Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:38:48.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen balance studies with the milk-fed lamb

4.* Effect of different nitrogen and sulphur intakes on live-weight gain and wool growth and on nitrogen and sulphur balances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. M. Walker  and
L. J. Cook
D. M. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
L. J. Cook
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
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. Sixteen male cross-bred lambs were given four diets, which differed in the ratio of protein to energy. The protein contents of the diets (on a dry-matter basis) were: 6.1% (diet A), 11.9% (diet B), 17.5% (diet C) and 22.9% (diet D).

2. The experimental period of 7 weeks was divided into two 2-week periods (periods 1 and 2), and one 3-week period. The diets given to the lambs were changed between period 1 and period 2. In period 3 all the lambs were given the same dietary treatment as in period 2.

3. The daily feed intake of the lambs was regulated according to live weight. Adjustments were made at the beginning of period 1 and of period 2. The level of feeding was 121 kcal/kg live weight 24 h. In period 3 the intake was the same as in period 2.

4. Diet digestibility, live-weight gain, and nitrogen and sulphur balances were calculated for each lamb on each diet in all the periods. Wool growth on sample areas was measured over a 2-week and a 4-week period. These wool growth periods corresponded to treatment period 1, and treatment periods 2 and 3, respectively. At the end of the experiment the lambs were slaughtered and the composition of carcass and organs was determined.

5. The mean digestibilities of energy, N, ether extractives and dry matter increased significantly as the protein content of the diet increased.

6. The live-weight gain increased with increasing protein content of the diets, but only the difference between the means for diet A and all other diets was significant.

7. The N and S balances increased with increasing intake of apparently digested N and S, and all differences between the means for individual diets were highly significant.

8. There was a significant correlation between N balance and live-weight gain for each diet. However, when compared at the same late of gain, N balance increased as the protein content or the diet increased.

9. Wool growth on the sample areas increased with an increase in the protein content of the diet and all differences between the means for individual diets were highly significant. There were no significant differences between the dietary treatments in their effect on the N and S contents of the wool. The mean values were 15.7% N and 2.87% S.

10. The retention of N in the wool grown did not account for the increased N retention on the diets of higher protein content. The lambs given diet A, retained more N and S in wool than was supplied by the diet.

11. The percentage of fat in the carcass decreased, and the percentage of protein increased as the protein content of the diet increased. The percentages of moisture and ash were not significantly affected by the dietary treatments.

12. The percentages of moisture in the liver, pancreas and muscle decreased and the percentages of protein in the liver and muscle increased as the protein content of the diet increased. The ratio of N in the organs (with the exception of the spleen and pancreas) to N in the carcass was highest for lambs given the diet with least protein (diet A).

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 1967 , pp. 237 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1967

References

Armstrong, D. G. & Mitchell, H. H. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K.L. (1962). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wood, W. A. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earland, C. (1961). Text. Res. J. 31, 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filer, L. J., Baur, L. S. & Rezebak, H. (1960). Pediatrics, Springfield 25, 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filer, L. J. & Churella, H. (1963). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fomon, S. J. (1961). Pediatrics, Springfield 28, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. (1965). Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 5, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. S., Hepburn, W. R. & Boyne, A. W. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, E. R., Kon, S. K. & Porter, J. W. G. (1961). In Milk: The Mammary Gland and Its Secretion. Vol. 2, p. 195. [Kon, S. K. and Cowie, A. T., editors.] New York: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, A. M. G. (1959). Ind. Chem. 35, 33.Google Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. scient. Res. B 1, 362.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1962). In Comparative Nutrition of Man and Domestic Animals. Vol. 1, p. 37. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1934). Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Melb. no. 84.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Schinckel, P. G. (1961). Aust. J. agric. Res. 12, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Schinckel, P. G. (1963). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 16, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Gaston, H. J., Shillam, K. W. G., Thompson, S. Y., Stobo, I. J. F. & Greatorex, J. C. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. M. & Thomson, W. (1948–1949). Br. J. Nutr. 2, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 a). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 b). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D.M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 c). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D.M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 d). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D.M., Cook, L. J. & Jagusch, K. T. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, W. M., Weil, W. B. & Taylor, A. (1958). Ciba Foundation Colloquium on Ageing, 4, 116.Google Scholar
Waterlow, J. (1959). Nature, Lond. 184, 1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar