Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T04:44:42.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding trials with ammoniated molasses in the diet of young dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. Bartlett  and
W. H. Broster
S. Bartlett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Ammoniated invert molasses when used as a food for yearling dairy cattle proved toxic in doses of 1 lb. per day.

2. When ammoniated invert molasses had been acidified with phosphoric acid the toxicity was markedly reduced but not entirely eliminated. Ammoniated molasses acidified with acetic acid produced no toxic effects but the live-weight responses of yearling cattle was inferior to a ration markedly deficient in protein. The poor responses may have been partially due to the unpalatability of the ammoniated molasses.

3. The ammoniated molasses used in experiment 1 did not produce toxic symptoms in rats but it did result in reduced food consumption and poor growth.

4. The ammoniated molasses treated with acetic acid, when included at the rate of 10% of the diet of guinea-pigs, depressed appetite and caused toxic effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1958 , pp. 60 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Bruce, H. M. & Parkes, A. S. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb., 45, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. F., Wasserman, R. H., Loosli, J. K. & Grippin, C. H. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folley, S. J., Ikin, E. W., Kon, S. K. & Scott Watson, H. M. (1938). Biochem. J. 32, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. C., Baker, F. H., Richardson, D., Underbjerg, G. K. L. & Cox, R. F. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 1210.Google Scholar
Joblin, A. D. H., Howes, J. R. & Wiggins, L. F. (1954). Meeting British West Indies Sugar Technologists, Paper 25/54.Google Scholar
Knodt, C. B., Williams, J. B. & Brumbaugh, J. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodt, C. B., Williams, J. B. & Brumbaugh, J. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, R. & Graham, J. R. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 770.Google Scholar
McCall, R. & Graham, J. R. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaught, M. L. & Smith, J. A. B. (1947). Nutrit. Abstr. Rev. 17, 18.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, A. D. & Kidwell, J. F. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, A. D. & Swift, R. W. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 777.Google Scholar