi., Camb. 54, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milić, B. L., Stojanović, S. & Vučurević, N. (1972). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 23, 1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, K. W. & Swain, A. J. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Outen, G. E. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 13A.Google Scholar