Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:37:07.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of starch on protein utilization by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Y. Dror ,
A. Mayevsky  and
A. Bondi
Y. Dror
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Agricultural Biochemistry, Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
A. Mayevsky
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Agricultural Biochemistry, Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
A. Bondi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Agricultural Biochemistry, Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
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. One feeding experiment was carried out with seven adult rams (49–65 kg) and a second with eight young rams (39–51 kg) to compare the influence of starch supplementation on the utilization of protein; soya-bean meal was the main protein source in all diets. Cottonseed hulls and Rhodes hay served as energy sources in the basal diets. The energy content of the experimental groups (four adult or four young rams) was increased to 150% of that of the control groups by addition of crushed maize while the intake of digestible protein was equalized by adding maize gluten to control diets.

2. Adult rams retained 20% more nitrogen and young rams 20% less nitrogen on the highenergy than on the control diet. The effect in young rams was not significant.

3. Addition of maize to the diets was followed by a decrease in protein digestibility, but no parallel trend was found between protein digestibility and efficiency of nitrogen retention.

4. In both experiments rumen ammonia and blood urea values were higher in sheep given the control diet than in those receiving the diet supplemented with maize.

5. The dehydrogenase activity of rumen contents from young rams was only slightly raised by the maize supplement compared with the much larger increase that occurred in adult rams.

6. The concentrations of total volatile fatty acids in the rumen contents of adult and young rams were not markedly influenced by the addition of maize to their diets but a slight increase in the concentrations of propionic and butyric acids and a decrease of the ratio of acetic to propionic acid occurred.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 1969 , pp. 727 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Abou Akkada, A. R. & Osman, H. E. S. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1964). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, A. & Neumark, H. (1960). Agricultural Yearbook, p. 249 (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hassadeh Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J., Smith, T. & Johnson, V. W. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, M. (1961). In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of the Ruminant, p. 205. [Lewis, D., editor.] London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1968). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Williams, V. I. (1966). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 66, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulombe, J. J. & Favreau, L. (1963). Clin. Chem. 9, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y. & Bondi, A. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, E. S., Marco, G. J. & Emery, E. M. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, D. A., Lambeth, C. & Theurer, B. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1957). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1962). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1964). In Mummualiun Protein Metabolism, p. 412. [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B., editors. ] New York and London: Academic Press Inc.Google ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. & Oltjen, R. R. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packett, L. V. & McCune, R. W. (1965). Appl. Microbiol. 13, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T., Dobson, N. J., Blackburn, T. H. & Brown, M. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, R. L., Breuer, L. H. & Pfander, W. H. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 947.Google Scholar
Richterich, R. & Colombo, J. P. (1962). Aerztl. Labor. 8, 129.Google Scholar
Rosen, H. (1957). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 67, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V. J., Nottle, M. C., Moir, R. J. & Underwood, E. J. (1953). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 6, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar