Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:19:19.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dietary nitrogen source on carbohydrate metabolism in the rumen of the young steer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. B. McAllan  and
R. H. Smith
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. Steers, fitted with simple rumen and duodenal cannulas, were given diets of approximately equal parts of flaked maize and hay (A) (containing 16 g nitrogen/kg dry matter (dm)) or diets of flaked maize and straw supplemented with decorticated groundnut meal (B), fish meal (C), or heated (D) or unheated (E) soya-bean meal (containing 24 g N/kg dm). Chromic oxide was given as a marker with the feeds, and flows of different combined sugars at the duo denum estimated from the values for sugars: marker at this site. Contributions of bacterial constituents to these flows were estimated from amounts of RNA present.

2. Rumen bacteria from steers receiving diet A contained approximately 110 g α-dextran-glucose/kg dm and contributed about 60 g α-dextran-glucose/d at the duodenum; bacteria from steers receiving diets B, C, D or E contained 25–40 g α-dextran-glucose/kg dm and contributed about 20–30 g α-dextran-glucose/d at the duodenum. There were no significant differences between different N supplements. About half the α-dextran-glucose, varying amounts of the mannose and galactose, and nearly all the rhamnose and ribose in duodenal digesta were contributed by the bacteria. Almost all the arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose was of dietary origin.

3. For steers receiving diet A, mean coefficients of digestibility between mouth and duodenum, corrected where necessary for bacterial contribution, were 0.96, 0.73, 0.58, 0.22 and 0.53 for starch-glucose, galactose, arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose respectively. Corresponding mean values when diets B, C, D and E were given, which did not differ significantly amongst themselves, were 0.98, 0.79, 0.81, 0.59 and 0.58. Most values for galactose, arabinose and xylose were significantly higher than the diet A values.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , November 1976 , pp. 511 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Ammerman, C. B., Verde, G. J., Moore, J. E., Burns, W. C. & Chicco, C. E. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. (1974). Cereal Supply and Utilization, p. 21. London: US Feed Grains Council.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1967). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 10, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. W. & MacRae, J. C. (1970). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balwani, T. L., Johnson, R. R. & Dehority, B. A. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 115.Google Scholar
Gaillard, B. D. E. & van't Klooster, A. Th. (1973). Neth. J. agric. Sci. 21, 217.Google Scholar
Heald, P. J. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderickx, H. K., Demeyer, D. I. & Van Nevel, C. J. (1972). Tracer Studies on Non-Protein Nitrogen for Ruminants, p. 57. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R. & Minson, D. J. (1964). Annls Zootech. 13, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 79.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1974). British Fishmeal in Animal Nutrition, p. 37. London: Vale Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. & Singleton, A. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1971). Automation in Analytical Chemistry (Technicon Symposium, 1969) p. 207. Basingstoke, Hants: Technicon Instruments Company Ltd.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thivend, P. & Journet, M. (1970). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 10, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. K. & Hobson, P. N. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. J. & Nader, C. J. (1970). Aust. J. agric. Res. 21, 747.Google Scholar
Williams, A. P., McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 85A.Google Scholar
Williams, A. P. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, K. A. & Pigden, N. J. (1971). Can. J. anim. Sci. 51, 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar