Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:10:50.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on some aspects of rumen fermentation in Holstein calves changed from an all-concentrate diet to high levels of molasses/urea and forage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Elías  and
T. R. Preston
A. Elías
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado 24, San José de las Lajas, Habana, Cuba
T. R. Preston
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado 24, San José de las Lajas, Habana, Cuba
Get access

Summary

Two changeover treatments were studied over a 5-week period in eight early-weaned concentrate-fed Holstein calves of initial weight 160 kg. Fresh forage was given ad libitum for one week (A) or two weeks (B); calves on the latter treatment also had 500 g daily of maize meal. All calves received 300 g/100 kg live weight of a protein supplement and had free access to sodium and phosphorus-rich minerals. A rumen inoculation was given after seven days of forage feeding, at which point a liquid molasses/urea mixture was introduced, first in small amounts and then after a further seven days ad libitum. The forage was then restricted to 3 kg/100 kg live weight. Both treatments were effective in raising rumen pH and buffering capacity to the point of allowing the establishment and maintenance of protozoa, chiefly Entodinium and Isotricha spp. Protein N as a percentage of the total N of rumen contents was about 90 with the all-concentrate diet, fell to 35 with the roughage diets and then rose again to 80–90 by the end of the experiment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , November 1969 , pp. 565 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1969

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

Eadie, J. M. 1962. The development of rumen microbial populations in lambs and calves under various conditions of management. J. gen. Microbiol. 29: 563–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. and Mann, S. O. 1967. A note on some comparisons between the rumen content of barley-fed steers and that of young calves also fed on a high concentrate ration. Anim. Prod. 9: 247–250.Google Scholar
Elías, A., Preston, T. R., Willis, M. B. and Sutherland, T. M. 1968. Intensive beef production from sugar cane. 4. Molasses/urea as a substitute for grain in low-fibre diets. Rev. cubana Cienc. Agric. (Eng. ed.), 2: 55–64.Google Scholar
Instituto de Ciencia Animal 1967. Annual Report of the Institute, Habana, Cuba.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J. W. G., Cunningham, H. M. and Friend, D. W. 1963. The addition of buffers to ruminant rations. IV. The effect of addition of sodium bicarbonate, sodium propionate, limestone and cod liver oil on intrarumen environment. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 43:309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T., Dobson, M. J., Blackburn, T. H. and Brown, M. 1962. The assimilation of ammonia nitrogen by bacteria of the rumen of sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 16: 151–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, T. R., Willis, M. B. and Elías, A. 1967. Intensive beef production from sugar cane. 1. Different levels of urea in molasses given ad libitum to fattening bulls as a supplement to a grain diet. Rev. cubana Cienc. Agric. (Eng. ed.) 1: 33–40.Google Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1968. The performance of different breeds of beef cattle in Cuba. Anim. Prod. 10: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar