Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:04:20.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the nutritive value of Ulva lactuca for ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Arieli ,
D. Sklan  and
G. Kissil
A. Arieli
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel
D. Sklan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel
G. Kissil
Affiliation:
National Center for Mariculture, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, Eilat, Israel
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was designed to test the value of Ulva lactuca, produced from an integrated mariculture project, using six Finn-Merino crossbred ram lambs. Diets consisted of concentrate with vetch hay for the control, with additional Ulva for the treatment diet. Measurements of digestibility of energy, volatile fatty acid concentration in the rumen fluid, effective degradability of nitrogen in the rumen, rumen ammonia concentration and excretion of nitrogen in urine all indicated that Ulva could be categorized as a low-energy high-nitrogen foodstuff.

Keywords

nutritive valueseaweedssheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 329 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Abdelhamid, A. M. and Gabr, A. A. 1991. Evaluation of water hyacinth as feed for ruminants. Archives of Animal Nutrition, Berlin 41: 745–756.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. Nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. E. 1968. Fresh water plants: a potential source of protein. Economical Botany 22: 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratova, K. and Ganovski, K. 1983. Chemical composition of the most common Black sea algae and their effect on egg production in hens. Veterinarnomeditinku Nauki 20: 83–88.Google Scholar
Chaney, A. L. and Marbach, E. P. 1962. Modified reagent for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry 8:130–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, I. and Naori, A. 1991. Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fish pond effluents. Ammonia uptake kinetics and nitrogen content. Botanica Marina 34: 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. US Department of Agriculture, handbook no. 379.Google Scholar
Linn, J. G., Goodrich, R. D., Otterby, D. E., Meiske, J. C. and Staba, E. J. 1975. Nutritive value of dried or ensiled aquatic plants. II. Digestibility by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 41: 610–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, K. A. and Shoemaker, V. H. 1984. Field energetics and food consumption of the Galapagos marine iguana Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Physiological Zoology 57: 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1985. Ruminal nitrogen usage. Subcommittee on nitrogen usage in ruminants, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to the rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklan, D., Arieli, A., Chalupa, W. and Kronfeld, D. S. 1985. Digestion and absorption of lipids and bile acids in sheep fed stearic acid, oleic acid or tristearin. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1667–1675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
Vandermeulen, H. and Gordin, H. 1990. Ammonium uptake using Ulva (chlorophyta) in intensive fishpond system; mass culture and treatment of effluent. Journal of Applied Psychology 2: 363–374.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. 1988. The feed value of by-products and wastes. In Feed science (ed. Ørskov, E. R.), pp. 313–327. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wnorowski, A. U. 1992. Tastes and odours in the aquatic environment: a review. Water South Africa 18: 203–214.Google Scholar