Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-jrqft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:40:52.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The composition of rumen fluid from cows fed biuret and urea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. Waite  and
Agnes G. Wilson
R. Waite
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr, Scotland
Agnes G. Wilson
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect on the chemical composition of rumen fluid of replacing oilcake nitrogen by either biuret or urea N in the concentrate part of the ration for cows has been investigated. The biuret treatment produced the highest concentrations of NPN and the lowest concentrations of ammonia N in the fluid, whereas the urea treatment gave rise to higher concentrations of NPN than did the oilcake treatment and the highest ammonia N concentrations of the 3 diets. It is unlikely, however, that the differences in either peak or mean ammonia concentrations between the biuret and urea diets, if they occurred in lactating cows receiving these diets, would be sufficient to affect milk production. The concentration of ammonia N in the rumen liquor of cows on the biuret diet increased progressively up to the 5th to 8th week of feeding this diet. The different dietary treatments did not result in any marked differences in the concentrations of total volatile fatty acids in the rumen fluids or in the proportions of acetic, propionic and butyric acids in the total fatty acids.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1968 , pp. 203 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1968

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

Annison, E. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, I. H. & Rook, J. A. F. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, V. F. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1951). J. exp. Biol. 28, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, E. E., Garrigus, U. S., Forbes, B. M., Neumann, A. L. & Gaither, W. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, R., Maclusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzschuh, W. & Wettbrau, H. (1965). Arch. Tierernähr. 15, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. T. & Martin, A. J. P. (1952). Biochem. J. 50, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Inds 11, 656.Google Scholar
Schaadt, H. JR., Johnson, R. R. & Mcclttre, K. E. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, A. I. (1966). Science, N.Y. 153, 1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R., Castle, M. E., Watson, J. N. & Dbysdale, A. D. (1968). J. Dairy Res. 35, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar