Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:41:37.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilization of low-quality roughages; effects of supplementing with casein treated or untreated with formaldehyde on digesta flows, intake and growth rate of cattle eating wheat straw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

N. Sriskandarajah ,
R. C. Kellaway  and
Jane Leibholz
N. Sriskandarajah
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales, 2570, Australia
R. C. Kellaway
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales, 2570, Australia
Jane Leibholz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales, 2570, 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. Expt 1. Forty 200 kg heifers were given wheat straw ad lib. plus one of five pelleted supplements, each of which supplied 40 g/nitrogen as urea/d, Treatment A did not supply other sources of N, and other treatments supplied daily 40 g digestible N as casein and formaldehyde-treated casein (HCHO-casein) in the following proportions (w/w): 100:0 (B), 70:30 (C), 30:70 (D), 0:100 (E). After 5 weeks (period 1) all supplements were withdrawn from half (four) of the animals in each treatment group (NS) over a period of 8 weeks (period 2). At the end of period 2. N balances were measured in four animals on each of treatments E and NS.

2. In period 1 the mean intake of straw by animals on treatments D and E was higher than the mean intake by animals on treatments A, B and C (3·32 v. 2·83 k/d respectively, P < 0·01) and live-weight changes also differed significantly (+ 72 and – 126g/d respectively: P < 0·01). Intakes of straw in period 2 were 3·74 and 3·20 kg/d for animals with and without supplements respectively (P < 0·01) and live-weight changes were +110 and – 157 g/d on the respective treatments (P < 0·01). For animals receiving supplements in period 2, intakes of straw did not differ significantly between supplements; live-weight changes were −14 g/d on treatment A and +141 g/d on treatments B, C, D and E (P < 0·01).

3. N balances on treatments E and NS were +11·4 and – 3·3 g/d respectively (P < 0·01), although digestibility of organic matter (OM) was similar on the two treatments.

4. Expt 2. Four 185 kg steers with rumen and abomasal cannulas were given wheat straw ad lib. plus one each of treatments A, B and E in a randomized block sequence. Dry matter (DM) intakes were 3·44, 3·89 and 4·05 kg/d on treatments A, B and E respectively (P < 0·05). N intakes were 29 and 37 g/d higher on treatments Band E respectively than on treatment A, but abomasal flows of N were only 4 and 14 g/d higher on the respective treatments. The latter value indicates that approximately 0·62 of HCHO-casein was degraded in the rumen. Efficiencies of bacterial protein synthesis were 31, 24 and 26 g bacterial N/kgOM apparently digested in the rumen (P > 0·05) on treatments A, B and E respectively.

5. It was concluded that efficiency of bacterial protein synthesis in the rumen was not limited by the supply of peptides and amino acids, and that protein supplements do not consistently stimulate intake of low-quality roughages when requirements for rumen degradable N have been met. Higher flows of N to the intestines when HCHO-casein, and to a lesser extent casein, were given were associated with a shift from negative to positive live-weight changes. These live-weight changes were not significantly correlated with DM intakes from which it appears that effects of casein supplements on live weight may have been attributable to effects of absorbed amino acids on efficiency of tissue protein synthesis either directly or through gluconeo genesis.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 553 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Bartley, E. E. & Deyoe, C. W. (1977). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, p. 50 [Haresign, W. & Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D., McMeniman, N. P. & Armstrong, D. G. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Vet. Rec. 82, 470.Google Scholar
Bird, P. R. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 25, 195.Google Scholar
Chaney, A. L. & Marbach, E. P. (1962). Clin. Chem. 8, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. & Hibbs, J. W. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1977). Aust. J. agric. Res. 28, 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 291 [McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & White, G. A. (1977). Aust. J. agric. Res. 28, 1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 30, 215.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Analysis: Agricultural Handbook no. 379. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 474 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, T. J. & Leng, R. A. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. & Kellaway, R. C. (1979). Ann. Rech. Vet. 10, 274.Google Scholar
Leibholz, J. & Kellaway, R. C. (1980). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 13, 481.Google Scholar
Ling, J. R. & Buttery, P. J. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Reeds, P. J. (1980). In Protein Deposition in Animals, p. 225 [Buttery, P. J. & Lindsay, D. B., editors]. London: Butterworths.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. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Stachiw, S. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1980). Aust. J. agric. Res. 32, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, R. G., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 44, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, L. D. & Roffler, R. E. (1977). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition p. 25 [Haresign, W. & Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Hewitt, D. & Lewis, P. E. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sriskandarajah, N., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1980). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 13, 480.Google Scholar
Sriskandarajah, N., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1981). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 97, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiago, L. R. L. (1979). Factors affecting intake and utilization of low quality roughages by ruminants. MScAgr Thesis, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., MacRae, J. C., Clarke, R. T. J. & Pearce, P. D. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, R. J., Cheng, K. J., Dinsdale, D. & Ørskov, E. R. (1979). Nature, Lond. 279, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, N. M., Pearce, A. R., Delaney, M. & Tribe, D. E. (1959). Empire J. Exp. Agric. 27, 106.Google Scholar