Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:07:08.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion of concentrates in sheep

3.* Effects of rumen fermentation of barley and maize diets on protein digestion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
C. Fraser  and
I. McDonald
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. The effect of the extent of ruminal fermentation of starch on the postruminal digestion of starch and protein was investigated in sheep, differences in rumen fermentation being obtained by giving diets based on barley, maize, or maize plus sodium chloride. The mean percentages of starch (α-linked glucose polymers) fermented in the rumen wert 91, 79 and 78 respectively with these diets, but there was considerable variability, particularly with the maize diets.

2. When large amounts of starch escaped fermentation in the rumen, substantial quantities passed the terminal ileum and were mostly fermented in the large intestine; the greatest amount of starch found in the faeces was 2 % of intake.

3. A decrease in the extent of rumen fermentation of starch was associated with a decrease in the concentration of crude protein and of diaminopimelic acid (DAPA) in the abomasal fluid, but there was no difference in quantity of crude protein disappearing from the small intestine. The concentration of DAPA was greater with the barley diet than with the maize diet, indicating that more dietary protein, originating from maize than from barley, escaped the rumen un-degraded. This conclusion was supported by a greater similarity between the amino acid composition of the abomasal fluid and the diet when maize was given.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , November 1971 , pp. 477 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F. (1956). Biochem. J. 64, 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Coehlo Da Silva, J. F. & Armstrong, D. G. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 43A.Google Scholar
Clary, J. J., Mitchell, G. E. Jr & Little, C. O. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 917.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 4th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. & Hepburn, W. R. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1968). Aminosyre Koncentration og Protein Kualitet. Copenhagen: Stougaards Forlag.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karr, M. R., Little, C. O. & Mitchell, G. E. Jr (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieson, J. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 30A.Google Scholar
McClymont, G. L. & Vallance, S. (1962). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 21, xli.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1968). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 19, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, J. W. G. & Sutton, J. D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1969). Revta cub. Cienc. Agric. 3, 1.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Foot, M. H. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 31A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 a). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 b). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C., Mason, V. C. & Mann, S. O. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, B. J. (1968). Proc. int. Congr. physiol. Sci. VII. Washington, 1968 p. 352.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & Clare, N. T. (1963). N. Z. Jl agric. Res. 6, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thivend, P. & Journet, M. (1968). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 8, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thivend, P. & Journet, M. (1970). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 10, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topps, J. H., Kay, R. N. B. & Goodall, E. D. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar