Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:59:35.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of nitrogen and energy supplementation on the voluntary intake and digestion of heather by sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A. Milne ,
Alison Christie  and
A. J. F. Russel
J. A. Milne
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH2Q OPY
Alison Christie
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH2Q OPY
A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH2Q OPY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In three experiments the effects of amount and source of nitrogen and energy supplements, and their frequency of feeding, on the voluntary intake and digestion of winter-quality freeze-stored heather (digestibility of organic matter 45%, N content 1·3%) by Scottish Blackface castrated male sheep were examined. The continuous infusion of 0·5gN/day as urea or casein increased voluntary intake by 29% and digestibility of organic matter by 11 percentage units but higher amounts of N supplement gave no further responses. The continuous infusion of a supplement containing 100 g sucrose/day and 3 g N/day as urea gave similar responses in voluntary intake and digestibility of heather to those obtained when N alone was infused. A reduction in the frequency of feeding of the sucrose: urea supplement reduced the response in intake of digestible OM of heather but intakes of digestible OM were higher when an isocaloric supplement of starch: urea was given at the same frequencies (thrice and once daily). The results are discussed in relation to the use of ruminal NH3 concentrations to assess the responses in voluntary intake to N supplementation and the balance required between the nitrogen and energy in the supplement. I t is concluded that the nitrogen and energy supplements could improve the nutrition of sheep grazing heather moorland in winter.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1979 , pp. 635 - 643
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
Cottyn, B. G. & Boucque, C. V. (1968). Rapid method for the gas chromatographic determination of volatile fatty acids in rumen fluid. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 16, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellerker, R. & Collinson, B. (1971). Use of an autoanalyser for sewage work analyses. In Automation in Analytical Chemistry, Technicon 9th International Symposium, London, pp. 130–131.Google Scholar
Grant, S. A. & Milne, J. A. (1973). Factors affecting the role of heather (Calluna vulgaris, L. Hull) in grazing systems. Colloquium Proceedings No. 3 Potassium Institute Ltd, pp. 41–46.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. & Beknett, I. L. (1973). Stocking intensity and pastoral production. III. Wool production, fleece characteristics, and the utilization of nutrients for maintenance and wool growth by Merino sheep grazed at different stocking rates Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlands, J. P., Corbett, J. L., McDonald, I. & Pullar, J. D. (1963). Estimate of the energy requirements for maintenance by adult sheep. 1. Housed sheep. Animal Production 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
Loosli, J. K. & Mcdonald, I. W. (1968). Non-Protein Nitrogen in the Nutrition of Ruminants. Rome: F.A.O.Google Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. & Miller, H. (1965). Automated and manual direct methods for the determination of blood urea. Clinical Chemistry 11, 624–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, J. A. (1974). The effects of season and age of stand on the nutritive value of heather (Cattuna vulgaris, L. Hull) to sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A. & Bagley, L. (1976). The nutritive value of diets containing different proportions of grass and heather (Calluna vulgaris, L. Hull) to sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., Bagley, L. & Grant, S. A. (1979). Effects of season and level of grazing on the utilisation of heather by sheep. II. Diet selection and intake by sheep. Grass and Forage Science (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., Macrae, J. C, Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (1976). Urea and Other Non-Protein Compounds in Animal Nutrition. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Okorie, A. V., Buttery, P. J. & Lewis, D. (1977). Ammonia concentration and protein synthesis in the rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 38A.Google ScholarPubMed
Russel, A. J. F. (1971). Relationships between energy intake and productivity in hill sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satter, L. D. & Slyter, L. L. (1974). Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, H. M., Schoeman, C. A. & Farmer, M. S. (1964). Utilization of urea by sheep. 1. Rates of breakdown of urea and carbohydrates in vivo and in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of deter gents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 51, 50–55.Google Scholar