Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:54:15.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein degradation and optimum urea concentration in cereal-based diets for sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. Z. Mehrez  and
E. R. Ørskov
A. Z. Mehrez
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
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. Early-weaned lambs were used to estimate the concentration of urea required to give the maximum intake and utilization of maize or barley with either a high (HPB) or low (LPB) protein content.

2. Approximately the same concentration of urea (7–11 g urea/kg feed) was required for maximum intake and feed utilization of both HPB and LPB. With maize there was no increase in intake, live weight gain, digestion and feed conversion as a result of adding more than 7 g urea/kg.

3. The proportion of protein degraded in the rumen was estimated by the synthetic fibre bag technique to be 0.69, 0.82 and 0.54 for HPB, LPB and maize respectively. The similarity in concentration of urea required for the optimum utilization of LPB and HPB might be explained by differences in the extent of degradation of protein in the rumen, but the lower concentration of urea required for maize cannot be similarly explained.

4. From estimates of yield of microbial protein in the rumen, the extent of rumen fermentation and the measured extent of protein degradation, theoretical requirements for urea were calculated and compared with other predictions and with the experimentally determined values. For barley, predicted values agreed reasonably well with experimental ones, but for maize all values, including those derived by a new system adopted by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Working Party, were too high.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 337 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Allison, M. J. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 456 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutr. Abst. Rev. 32, 669.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Trenkle, A. & Vetter, R. L. (1974). Vet. Med. Small Animal Clin. 69, 713.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Moir, R. J. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D. & Bird, P. R. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1968). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 19, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. (1976). Assessment of the nitrogen requirement for rumen fermentation in sheep. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. & Ørskov, E. R. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z., Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimrick, K., Hatfield, E. E., Kaminski, J. & Owens, F. N. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1970). In Proc. 4th Nutr. Conf. Feed Manufrs., Nottingham [Lewis, D. and Swan, H., editors]. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1977), Wld. Rev. Nutr. Diet. 26, 225.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C., McDonald, I. & Smart, R. I. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Grubb, D. A. (1977). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. (In the Press).Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Smart, R. I. & Mehrez, A. Z. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Balch, C. C., Miller, E. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Smith, R. H. (1977). Proc. 2nd EAAP Symposium on Protein Metabolism and Nutrition.Google Scholar
Satter, L. D. & Slyter, L. L. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, G. T. & Hatfield, E. E. (1968). J. Nutr. 86, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th edn.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar