Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:33:22.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

195. Urea as a protein substitute in the diet of young cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

S. Bartlett  and
A. G. Cotton
S. Bartlett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
A. G. Cotton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A 142-day feeding experiment with twenty-one dairy heifers aged 7–17 months is described.

2. The addition of 0·127 lb. per animal per day of urea to a diet supplying a limited amount of protein resulted in an extra daily live-weight increase of 0·24 lb. per day. This increase was statistically significant and the animals appear therefore to have utilized the urea nitrogen in their metabolism.

3. Animals receiving the same quantity of additional nitrogen in the form of protein showed slightly better live-weight gains than those receiving the urea; although the difference was not significant it seems probable that the protein was a more efficient nitrogen supplement than urea.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1938 , pp. 263 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1938

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

(1) Ehrenberg, , Ungerer, & Klose, (1932). Biochem. Z. 245, 118–45.Google Scholar
(2) Ehrenberg, & Briese, (1933). Biochem. Z. 257, 194–208.Google Scholar
(3) Kirsch, & Jantzon, (1933). Z. Tierz. ZuchtBiol. 28, 451.Google Scholar
(Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 1934, 3, 1078.)Google Scholar
(4) Ehrenberg, & Scholz, (1934). Biochem. Z. 270, 188–202.Google Scholar
(5) Ehrenberg, , Müller, Dietrich & Hötzel, (1934). Biederm. Zbl. 6, 425–40.Google Scholar
(6) Ehrenberg, & Prittwitz, (1936). Landw. VersSta. 125, 101–18.Google Scholar
(Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 1936, 6, 519.)Google Scholar
(7) Nahring, & Schramm, (1937). Landw. VersSta. 128, 191–7.Google Scholar
(8) Mangold, & Stotz, (1937). Landw. VersSta. 128, 199–204.Google Scholar
(9) Fingerling, , Hientzsch, , Kunze, & Reifgerst, (1937). Landw. VersSta 128, 221–35.Google Scholar
(10) Hart, Deobald & Bohstedt, (1937). Bull. Wis. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 439.Google Scholar
(11) Mitchell, (1929). Bull. nat. Res. Coun., Wash., No. 67.Google Scholar
(12) Wood, & Woodman, (1936). Bull. Minist. Agric. No. 48.Google Scholar
(13) Henry, & Morrison, (1922). Feeds and Feeding. New York: Henry and Morrison.Google Scholar
Fitch, & Lush, (1931). J. Dairy Sci. 14, 119.Google Scholar
(14) Fisher, (1930). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 3rd ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar