Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:01:46.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the digestion of dietary carbohydrates between the mouth and abomasum of steers

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. Six protozoa-free steers with simple rumen and abomasal cannulas were given basal diets consisting of a concentrate mixture of flaked maize and tapioca with either barley straw (BS) or alkali-treated barley straw (BSA). Other diets used were supplemented with urea (BSU and BSAU respectively) or contained fish meal in place of tapioca BSF and BSAF (respectively). The diets were given in a 6 × 6 Latin square design. Diets were isoenergetic and provided sufficient metabolizable energy (ME) to support a growth rate of approximately 0·5 kg/d. Basal diets, urea- and fish-meal-supplemented diets had estimated rumen-degradable nitrogen (RDN): ME values (g/MJ) of 0·5, 1·2 and 0·8 respectively. 103Ruthenium and polyethylene glycol were given as flow markers, and flows (g/24 h) at the abomasum of organic matter (OM) and carbohydrate components were calculated.

2. True digestibility coefficients of OM between mouth and abomasum were significantly greater for diets containing alkali-treated straw (approximately 0·63) than for those containing untreated straw (approximately 0·55) but were not significantly affected by N supplementation.

3. Digestibility coefficients of the neutral-sugar components of dietary polysaccharides between mouth and abomasum were 0·28, 0·34, 0·31, 0·23, 0·31 and 0·87 for mannose, galactose arabinose, xylose, cellulose-glucose and starch-glucose respectively for diet BS. Corresponding values were 0·37, 0·42, 0·56, 0·51, 0·40 and 0·88 for diet BSA. All but the mannose and starch-glucose values were significantly greater for the latter diet. N supplementation also led to increases in digestibility of all neutral sugars except mannose and starch-glucose. Fish meal produced a markedly greater effect than urea but only significantly so for cellulose-glucose. Thus, the highest digestibilities were seen for diet BSAF and were 0·68, 0·67, 0·74 and 0·64 for galactose, arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose respectively. Of all these sugars xylose consistently showed the greatest response in digestibility to sodium hydroxide treatment or N supplementation.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 445 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Ali, C. S., Mason, V. C. & Waagepetersen, J. (1977). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 39, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, J. S. D., Chesson, A. & Gordon, A. H. (1981). Agriculture and Environment 6, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1967). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, . L. L., Klopfenstein, T. J. & Britton, R. A. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 50, 745–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, K-J. & Costerton, J. W. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 227–250 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P. editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1962). Experimental Designs, 2nd ed., p. 50. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1979). The Hannah Research Institute Annual Report, pp. 69–85. Ayr: Hannah Research Institute.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. & Van Nevel, C. J. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeyer, D., Van Nevel, C. J. & Aerts, J. (1981). In Improved Utilization of Lignocellulosic Materials for Animal Feed, p. 69 [Domsch, K. H.Ferianti, M. P. and Theander, O. editors]. Braunschweig: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Edrise, B. M. (1979). Exchanges of certain constituents during passage of digesta through the stomach compartments of the ruminating bovine. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. & Armstrong, D. G. (1982). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. J. (1979). In Straw Decay and its Effect on Disposal and Utilization, p. 187 [Grossbard, E. editor]. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fibre Analysis, USDA, ARS Agricultural Handbook, no. 379.Google Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1970). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. G. (1977). Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentsch, W., Schiemann, R., Wittenberg, H. & Hoffmann, L. (1978). Archiv für Tierernährung 28, 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1983 a). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42, 50AGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1983 b). Archiv für Tierernährung (In the Press).Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B., Williams, A. P., Merry, R. J. & Smith, R. H. (1982). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 722–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, R. I., Gilchrist, F. M. C., Robberts, A. P., Hannal, P. A. & Schwartz, H. M. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Evans, C. C. (1974). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 10A–11A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeng, W. J., Van Nevel, C. J. & Baldwin, R. L. (1976). Journal of Dairy Science 59, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z., Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1977). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin no. 33, London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Owen, E. (1978). Proceedings of the Nutrition Conference of Feed Manufacturers, University of Nottingham 12, 127–139.Google Scholar
Satter, L. D. & Slyter, L. L. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, S. K., Otterby, D. E., Donker, J. D. & Good, A. L. (1971). Journal of Animal Science 33, 485–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shefet, G. & Ben-Ghedalia, D. (1982). European Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 15, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970). British Journal of Nutrition 24, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Hewitt, D. & Lewis, P. E. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H., Salter, D. N., Sutton, J. D. & McAllan, A. B. (1975). In Tracer Studies on Non-protein Nitrogen for Ruminants, vol. 2, pp. 81–93. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Authority.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. S., Dinsdale, D., Chang, K. G. & Paniagua, C. (1979). In Straw Decay and its Effect on Disposal and Utilization, pp. 123–130 [Grossbard, E. editor]. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar