Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:20:02.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilization of low-quality roughage by Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle

2. The effect of rumen-degradable nitrogen and sulphur on voluntary food intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

R. A. Hunter  and
B. D. Siebert
R. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Tropical Animal Science, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, Rockhampton, Queensland 4701, Australia
B. D. Siebert
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Tropical Animal Science, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, Rockhampton, Queensland 4701, 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. In a number of experiments voluntary food intake of three low-quality roughages, either alone or supplemented with rumen-degradable nitrogen and sulphur and minerals, was measured in Brahman (Bos indicus) and Hereford (Bos taurus) steers. The chaffed hays were Spear grass (Heteropogon conform) (6.2 g N/kg organic matter (OM)), Pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) (7.9 g N/kg OM), and Pangola grass (12.0 g N/kg OM). Rumen characteristics relating to rate of fluid outflow from the rumen were also determined.

2. There was no significant difference between breeds in the dry-matter intakes of the unsupplemented diets which ranged from 11.3 to 17.8 g/kg body-weight (BW) by Herefords and from 11.8 to 16.1 g/kg BW by Brahmans.

3. Supplementation of Spear grass with N and S significantly (P < 0.05) increased intake by Herefords (24%) but not by Brahmans. When the lower-N Pangola grass was supplemented there was a significant increase in intake by both breeds with the magnitude of the response in Herefords (42%) (P < 0.001) being greater than that in Brahmans (15%) (P < 0.05). The intakes of both the supplemented Spear grass and the lower-N Pangola diets were significantly (P < 0.05) greater by Herefords than Brahmans. There was no breed difference in intake when the higher-N Pangola grass was supplemented. Both breeds recorded an 8% intake response to supplementation, although the increase was only significant (P < 0.05) in Herefords.

4. The mean retention time of fluid in the rumen on the unsupplemented Pangola grass diet of lower N content was 12.7 h in Brahmans compared with 17.5 h in Herefords (P < 0.01). When the higher-N Pangola was fed, both alone and supplemented, the mean retention times were similar on both diets (10.5 and 9.9 h for Herefords; 9.5 and 8.1 h for Brahmans for unsupplemented and supplemented diets respectively).

5. Plasma urea concentrations were higher in Brahmans than in Herefords on all diets. Rumen ammonia concentrations were significantly (P < 0.001) higher in Brahmans than Herefords when the lower-N Pangola grass diet was unsupplemented.

6. The intakes and the variable intake responses to supplementation between breeds and diets are discussed in relation to a number of animal and dietary factors.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 649 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agriculture Bureaux.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B. & Tribe, D. E. (1963). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1969). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 1189–1195.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1977). Animal Production 25, 343–358.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. A. & Siebert, B. D. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 1037–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. A. & Siebert, B. D. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 637–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 43, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logsdon, E. E. (1960). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 87, 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. & Miller, H. (1965). Clinical Chemistry 11, 624–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mottershead, B. E. (1971). Laboratory Practice 20, 483–491.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. F. & Minson, D. J. (1972). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. (1969). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 789–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar