Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:26:05.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origin of nitrogen incorporated into compounds in the rumen bacteria of steers given protein- and urea-containing diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

D. N. Salter ,
K. Daneshvar  and
R. H. Smith
D. N. Salter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfieid, Reading RG2 9AT
K. Daneshvar
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfieid, Reading RG2 9AT
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfieid, 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. Two young Friesian steers fitted with rumen cannulas were each given three different isonitrogenous and isoenergetic diets for successive periods of 2–3 weeks. The diets consisted mainly of straw and tapioca, with the nitrogen supplied mainly as decorticated groundnut meal (DCGM; diet A), in approximately equal amounts of DCGM and urea (diet B), or entirely as urea (diet C).

2. At the end of each period on a given diet, part of the dietary urea of a morning feed was replaced by a solution of [15N]urea which was infused into the rumen. Samples of rumen contents were removed just before giving the 15N dose and at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 24 h afterwards, concentrations of ammonia and its 15N enrichment were determined and samples of mixed bacteria were prepared. Amino acids, ammonia derived mainly from amide groups, and hexosamines were prepared by ion-exchange chromatography of acid-hydrolysates of the bacteria and analysed for 15N.

3. Approximate estimates of net bacterial N synthesis were made from turnover data for rumen fluid and 15N enrichments in rumen fractions. From the determined efficiency of incorporation of urea-N into bacteria recovered at the duodenum, it was calculated that on diets A, B and C respectively 82%, 37% and 0% of the bacterial N was derived from dietary protein or other non-urea sources.

4. [15N]urea was converted rapidly to ammonia and the 15N then incorporated into bacterial amide-N; it appeared at a slower rate in total bacterial non-amide-N. Rates of incorporation into non-amide-N were highest for glutamic acid, aspartic acid and alanine, and generally lowest for proline (pro), histidine (his), phenylalanine (phe), arginine (arg), methionine (met) and galactosamine. A similar ranking was also generally observed for relative 15N abundances (15N atoms %excess in N component ÷ 15N atoms % excess in total bacterial N) achieved after several hours. Relative 15N abundances in his, arg and pro increased with decreasing protein (DCGM) in the diet but those in the other protein amino acids, including the poorly labelled met phe (and its derivative tyrosine) did not.

5. It was concluded that different extents of labelling of the amino acids (at least those present mainly in protein) indicated that different amounts of preformed units (amino acids or peptides) were used. When an adequate supply of such units was available (particularly on diet A) pro, arg, his, met and phe were derived in this way to a greater extent than the other amino acids, but whereas synthesis of pro, arg and his increased on the low-protein diet C, that of met and phe did not. Thus met and phe may be limiting for bacterial growth on diets low in protein and high in non-protein-N.

6. Differences in the extent of labelling of other bacterial N components may be due to different turnover rates.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 197 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Bryant, M. P. (1973). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 32, 1809.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis und Volumetric Error, p. 98. London: Crosby & Lockwood.Google Scholar
Daneshvar, K. (1976). Studies with 15N of the incorporation in the rumen of non-protein nitrogen into microbial protein and nucleic acids. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Daneshvar, K., Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 52A.Google Scholar
Erfle, J. D., Sauer, F. D. & Mahadevan, S. (1977). J. Dairy Sci. 60, 1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawthorne, J. M. & Nader, C. J. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogenraad, N. J. & Hird, F. J. R. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, I. D. (1970). Aust.J. agric. Res. 21, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, S. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. R. & Emery, R. S. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, C. P., Adam, J. & Salter, D. N. (1975). Analyst, Lond. 100, 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeniman, N. P., Ben-Ghedalia, D. & Elliott, R. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeng, W. J. & Baldwin, R. L. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nader, C. J. & Walker, D. J. (1970). Appl. Microbiol. 20, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1966). Biometrics 22, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V., Norton, B. W. & Leng, R. A. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, K. A. & Bryant, M. A. (1964). J. Bact. 88, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H., Balch, C. C., Miller, E. L., Ørskov, E. R. & Smith, R. H. (1977). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. 22, 126.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N., Daneshvar, K. & Smith, R. H. (1976). Proc. 10th Int. Cong Biochem., Humburr, p. 671.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977 a). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977 b). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 54A.Google Scholar
Sauer, F. D., Erfle, J. D. & Mahadevan, S. (1975). Biochem. J. 150, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheifinger, C., Russell, N. & Chalupa, W. (1975). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 34, 902.Google Scholar
Shimbayashi, K., Obara, Y. & Yonemura, T. (1975). Jap. J. Zootech. Sci. 46, 243.Google Scholar
Skoch, S. A., Schelling, G. T., Tucker, R. E. & Mitchell, G. E. (1975). J. Anim. Sci. 40, 197.Google Scholar
Smith, R. C. & Smith, R. H. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 37, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1976). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 399 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors] Armidale: University of New England.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H., Salter, D. N., Sutton, J. D. & McAllan, A. B. (1975). In Tracer Studies on Non-protein Nitrogen for Ruminants. II. (Proc. Research Coordination Meeting, Vienna, 1974) I.A.E.A., Vienna.Google Scholar
Weller, R. A. (1957). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 10, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. P. & Dinusson, W. E. (1973). J. Anim. Sci. 36, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, D. E. & Hungate, R. E. (1967). Appl. Microbiol. 15, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar