Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:24:29.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of fishmeal on the digestion of grass silage by growing cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. E. Beever ,
M. Gill ,
J. M. Dawson  and
P. J. Buttery
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
M. Gill
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
J. M. Dawson
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry & Food Science, School of Agriculture, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics LEI2 5RD
P. J. Buttery
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry & Food Science, School of Agriculture, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics LEI2 5RD
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.

The effect of two levels of fishmeal substitution (50 (FM1) and 150 (FM2) g/kg) of a grass silage control diet (C) on the rumen digestion of organic matter and nitrogen, and the small intestinal disappearance of amino acids was examined in young growing cattle each equipped with simple PVC cannulas in the dorsal sac of the reticulo-rumen, the proximal duodenum and the terminal ileum. The silage was a primary growth of perennial ryegrass (Lnlium pevenne) (+formic acid) with a total N content of 22 g/kg dry matter (DM) (diet C). Fishmeal substitution increased this to 26 (diet FM1) and 34 (diet FM2) g/kg DM. On diets C and FM1, approximately 0.71 of digestible organic matter intake was apparently digested in the rumen, but this was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced on diet FM2 (0.60). Whilst duodenal flows of non-ammonia N and total amino acids were significantly (P < 001) increased at the highest level of fishmeal inclusion only, the synthesis of microbial N was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced by fishmeal inclusion, and feed N degradability declined progressively in response to increased fishmeal. Both levels of fishmeal addition caused a significant (P< 0.05) reduction in the fractional outflow rate of water from the rumen, and on the highest level of fishmeal significant (P< 0.05) increases in rumen ammonia concentration and rumen propionate molar proportions were observed. The net effect of the highest level of fishmeal substitution was to increase amino acid absorption from the small intestine by 0.47 compared with the control diet (P< 0.05), but due to an elevated ileal flow of amino acid no such effect was detected at the lowest level of fishmeal substitution. Composition of the absorbed amino acid fraction was relatively unaffected by the treatments imposed, despite large changes in the composition of the duodenal protein. The apparent non-linearity of response to fishmeal substitution is discussed and the amino acid supply findings are compared with the protein retention findings obtained in an earlier study by Gill et al. (1987). By two methods of calculation it was estimated that the amino acid N fraction disappearing from the small intestine was utilized with an efficiency of between 0.51 and 0.53 and no apparent effects due to diet or level of amino acid supply were detected.

Type
Protein Nutrition and Metabolism
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , May 1990 , pp. 489 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1990

