Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:43:55.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of nitrogen and energy supplements on intake and digestion of oat straw by non-lactating dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. G. Fadel ,
P. Udén  and
P. H. Robinson
J. G. Fadel
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
P. Udén
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
P. H. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2P5, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Urea with molasses and starch, casein, and fish meal with maize gluten meal were compared with a urea control as different nitrogen and energy sources in straw diets fed ad libitum to four mature non-lactating Swedish Red and White cows in a 4 × 4 latinsquare design. Cows fed fish meal with maize gluten meal had increased neutral detergent (ND) fibre intake, digestibility, and total digestion compared with those fed the urea control. When fed casein, cows tended to have higher ND fibre intake, lower ND fibre digestibility, and higher total ND fibre digestion than the urea control. Cows fed urea with molasses and starch had the same ND fibre intake, lower ND fibre digestibility, and lower total ND fibre digestion than the control. Treatments had no influence on rumen pH, rumen in sacco ND fibre kinetics, rumen residence times and median faecal particle size. Rumen ammonia concentrations were lower for the urea with molasses and starch as well as for the fish meal with maize gluten meal treatments when compared with the urea control. Rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations for supplemented diets were either unchanged or higher than for the control diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 503 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, M. S., Van Soest, P. J. & Robertson, J. B. (1984). A comparison of particle size methodologies and statistical treatments. In Techniques in Particle Size Analysis of Feed and Digesta in Ruminants. Canadian Society of Animal Science, Occasional publication no. 1, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Anon. (1982). SAS User's Guide; Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Association of Offical Analytical Chemists (1980). Official Methods of Analysis, 13th edn, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 3. The effect of urea on the voluntary intake of oat straw. British Journal of Nutrition 16, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of participate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, J. B. (1985). Rape and sunflower seed meals as supplements for sheep fed on oat straw. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, O. J. & Clark, V. A. (1974). Applied Statistics: Analysis of Variance and Regression. A volume in the Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics (ed. Bradley, R. A., Hunter, J. S., Kendall, D. G. and Watson, G. S.). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Nutritional status and intake regulation in sheep. II. The influence of sustained duodenal infusions of casein or urea upon voluntary intake of non-protein roughages by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 451—462.Google Scholar
Fadel, J. G. (1984). Development of mathematical techniques to model ruminant fiber digestion systems. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Goetsch, A. L. & Owens, F. N. (1985). Effects of sampling site on passage rate estimates in heifers fed alfalfa hay or a high concentrate diet. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 914–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, U. (1980). Feeding routines for dairy cows. Ph.D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kempton, T. J. & Leng, R. A. (1979). Protein nutrition of growing lambs. 1. Response in growth and rumen function to supplementation of a low-protein-cellulosic diet with either urea, casein or formaldehyde-treated casein. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Law, A. M. & Kelton, W. D. (1982). Simulation, Modeling and Analysis. Chapter 5. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Logsdon, E. E. (1960). A method for determination of ammonia in biological materials on the Auto-Analyzer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 87, 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrae, J. C., Smith, J. S., Dewey, P. J. S., Brewer, A. C., Brown, D. S. & Walker, A. (1985). The efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy and apparent absorption of amino acids in sheep given Spring- and Autumn-harvested dried grass. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maeng, W. J., Van Nevel, C. J., Baldwin, R. L. & Morris, J. G. (1976). Rumen microbial growth rates and yields: effects of amino acids and proteins. Journal of Dairy Science 59, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathison, G. W., Hardin, R. T. & Beck, B. E. (1981). Supplement protein, magnesium and selenium plus vitamin E for beef cows fed straw diets in the winter. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, J.H., Wehrly, T. E. & Gerald, K. B. (1983). The Statistical Analysis of Pharmaco Kinetic Data. In Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Tracer Kinetics and Physiologic Modeling, Vol. 48, Proceedings, St Louis, 1983 (ed. Lambrecht, R. M. and Rescigno, A.) pp. 1–58. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, J. D., Robinson, P. H., Sniffen, C. J. & Allen, M. S. (1984). A gastro-intestinal tract simulation model of digesta flow in ruminants. In Techniques in Particle Size Analysis of Feed and Digesta in Ruminants. Canadian Society of Animal Science Occasional publication no. 1, pp. 102–122.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1982). Protein Nutrition in Ruminants, p. 73. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Lucas, H. L. (1962). Change-Over Designs. Technical Bulletin No. 147. North Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station and United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Potter, E. L. & Dehority, B. A. (1973). Effects of dietary change of rumen inoculation upon subsequent daily digestibility in the ovine. Journal of Animal Science 37, 1408–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, R. G., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1980). Utilization of low quality roughage: effects of urea and protein supplements of differing solubility on digesta flows, intake and growth rate of cattle eating oaten chaff. British Journal of Nutrition 44, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, C. S. W. (1965). Quantitative studies of digestion in the reticulo-rumen. I. Total removal and return of digesta for quantitative sampling in studies of digestion in the reticulo-rumen of cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society Animal Production 25, 65–84.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1981). The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Food, (ed. James, W. P. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. & Sniffen, C. J. (1983). Comparison of rumen, duodenal, and fecal sampling sites to estimate rumen turnover rate of markers in cows. Journal of Dairy Science Supplement 1, 187.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Tamminga, S. & Van Vuuren, A. M. (1986). Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate of rumen fermentation in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 15, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods, 7th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Thonney, M. L., Palhof, B. A., De Carlo, M. R., Ross, D. A., Firth, N. L., Quaas, R. L., Perosio, D. J., Duhaime, D. J., Rollins, S. R. & Nour, A. Y. M. (1985). Sources of variation of dry matter digestibility measured by the acid insoluble ash marker. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towne, G., Nagaraja, T. G., Owensby, C. & Harmon, D. (1986). Ruminal evacuation's effect on microbial activity and ruminal function. Journal of Animal Science 62, 783–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P. & Van Soest, P. J. (1984). Investigations of the nylon bag technique and a comparison of the fermentation in heifers, sheep, ponies and rabbits. Journal of Animal Science 58, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Keulen, J. & Young, B. A. (1977). Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar