Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:14:30.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the protein requirements of growing cattle

Effects of differing intakes of protein and energy on growth and nitrogen metabolism in young entire males

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. W. Griffiths
T. W. Griffiths
Affiliation:
The Agricultural Institute, Dunsinea, Castleknock, Co. Dublin, Irish Republic
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. Forty-eight Friesian entire male cattle, with an initial live weight (LW) of 135 kg, were used in two experiments to measure the response to increasing levels of dietary protein (9–11 and 7.5–10.5 g nitrogen x 6.25/kg LW0.75) at differing energy levels (800–900 kJ metabolizable energy (ME) kg LW0.75) over 120-d periods. Digestibility and N balance measurements were also made during the experiments. The diets, which were based on barley and soya-bean meal, were individually fed twice daily.

2. In a third experiment, similar diets were given to four similar animals fitted with intestinal cannulas, at constant energy intake but with variations in dietary protein of 7.5–13.5 g N x 6.25/kg LW0.75. Chromic oxide paper was used as a digesta marker.

3. Positive responses in LW gain and N balance to additional protein were found in both experiments but these were significant (P < 0.05) only in the second experiment and were associated with significant (P < 0.01) increases in the digestibility of modified acid-detergent fibre and ME intake.

4. Mean values, which were not significantly different between treatments, for the degradability of dietary protein in the rumen and the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis were 0.57 and 31.3 g/kg organic matter apparently digested in the rumen respectively. Corresponding values obtained by regression analysis were 0.56 and 28.2.

5. The results in general support the Agricultural Research Council (1980) proposals and suggest that undegraded dietary protein was not limiting in these experiments but that rumen-degradable protein levels were limiting on some treatments.

6. Regression analysis indicated that the mean response to additional protein (g LW gain/g N x 6.25) per kg LW was 0.52 in Expt 1 and 0.51 in Expt 2. These responses could be largely explained by increases in ME intakes.

7. Measurements of duodenal amino acid flow showed marked increases in essential amino acids (EAA) across the rumen. However, EAA flows, were not significantly increased at higher N intakes suggesting that protein per se was not limiting in these experiments.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 133 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirement of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. H. & Foldager, J. (1980). Annales de Zootechnie hors série 29, 387–391.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1967). World Review of Animal Production 3, 84–91.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Thomas, P. C. & Wait, M. K. (1982). Grass and Forage Science 37, 159–164.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coop, M. R. (1954). New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A36, 328.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., McDonald, J. & Florence, E. (1960). British Journal of Nutrition 14, 289–299.Google Scholar
Fenderson, C. L. & Bergen, W. G. (1975). Journal of Animal Science 41, 1759–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganev, G., Ørskov, E. R. & Smart, R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geay, Y. (1980). In Proceedings of the 3rd EAAP Symposium on Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, publication no. 27, pp. 803–822 [Oslage, H.J., Rohr, K., editors]. Braunschweig, Fed. Rep. Germany: European Association of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. W. (1978). Animal Production 26, 233–243.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. W. (1982). Animal Production 34, 309–314.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. W., 'Smith, F. H. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, J., Bailey, F. J. & Annison, E. F. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 25, 165–173.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, T., Møller, P. D., Madsen, J. & Hesscloholt, M. (1976). Kongelige Veterinaer og Landbohoiskoles Aarsskrift 173–192.Google Scholar
Kay, M., Bowers, H. B. & McKiddie, G. (1968). Animal Production 10, 37–42.Google Scholar
Keutmann, H. T. & Potts, J. T. (1969). Analytical Biochemistry 29, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, J. R. & Buttery, P. J. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 39, 165–179.Google Scholar
McMeniman, N. E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). British Journal of Nutrition 23, 15–23.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1973). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 32, 79–84.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L., Balch, C. C., Ørskov, E. R., Roy, J. H. B. & Smith, R. H. (1977). Proceedings of the 2nd EAAP Symposium on Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, publication no. 22, pp. 137–141. Wageningen, The Netherlands: European Association of Animal Productions.Google Scholar
Moore, S., Spackman, D. M. & Stein, W. M. (1958). Analytical Chemistry 30, 1185–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & MacLeod, N. (1983). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42, 61A.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C. & Paradine, J. (1981). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 973–981.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1982). In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production, British Society of Animal Production, Occasional Publication no. 6, pp. 99–106 [Thomson, D.J., Beever, D. E., Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames Ditton: British Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van't Klooster, A. T. & Rogers, P. A. M. (1969). Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen 11, 3–19.Google Scholar