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirement of Farm Livestock, no. 2, Ruminants. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Bartram, C. G. (1987). The endogenous protein content of ruminant proximal duodenal digesta. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B., Thomas, C., Spooner, M. C., Haines, M. J. & Gale, D. L. (1988). The effect of date of cut and barley substitution on gain and on the efficiency of utilization of grass silage by growing cattle. 2. Nutrient supply and energy partition. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beever, D. E., Gill, E. M., Evans, R. T., Gale, D. L. & Wilton, J. C. (1987). The effect of fishmeal supplementation of grass silage on nitrogen metabolism in growing cattle. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 46, 38A.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). A comparison of two non-radioactive digesta marker systems for the measurement of nutrient flow at the proximal duodenum of calves. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). The digestion by sheep of silages made with and without the addition of formaldehyde. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). The effect of drying and ensiling grass on its digestion in sheep. British Journal 0f Nutrition 26, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Ulyatt, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Spooner, M. C. (1985). The digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens L. cv. Blanca) by growing cattle fed indoors. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Equipment and techniques used for research into the intake and digestion of forages by sheep and cattle. Grassland Research Institute Technicul Report no. 24. Hurley: Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, M. J., Dhanoa, M. S. & Spooner, M. C. (1986). The efficiency of energy utilization in growing cattle consuming fresh perennial ryegrass and white clover. British Journal of Nutrition 55, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, J. M., Bruce, C. J., Buttery, P. J., Gill, M. & Beever, D. E. (1988). Protein metabolism in the rumen of silage-fed steers; Effect of fishmeal supplementation. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 339 –353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981). Portable equipment to the automatic sampling of duodenal contents from housed or grazing cattle. Luboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Gill, M. & Beever, D. E. (1982). The effect of protein supplementation on digestion and glucose metabolism in young cattle fed silage. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M., Beever, D. E., Buttery, P. J., England, P., Gibb, M. J. & Baker, R. D. (1987). The effect of oestradiol- 17β implantation on the response in voluntary intake, liveweight gain and carcass composition to fishmeal supplementation of silage offered to growing calves. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108. 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. (1976). The effect of season of harvest on the utilization by young cattle of dried grass given alone or as a supplement to grass silage. PhD Thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Mcallan, A. B., Siddons, R. C. & Beever, D. E. (1987). The efficiency or conversion of degraded nitrogen to microbial nitrogen in the rumen of sheep and cattle. In Feed Evaluation and Protein Requirement Systems for Ruminunts, pp. 111–128 [Jarrige, R. and Alderman, G., editors]. Luxembourg: CEC.Google Scholar
Ølrskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499––503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortigues, I., Smith, T., Oldham, J. D. & Gill, M. (1989). The effects of fishmeal on growth and calorimetric efficiency in heifers offered straw-based diets. In Energy Metabolism. Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, European Association of Animal Production, Lelystad, pp. 65 –68 [van der Honing, Y. and Close, W. H., editors]. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
Pell, J. M., Gill, M., Beever, D. E., Jones, A. R. & Cammell, S. B. (1989) Hormone and nutrient interaction in the control of growth: role of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 48, 83A.Google Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Lee, N. H. & Armstrong, D. G. (1987). The effects of intraruminal infusions of urea, casein, glucose syrup and a mixture of casein and glucose syrup on nitrogen digestion in the rumen of cattle receiving grass- silage diets. British Journal of Nutrition 57, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojas, B. A. (1973). On Tukey's test of additivity. Biometrics 29, 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, R. & Thomas, C. (1987). Fishmeal as a supplement to gras ge fed to young cattle. Proceedings of the 8th Silage Conference, Hurley, pp. 163–164.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Kaiser, A. G. (1982 a). Evaluation of the effect of formic acid and level of formaldehyde application before ensiling on silage protein degradability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 609–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Nolan, J. V. (1982 b). A comparison of methods for the estimation of microbial nitrogen in duodenal digesta of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddons, R. C., Evans, R. T. & Beever, D. E. (1979). The effect of formaldehyde treatment before ensiling on the digestion of wilted grass silage by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddons, R. C., Nolan, J. V., Beever, D. E. & MacRae, J. C. (1985 a). Nitrogen digestion and metabolism in sheep consuming diets containing contrasting forms and levels of N. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddons, R. C., Parddine, J., Beever, D. E. & Cornell, P. R. E. (1985 b). γ terrbium acetate as a particulate phase digesta flow marker. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 509–5 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1969). Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Aines, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G., Beever, D. E. & Thurnham, B. R. (1988). The effect of date of cut and barley substitution on gain and on the efficiency of utilization of grass silage by growing cattle. I. Gains in live weight and its components. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, P. C. (1982). Utilization of conserved forages. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production. British Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication no. 6, pp. 67–76 [ Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames Ditton: BSAP.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Kelly, N. C. & Chamberlain, D. G. (1980). Silage. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Camrrell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). The digestion by cattle of grass silage made with formic acid and formic acid-formaldehyde. British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1955). Queries. Biometrics 11, 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1981). Measurement of nutrient supply at pasture. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 67A.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. & Stacy, B. D. (1972). Water, sodium-potassium movments across the rumen wall of sheep. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 57, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilk, M. B. & Kempthorne, O. (1957). Non-additives in a Latin square design. American Statistical Asssociation Journal 52, 218–236.Google Scholar