Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:01:33.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion and synthesis in the rumen of sheep given diets supplemented with free and protected oils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. D. Sutton ,
R. Knight ,
A. B. McAllan  and
R. H. Smith
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
R. Knight
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. B. McAllan
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Six wether sheep were each provided with a permanent cannula in the rumen and re-entrant cannulas in the proximal duodenum.

2. In a preliminary study, the sheep consumed 200 g hay and 400 g concentrates supplemented with up to 40 g linseed oil, coconut oil or cod-liver oil daily. Feed was refused at higher levels of supplementation.

3. Five of the sheep were used in a 5 × 5 Latin-square experiment. They were given 200 g hay and 400 g concentrates alone (B) or supplemented with 40 g linseed oil (L), coconut oil (C), protected linseed oil or protected coconut oil daily. The protected oils were prepared by emulsifying the free oils with formaldehyde-treated sodium caseinate. Formaldehyde-treated sodium caseinate was also included in the other three diets.

4. Digestion in the stomach was measured by spot sampling duodenal digesta, using chromic oxide-impregnated paper as the marker. Microbial flow at the duodenum was measured by use of both diaminopimelic acid (DAPA) and RNA as microbial markers.

5. Both the free oils had broadly similar effects despite their very different fatty acid compositions. Digestion in the stomach of organic matter (OM) was reduced from 0·48 (diet B) to 0·29 (diets L and C) and that of neutral-detergent fibre from 0·50 (diet B) to 0·19 (diet L) and 0·12 (diet C). The molar proportions of acetic acid and n-butyric acid were decreased and that of propionic acid was increased. Protozoal numbers were reduced by 78% (diet L) and 90% (diet C). The flow of total nitrogen and microbial N was increased by both oils and the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis (g N/kg OM apparently digested in the rumen) was increased from 30 (diet B) to 85 (diet L) and 74 (diet C) when based on DAPA and from 41 (diet B) to 94 (diet L) and 81 (diet C) when based on RNA. The efficiency when based on true digestion of OM (g N/kg OM truly digested in the rumen) was increased from 23 (diet B) to 46 (diet L) and 44 (diet C) when based on DAPA and from 29 (diet B) to 49 (diet L) and 46 (diet C) when based on RNA. The amounts of microbial OM (g/d) at the duodenum were increased from 68 (diet B) to 124 (diet L) and 106 (diet C) when based on DAPA and from 92 (diet B) to 136 (diet L) and 115 (diet C, non-significant) when based on RNA.

6. When the oils were given in the protected form, the effects on digestion in the stomach were reduced but not eliminated. No significant increases in the amount of total N or microbial N at the duodenum were established, though there was a tendency for an increase in the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis with protected linseed oil. The results suggested that the method of protection used reduced the effects of the oils on rumen digestion and synthesis but was only partially successful in preventing hydrogenation of the fatty acids.

7. It is concluded that free oils can markedly increase the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis, possibly by their defaunating effect, and that this may enhance the potential for using non-protein-N on oil-supplemented diets.

Type
Paper on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 419 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G. & Yokoyama, M. T. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bines, J. A., Brumby, P. E., Storry, J. E., Fulford, R. J. & Braithwaite, G. D. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 91, 135.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Tech. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst. no. 24, p. 4.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error, 4th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
Corse, D. A. & Sutton, J. D. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 18A.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Christie, W. W., Breckenridge, G. & Hunter, M. L. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. & Van Nevel, C. J. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devendra, C. & Lewis, D. (1974 a). Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 44, 917.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. & Lewis, D. (1974 b). Malay. agric. Res. 3, 228.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 277 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]., Armidale: University of New England.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E. & Osbourn, D. F. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G. & McAllan, A. B. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, p. 205 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, C. J. F. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 249.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. (1973). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P., Connell, P. J. & Mills, S. C. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikwuegbu, O. A. & Sutton, J. D. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 48, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R., Sutton, J. D., McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 14A.Google Scholar
Knight, R., Sutton, J. D. & Storry, J. E. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 69A.Google Scholar
Leng, R. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 406 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel.Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B., Knight, R. & Sutton, J. D. (1983). Br. J. Nutr. 49, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J., Storry, J. E. & Tuckley, B. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 85.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hine, R. S. & Grubb, D. A. (1978). Anim. Prod. 27, 241.Google Scholar
Palmquist, D. L. & Jenkins, T. C. (1980). J. Dairy Sci. 63, 1.Google Scholar
Scott, T. W., Cook, L. J. & Mills, S. C. (1971). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 48, 358.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 27.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Hewitt, D. & Lewis, P. E. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & de Langen, H. (1960). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 3, 314.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. (1979). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 38, 275.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. & Johnson, V. W. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Storry, J. E. & Corse, D. A. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Coelho da Silva, J. F. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nevel, C. J. & Demeyer, D. I. (1981). Arch. Tierernahr. 31, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). J. Ass. Off. analyt. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar