Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:36:58.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake and digestion of formaldehyde-treated red clover silages offered to calves either alone or with a urea supplement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. G. Kaiser ,
D. F. Osbourn  and
P. England
A. G. Kaiser
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
P. England
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a 3 × 3 latin-square design experiment, 12 British Friesian steer calves with rumen cannulae were offered three red clover silages to appetite, either alone or with a urea supplement of 18.9 g/kg total dietary dry matter (D.M.). The silages were prepared from a second cut of red clover using additives of 2·11 formic acid/t fresh crop together with formaldehyde at 0, 31 or 123 g/kg crude protein (CP) in the crop.

The control silage was well preserved, as indicated by a low content of volatile fatty acids and ammonia N. Formaldehyde treatment generally restricted silage fermentation, although there was an increase in the content of butyric acid at the intermediate level of application, and an increase in 2, 3-butanediol content at the high level of application. A decline in ammonia-N content and an increase in insoluble-N content, with increasing level of formaldehyde application, indicated that formaldehyde had been effective in reducing protein degradation in the silages.

Formaldehyde treatment depressed intake, the apparent digestibility of D.M., organic matter (OM), N, cellulose and energy, and N retention, the effect being particularly evident at the high level of application. Behavioural observations showed an increase in eating time on the formaldehyde-treated silages. Urea supplementation increased intake of the formaldehyde-treated silages, but did not influence intake of the control silage, and increased N retention on all silage diets. Apart from an improvement in apparent N digestibility, urea supplementation did not influence the digestibility of other dietary components.

Within the rumen, formaldehyde treatment reduced ammonia-N concentration and the molar proportions of propionate and butyrate, and increased the molar proportion of acetate. The rate of D.M. and cellulose disappearance from treatment silages suspended in the rumen in nylon bags was reduced by formaldehyde treatment, the effect being most evident at the high level of formaldehyde application. A similar effect on rate of D.M. disappearance was observed when the control silage was placed in nylon bags, indicating that the adverse effect of formaldehyde was probably due to an effect on the rumen environment. Urea supplementation increased rumen ammonia-N concentrations, although this effect was not as great on the high formaldehyde silage, and increased the rate of D.M. and cellulose disappearance from silage in nylon bags.

It appears that the lower intake and the poorer utilization of dietary N on the high formaldehyde silage may have been due to a reduction in the rate of digestion within the rumen. While there was some response to urea supplementation, it could not restore the apparent rate of digestion in the rumen to levels observed on the control diet. Hence, factors other than the supply of rumen-degradable N in the diet must have been responsible for the depression of digestion within the rumen.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 357 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 2 Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Arnould, R., Vanbelle, M., Joassart, J. M., Pastor, C. & Homem De Carvalho, J. L. (1978). Le formaldehydé utilisé comme conservateur d'ensilage. 2. Influence sur les fermentations au niveau du rumen chez le mouton. Revue de I'Agriculture 31, 499–513.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Fennessy, P. F. (1973). Effect of formaldehyde treatment on the chemical composition and nutritive value of silage. 2. Digestibility of the silages and the chemical composition of rumen fluid in sheep supplemented or not supplemented with D-L methionine. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 59–63.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. & Thomson, D. J. (1977). The potential of protected proteins in ruminant nutrition. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, No. 11, University of Nottingham (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 66–82. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). The digestion by sheep of silage made with and without the addition of formaldehyde. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. C. & Valentine, S. C. (1972). Formaldehyde as a silage additive. 1. The chemical composition and nutritive value of frozen lucerne, lucerne silage and formaldehyde-treated lucerne silage. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 1093–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, E. & Edwards, R. A. (1977). Feeding value of wilted silages made using formic acid, formaldehyde and propionic acid. Animal Production 25, 71–81.Google Scholar
Ewart, J. M. (1974). Continuous in vitro rumen systems. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 125–133.Google Scholar
Henderickx, H. K. (1976). Quantitative aspects of the use of non-protein nitrogen in ruminant feeding. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Tayler, J. C., Gibbs, B. G. & England, P. (1981). The effects of the quantity of formaldehyde applied at ensiling and of urea supplementation at feeding on the utilization of red clover by young growing cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Terry, R. A. & Dhanoa, M. S. (1981). Fermentation patterns in ryegrass, red clover and maize silages treated with formaldehyde additives at ensiling. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R., Thomas, C. & Haines, M. J. (1977). The effect of urea on the voluntary intake by calves of silages preserved with formaldehyde and formic acid. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 171–176.Google Scholar
Okorie, A. U., Buttery, P. J. & Lewis, D. (1977). Ammonia concentration and protein synthesis in the rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 38A.Google ScholarPubMed
Salter, D. N., Daneshvar, K. & Smith, R. H. (1979). The origin of nitrogen incorporated into compounds in the rumen bacteria of steers given protein and urea-containing diets. British Journal of Nutrition 41, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satter, L. D. & Roffler, R. E. (1975). Nitrogen requirements and utilization in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 58, 1219–1237.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Evans, R. T. & Beever, D. E. (1979). The effect of formaldehyde treatment before ensiling on the digestion of wilted grass silage by sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 42, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrjälä, L., Saloniemi, H. & Laalahti, L. (1976). Composition and volume of the rumen microbiota of sheep fed on grass silage with different sucrose, starch and cellulose supplements. Journal of the Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland 48, 138–153.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. & Wilkins, R. J. (1976). Conserved forage – complement or competitor to concentrates. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), pp. 343–364. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). The digestion by cattle of grass silages made with formic acid and formic acid/formaldehyde. British Journal of Nutrition (in the Press).Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., Reid, C. S. W. & Bauchop, T. (1975). Structure and function of the large intestine of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 119–133. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. & Cook, J. E. (1975). Restriction of fermentation during ensilage: the nutritive value of silages made with the addition of formaldehyde. Proceedings of the 12th International Grassland Congress, Moscow, 3, pp. 674–690.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Wilson, R. F. & Barry, T. N. (1976). Factors affecting the nutritive value of silage. Outlook on Agriculture 9, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. F. & Wilkins, R. J. (1978). Paraformaldehyde as a silage additive. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 23–29.Google Scholar
Wing, P. D., Goodrich, R. D., Linn, J. G. & Meiske, J. C. (1976). Effect of chemical additives on the preservation and digestibility of alfalfa haylage. Journal of Animal Science 42, 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar