Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:30:21.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of quality and quantity of carbohydrate and protein in the ration of the sheep on the digestibility of cellulose and other constituents of the ration, with a note on the effect of adding vitamins of the B-complex on the digestibility and retention of the nutrients of a hay ration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Head
M. J. Head
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effects of various starch and protein supplements on the digestibility of cellulose determined by the Norman-Jenkins technique and other constituents of the ration were studied in sheep.

2. The addition of small amounts of maize or potato starch or flaked maize to a ration of about 1 lb. of poor hay was associated with a depression in the digestibility of (Norman-Jenkins) cellulose.

3. When tested separately at varying levels, the addition of nearly pure maize protein, casein, white fishmeal, decorticated groundnut cake meal, urea or urea + DL-methionine, had no effect on the digestibility of cellulose, at any particular level of starch equivalent.

4. The digestibility of nitrogenous nutrients was depressed by the addition of maize starch or flaked maize to the ration except when urea was the nitrogen supplement. The depression was even greater when potato starch was added to the ration instead of maize starch.

5. The retention of nitrogen was not decreased by the addition of starch to the ration, although the digestibility of nitrogen-containing material was depressed. The retention was increased when starch was added to a ration containing casein.

6. The retention of nitrogen was poor from rations containing urea and starch, but it was slightly improved by the supplementation with 1 g. DL-methionine per day.

7. The addition of the various supplements had no marked effect on the digestibility of the dry matter or ‘other nutrients’ of the ration.

8. It is suggested that the growth of the microorganisms digesting cellulose in the rumen is not dependent on the supplementary feed nitrogen when the substrate they are digesting contains a reasonable amount of nitrogen. This amount appears to be about 1%.

9. The addition of vitamins of the B-complex to a daily ration of 1100 g. of hay did not affect the digestibility of the dry matter or nitrogencontaining substances or the retention of nitrogen by sheep.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 281 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

REFERENCES

Ann. Rep. Dep. Agric. South Africa (Veterinary Services) (1950). Fmg. S. Afr. 25, 415.Google Scholar
Armsby, H. P. & Fries, J. A. (1918). J. Agric. Res. 15, 269.Google Scholar
Baker, F., Nasr, H. & Morrice, F. (1948). J. Gen. Microbiol. 3, Proc. xv.Google Scholar
Bechdel, S. I. & Honeywell, H. E. (1927). J. Agric. Res. 35, 383.Google Scholar
Briggs, H. M., Gallup, W. D., Heller, V. G., Darlow, A. E. & Cross, F. B. (1947). Tech. Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. T 28.Google Scholar
Briggs, H. M., Heller, V. G. & Wall, J. (1940). Bienn. Rep. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. 1938–40.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Gall, L. S., Gerlaugh, P. & Bethke, R. M. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burroughs, W., Long, J., Gerlaugh, P. & Bethke, R. M. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burroughs, W., Gerlaugh, P., Edgington, B. H. & Bethke, R. M. (1949 a). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burroughs, W., Gerlaugh, P., Edgington, B. H. & Bethke, R. M. (1949 b). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. R. (1945). J. Exp. Biol. 22, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, P. V. & Wells, C. A. (1915). Bull. Ga Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 115.Google Scholar
Gall, L. S., Thomas, W. E., Loosli, J. K. & Huhtanen, C. N. (1951). J. Nutr. 44, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, T. S. (1942). J. Nutr. 23, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Mitchell, H. H. (1941). J. Nutr. 22, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henneberg, W. & Stohmann, F. (1864). Beitr. zur Begründung einer rationellen Futterung der Weiderkauer, nos. 1 and 2. Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Hoflund, S., Quin, J. I. & Clark, R. (1948). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 23, 395.Google Scholar
Hunt, C. H., Burroughs, E. W., Bethke, R. M., Schalk, A. F. & Gerlaugh, P. (1941). J. Nutr. 21, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. H., Burroughs, E. W., Bethke, R. M., Schalk, A. F. & Gerlaugh, P. (1943). J. Nutr. 25, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellner, O. (1907). Die Ernährung der Landwirtschaft. Berlin: Nutziers.Google Scholar
Kuhn, G. (1894). Landw. VersSta. 44, 470.Google Scholar
Lardinois, C. C., Mills, R. C., Elvehjem, C. A. & Hart, E. B. (1944). J. Dairy Sci. 27, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, J. B. & Smith, P. H. (1910). Ann. Rep. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. p. 82.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loosli, J. K. & Harris, L. E. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louw, J. G., Bodenstein, S. T. & Quin, J. I. (1948). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 23, 239.Google Scholar
Louw, J. G. & Van der Wath, J. G. (1943). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 18, 177.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1945). Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Markoff, J. (1911). Biochem. Z. 34, 211.Google Scholar
Markoff, J. (1913). Biochem. Z. 57, 1.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S. & Haines, W. T. (1942). J. Nutr. 23, 101.Google Scholar
Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1933). Biochem. J. 27, 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quin, J. I. (1943). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 18, 91.Google Scholar
Swift, R. W., Thacker, E. J., Black, A., Bratzler, J. W. & James, W. H. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosic, J. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, C. J., Campbell, J. A., Davidson, W. M. & Muir, G. W. (1941). Sci. Agric. 22, 250.Google Scholar
Watson, C. J., Davidson, W. M., Kennedy, J. W., Robinson, C. H. & Muir, G. W. (1949). Sci. Agric. 29, 400.Google Scholar
Watson, C. J., Kennedy, J. W., Davidson, W. M., Robinson, C. H. & Muir, G. W. (1947). Sci. Agric. 27, 4.Google Scholar
Watson, C. J., Muir, G. W., Davidson, W. M. & Dore, J. L. (1933). Sci. Agric. 13, 382.Google Scholar
Williams, P. S. (1925). J. Dairy Sci. 8, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V. J. & Moir, R. J. (1951). Aust. J. Vet. Sci. (B), 4, 377.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 48. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Zuntz, N. (1891). Pflug. Arch. ges. Physiol. 49, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuntz, N. (1913). Arb. LandwKamm. Hannover, no 34.Google Scholar