Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T08:46:10.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein nutrition of growing lambs

2. Effect on nitrogen digestion of supplementing a low-protein-cellulosic diet with either urea, casein or formaldehyde-treated casein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. J. Kempton ,
J. V. Nolan  and
R. A. Leng
T. J. Kempton
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. V. Nolan
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
R. A. Leng
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Rural Science, 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. Lambs with cannulas in the duodenum and ileum were allowed free access to one of four diets: a basal diet of oat hulls and solka floc, or the basal diet supplemented with either urea, urea plus casein or urea plus formaldehyde-treated (HCHO)-casein. Mean nitrogen intake was 1.9 g N/d for the basal diet and 15.0, 32.4 and 36.9 g N/d respectively for the other diets.

2. The rate of irreversible loss of ammonia from the rumen pool estimated using 15NH+4 was highest on the casein diet (33 g NH3-N/d) by comparison with 18 g NH3-N/d for the urea and HCHO-casein diets and 7 g NH3-N/d for the basal diet.

3. The proportions of bacterial and protozoal N in the rumen derived from rumen ammonia did not differ significantly between the supplemented diets and were 0.66 and 0.52 respectively.

4. Estimation of 15N flowing to the duodenum during continuous infusions of 15NH+4 into the rumen indicated considerable ammonia absorption from the rumen on all the diets. Greatest absorption of ammonia (21 g N/d) apparently occurred in animals on the diet supplemented with urea and casein.

5. The estimated microbial non-ammonia-N (NAN) flowing out of the rumen per unit organic matter fermented in the rumen (FOM) was similar on all diets, i.e. 21.3 (±1.09) g N/kg FOM. The requirement for dietary fermentable N for microbial N production on these diets was 1.2 (±0.07) g N/MJ ME.

6. The flow of NAN into the duodenum and throught the ileum, and total N in the faeces was significantly influenced by the form of N supplementation. The flow of NAN into the duodenum for the HCHO-casein diet (27 g N/d) was more than twice that for the other diets (11 g N/d). The flow of NAN through the ileum and excretion of total N in the faeces was also greater with the HCHO-casein diet than with all other diets. The apparent digestibility of NAN in the small intestine ranged between 0.62–0.66 for all diets.

7. Urea and casein supplements were apparently completely degraded in the rumen. In contrast, the HCHO-casein was almost completely resistant to degradation in the rumen and only 65% of the HCHO-casein was digested in the small intestine.

8. Protein absorbed: energy absorbed (expressed as NAN digested in the small intestine/MJ ME) was calculated to be 5.5 (±0.70) for the basal, urea and urea-plus-casein diets, and 11.6 (±1.71) for the urea-plus-HCHO-casein diet.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 303 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Abe, M. & Kandatsu, M. (1969). Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 40, 284.Google Scholar
Allen, S. A. & Miller, E. L. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1974). Aust. J. agric. Res. 25, 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1976). In Reviews in Rural Science, no. 2, From Plant to Animal Protein, p. 135 [Sutherland, T. M., McWilliam, J. R. and Leng, R. A., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1977). Aust. J. agric. Res. 28, 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Walker, D. J. (1975). In Proceedings of 3rd World Conference Animal Production, p. 551 [Reid, R. L., editor]. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 277 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. L., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E. & Thomson, D. J. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 60A.Google Scholar
Hemsley, J. A. & Moir, R. J. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. & Summers, R. (1967). J. gen. Microbiol. 47, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kempton, T. J. & Leng, R. A. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Ulyatt, M. J., Pearce, P. O. & Hendtlass, J. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeng, W. J., Van Nevel, C. J., Baldwin, R. L. & Morris, J. G. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 416 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. L., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1974). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Stachiw, S. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portugal, A. V. & Sutherland, T. M. (1966). Nature, Lond. 209, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. (1976). In Reviews in Rural Science, no. 2, From Plant to Animal Protein, p. 129 [Sutherland, T. M., McWilliam, J. R. and Leng, R. E., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Balch, C. C., Miller, E. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Smith, R. H. (1977). In Proceedings of 2nd EAAP Symposium on Protein Nutrition and Metabolism, p. 126. Wageningen: Pudoc.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H., Salter, D. N., McAllan, A. B. & Williams, A. P. (1976). In Tracer Studies on Non Protein Nitrogen for Ruminants, vol. 3. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. (1976). In Reviews in Rural Science, no. 2, From Plant to Animal Protein, p. 65 [Sutherland, T. M., McWilliam, J. R. and Leng, R.A., editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotopes, 22, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, D. E. & Hungate, R. E. (1967). Appl. Microbiol. 15, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar