Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:55:10.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestion of untreated and formaldehyde-treated soya-bean meals and estimation of their rumen degradabilities by different methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A. Rooke ,
B. W. Norton  and
D. G. Armstrong
J. A. Rooke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
B. W. Norton
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of treating soya-bean meal with formaldehyde was studied in cattle by supplementing a hay–barley diet with two levels of either untreated or formaldehydetreated soya-bean meal. The formaldehyde treatment had no significant effect upon apparent N digestibility in the whole tract; it increased the amounts of non-ammonia N and amino acid N entering the small intestine but this increase was not statistically significant. However, increasing the proportion of either soya-bean meal in the diet increased the flow of non-ammonia N to the small intestine and apparent N digestibility in the whole tract. The formaldehyde treatment reduced the apparent degradability of the soya-bean meal N, determined in vivo from 0·74 for the untreated meal to 0·38 for the formaldehyde-treated meal. The in sacco technique produced values for the apparent degradability of the two soya-bean meals which ranked them in a similar manner as did the in vivo technique but gave lower values for degradability than the in vivo technique.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 441 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: The Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Amos, H. E., Burdick, D. & Huber, T. L. (1974). Effects of formaldehyde treatment of sunflower and soyabean meal on nitrogen balance in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 38, 702–707.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. & Brookes, I. M. (1981). Protein require aents of ruminant livestock – the ARC proposals. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia, 1981 (ed. Farrell, D. J.), pp. 24–39. Armidale: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1976). The effectiveness of formaldehyde treatment in protecting dietary protein from rumen microbial degradation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brett, P. A., Almond, M., Harrison, D. G., Rowlinson, P., Rooke, J. A. & Armstrong, D. G. (1979). An attempted evaluation of the proposed ARC protein system with reference to the lactating cow. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 38, 148A.Google Scholar
Clark, J. H., Davis, C. L. & Hatfield, E. E. (1974). Effects of formaldehyde-treated soyabean meal on nutrient use, milk yield and composition and free amino acids in the lactating bovine. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 1031–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., McDonald, I. & Florence, E. (1960). Excretion of chromium sesquioxide administered as a component of paper to Bheep. British Journal of Nutrition 14, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsdale, D., Cheng, K.-J., Wallace, R.J. & Goodlad, R. A. (1980). Digestion of epithelial tissue of the rumen wall by adherent bacteria in infused and conventionally fed sheep. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 39, 1059–1066.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. & Armstrong, D. G. (1982). The effect of urea and urea plus sodium sulphate on microbial protein production in the rumens of sheep given diets high in alkali-treated barley straw. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. (1981). An evaluation of the relationship between dietary parameters and rumen solid turnover rate. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tracts of ruminants. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. Macdonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 271–291. Armidale: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & White, G. A. (1977). Formaldehyde treatment of concentrate diets for sheep. 1. Partition of the digestion of organic matter and nitrogen between the stomach and intestines. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 1055–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganev, G., Ørskov, E. R. & Smart, R. (1979). The effect of roughage or concentrate feeding and rumen retention time on total degradation of protein in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 651–656.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W. & Hagemeister, H. (1976). Zum Einfluss der Behandlung von Protein mit Formaldehyd auf die bakterielle Proteinsynthese und die Abbaurate von Protein in dem Vormagen von Milchküihen sowie auf die Verdaulichkeit des Proteins im Darm. Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche Forschungberichte 28, 335–346.Google Scholar
McMeniman, N. P. & Armstrong, D. G. (1979). The flow of amino acids into the small intestine of cattle when fed heated and unheated beans (Vicia faba). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 181—188.Google Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Miller, E. L. (1981). Quantitative studies of food protein degradation and the energetic efficiency of microbial protein synthesis in the rumen of sheep given chopped lucerne and rolled barley. British Journal of Nutrition 45, 587–604.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. & Ørskov, E. R. (1977). A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 645–650.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1980). Protein value of feedstuffs for ruminants. Vicia Faba: Feeding Value, Processing and Viruses (ed. Bond, D. A.), pp. 17–30. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin no. 33. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Nishimuta, J. F., Ely, D. G. & Boling, J. A. (1974). Nitrogen metabolism in lambs fed soybean meal treated with heat, formalin and tannic acid. Journal of Nutrition 103, 49–53.Google Scholar
Nugent, J. H. A. & Mangan, J. L. (1978). Rumen proteolysis of fraction 1 of leaf protein, casein and bovine serum albumin. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 37, 48A.Google Scholar
Peter, A. P., Hatfield, E. E., Owens, F. N. & Garrigus, U. S. (1971). Effects of aldehyde treatments of soybean meal on in vitro ammonia release, solubility and lamb performance. Journal of Nutrition 101, 605–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, J. A., Norton, B. W. & Armstrong, D. G. (1981). Digestion of formaldehyde-treated soyabean meal in the bovine rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 40, 82A.Google Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Seymour, S. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1981). The effect upon the nutritional value of soyabean meal of incubation in the bovine rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 40, 83A.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. P., Benevenga, N. J. & Jorgensen, N. A. (1974). Effect of formaldehyde treatment of soybean meal on the performance of growing steers and lambs. Journal of Animal Science 38, 646–653.Google Scholar
Spears, J. W., Hatfield, E. E. & Clark, J. H. (1980). Influence of formaldehyde treatment of soyabean meal on performance of growing steers and protein availability in the chick. Journal of Animal Science 50, 750–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D. (1980). Digestion and end-product formation in the rumen from production rations. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P.), pp. 271–280. Lancaster, England: MTP Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomas, E., Trenkle, A. & Burroughs, W. (1979). Evaluation of protective agents applied to soybean meal and fed to cattle. II. Feedlot trials. Journal of Animal Science 49, 1346–1356.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.Google Scholar
Vérité, R.Poncet, C., Chabi, S. & Pion, R. (1977). Utilisation des tourteaux traités au formol par les vaches laitières. 1. Aspects digestifs. Annales de Zootechnie 26, 167–181.Google Scholar
Vérité, R. & Journet, M. (1977). Utilisation des tourteaux traités au formol par les vaches laitières. 11. Effets sur la production laitière du traitement des tourteaux et du niveau d'apport azoté au début de la lactation. Annales de Zootechnie 26, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachira, J. D., Satter, L. D., Brooke, G. P. & Pope, A. L. (1974). Evaluation of formaldehyde-treated protein for growing lambs and lactating cows. Journal of Animal Science 39, 796–807.Google Scholar
Williams, C. J., David, D. J. & Iismaa, O. (1962). Determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinn, R. A., Bull, L. S. & Hemken, R. W. (1981). Degradation of supplemental proteins in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 52, 857–866.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. (1974). Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar