Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:36:52.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intensive beef production 5. The effect of different sources of protein on nitrogen retention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. B. Bowers ,
T. R. Preston ,
N. A. MacLeod ,
I. McDonald  and
Euphemia B. Philip
H. B. Bowers
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
T. R. Preston
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
N. A. MacLeod
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
Euphemia B. Philip
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

1. Nitrogen balance studies were made on 8 Friesian steers given allconcentrate diets containing fish meal, soya bean meal, groundnut meal or cottonseed meal.

2. There were no differences in nitrogen retention but voluntary feed intake was significantly lower on the fish meal diet.

3. Adjustment of nitrogen retention to constant dry matter intake resulted in significantly higher values for the diets containing fish meal and cottonseed meal than for the others.

4. Rumen pH, rumen ammonia and blood urea were all much lower on the fish meal diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1965 , pp. 303 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1965

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

Bowers, H. B., Preston, T. R., McDonald, I., MacLeod, N. A., & Philip, Euphemia B., 1956. Intensive beef production. 4. The effect on nitrogen retention of all-concentrate diets containing different levels of fish meal. Anim. Prod., 7: 19–25.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J., 1957. Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error. 4th edition. Crosby Lockwood and Sons Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Little, C. O., Burroughs, W., & Woods, W., 1963. Nutritional significance of soluble nitrogen in dietary proteins for ruminants. J. Anim. Sci., 22: 358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S., Spackman, D. M., & Stein, W. M., 1958. Chromatography of amino acids on sulphonated polystyrene resins. An improved system. Analyt. Chem., 50: 1185–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negi, S. S., & Kehar, N. D., 1962. Utilisation offish by-products as cattle feed: influence of method of manufacture on digestibility and nutritive value of Manthal fish meal. J. Sci. Indust. Res. 21C: 324–328.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R., Whitelaw, F. G., Aitken, J. N., Macdearmid, A., & Charleson, Euphemia B., 1963. Intensive beef production. 1. Performance of cattle given complete ground diets. Anim. Prod., 5: 47–51.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. D., Stott, J., & Smith, H., 1960. A survey of the microbiological assay of the nutritive value of amino acids and intact proteins. Proc. Pfizer European agric. Res. Conf., p. 368.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., & Preston, T. R., 1963. The nutrition of the early-weaned calf. III. Protein solubility and amino acid composition as factors affecting protein utilisation. Anim. Prod., 5: 131–145.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Preston, T. R., & Dawson, G. S., 1961. The nutrition of the earlyweaned calf. II. A comparison of commercial groundnut meal, heat treated groundnut meal and fish meal as the major protein source in the diet. Anim. Prod., 3: 127–133.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Preston, T. R., & MacLeod, N. A., 1963. The nutrition of the earlyweaned calf. V. The effect of protein quality, antibiotics and level of feeding on growth and feed conversion. Anim. Prod., 5: 227–235.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Preston, T. R., & MacLeod, N. A., 1964. The nutrition of the earlyweaned calf. VII. The relative value of four different fish-meal products as the major protein source in the diet. Anim. Prod., 6: 25–30.Google Scholar