Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:44:54.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of the physical form of a barley grain and barley straw diet on nitrogen metabolism in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

P. Jackson ,
J. A. F. Rook  and
K. G. Towers
P. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS 2 9JT
J. A. F. Rook
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS 2 9JT
K. G. Towers
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS 2 9JT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

(1) Two wether sheep fitted with ruminal and duodenal re-entrant cannulas were used to study the influence of the physical form of a barley grain and barley straw diet and intraruminal addition of ammonium salts (mainly acetate) on digestibility of dietary constituents, the flow of digesta to the duodenum and the composition of digesta from the rumen and duodenum.

(2). Grinding and pelleting of the diet depressed the digestibility of crude fibre and increased that of the nitrogen-free extract and addition of ammonium salts increased the digestibility of crude fibre. The effects of the physical form of the diet on the composition of the short-chain fatty acids of rumen liquor were not consistent and the addition of ammonium salts produced changes over and above those attributable to the small amounts of acids in the mixture. The extreme values observed for the molar proportion of propionic acid were 12·3 and 38·1% and the corresponding values for η-butyric acid were 28·1 and 9·0%.

(3). Variations in the flow of nitrogenous materials to the duodenum were related more to the pattern of fermentation established in the rumen than to the experimental treatments. There was a highly significant relationship between the molar proportion of propionic acid and the abomasal output of nitrogen and also the abomasal output of α-ε-diaminopimelic acid and α-linked glucose polymers. The amino acid composition of duodenal digesta differed from that of the diet—in particular the proportion of glutamic acid was decreased and the proportions of aspartic acid, alanine, lysine and histidine were increased—but differences in composition between treatments and between animals were small.

(4). The faecal output of nitrogen differed little between animals and between treatments, but nitrogen retention was significantly increased during the intraruminal infusion of ammonium salts.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , February 1971 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1971

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

Alwash, A. H. & Thomas, P. C. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Annison, E. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidmead, D. S. & Ley, F. J. (1958). Biochim. biophys. Acta 29, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N.Z. Jl Sci. Technol. 36 A, 328.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hyldgaard-jensen, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, F. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. & Summers, R. (1967). J. gen. Microbiol. 47, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermot, M. V. & Adams, R. D. (1954). Clin. Invest. 33, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1968). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 19, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Cowper, J. L. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, L. A. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, J. W. G. & Sutton, J. D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1969). Revta cubana Cienc. agric. (English edn) 3, 1.Google Scholar
Purser, D. B. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 30, 988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. C. (1961). 8th Int. Congr. Anim. Prod., Hamburg 1, 29.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1969). J. Dairy Res. 36, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spackman, D. H., Stein, W. H. & Moore, S. (1958). Analyt. Chem. 30, 1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Millard, D. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 16, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. A., Gray, F. V. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar