Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:30:59.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The feeding of urea supplements to sheep and cattle: the results of penned feeding and grazing experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. B. Coombe  and
D. E. Tribe
J. B. Coombe
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
D. E. Tribe
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A number of penned feeding and grazing experiments are described in which sheep and cattle, fed diets of low-quality roughage, were given supplements of urea and molasses, or urea and starch.

2. Starch was unsatisfactory as a source of supplementary carbohydrate, and it was concluded that this was mainly due to its low palatability. Molasses added without urea to a diet of straw for penned sheep increased intake and reduced the rate of live-weight loss in one experiment, but had no effect in another.

3. In general, supplementing low-quality rough-age with urea and molasses in both penned feeding and grazing experiments increased food intake and reduced the rate of live-weight loss. A supplement of urea alone increased food intake, but did not affect live-weight loss. The addition of ethanol or phosphoric acid to urea-molasses supplements had no additional beneficial effect. Supplementation with urea and molasses increased wool growth, but this increase was not always significant.

4. The general effect of urea on rumen contents was to increase pH, V.F.A. and ammonia N levels; the effect of molasses was to decrease pH and ammonia N levels, and increase V.F.A. levels.

5. Spraying of dry, standing herbage with urea and molasses increased the crude protein (N × 6·25) content, but this effect disappeared in 3–4 days. Sprayed herbage was markedly preferred by grazing animals, and generally one third of the sprayed herbage was removed within 24 hr. of spraying.

6. The advantages and disadvantages of the pasture-spraying technique, and the possibilities of other methods of feeding supplements containing urea to grazing animals, are discussed.

7. In no experiment where unsupplemented animals were losing weight did urea and molasses supplementation cause substantial increases in weight. It is concluded that the main value of supplementing low-quality roughage with urea and molasses would be for the survival, and possibly the maintenance, of animals.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1962 , pp. 125 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

REFERENCES

Altona, R. E., Rose, C. J. & Tilley, T. J. (1960). S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 3, 69.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. C. & Rapp, J. L. C. (1955). Feed Service Communique of the Feed Service Corporation, Crete, Nebraska, 1, 1.Google Scholar
A.O.A.C. (1955). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 8th edition, Washington.Google Scholar
Arnold, G. W. (1960). Anim. Prod. 2, 169.Google Scholar
Beames, R. M. (1959). Qd. J. Agric. Sci. 16, 223.Google Scholar
Beames, R. M. (1960). Proc. Aust. Soc. Animl. Prod. 3, 86.Google Scholar
Bell, M. C., Gallup, W. D. & Whitehair, C. K. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. (1952). Fmg S. Afr. 27, 453.Google Scholar
Clark, R. & Quin, J. I. (1951). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 25, 93.Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B. & Tribe, D. E. (1962). Aust. J. Agric. Res. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B., Tribe, D. E., & Morrison, J. W. C. (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. & Johnson, R. R. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M. J. (1961). Ch. 23 in Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of the Ruminant. (ed. Lewis, D.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Markham, R. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 790.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, R. (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, R. C., Booth, A. N., Bohstedt, G. & Hart, E. B. (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. G. (1958). Qd. J. Agric. Sci. 15, 161, 181, 203.Google Scholar
O'Bryan, M. S. (1960). Qd. J. Agric. Sci. 17, 135.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1951). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W., Moule, G. R. & Jackson, M. N. S. (1955). Qd. J. Agric. Sci. 12, 107.Google Scholar
Seligson, D. & Seligson, H. (1951). J. Lab. Clin. Med. 38, 324.Google Scholar
Snook, L. C. (1958). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 24, 357.Google Scholar
van der Merwe, P. K. (1961). Important Aspects of Ruminant Nutrition. Bull. N/6/61. Nat. Chem. Prod. Ltd. Germiston, S. Africa.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. (1960). M. Agric. Sci. Thesis. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E., Tribe, D. E., & Pearce, G. R. (1961). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, N. M., Pearce, G. R., Delaney, M. & Tribe, D. E. (1959). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 27, 107.Google Scholar