Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:29:05.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization of food by sheep and cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. L. Blaxter  and
F. W. Wainman
K. L. Blaxter
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
F. W. Wainman
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The utilization of the energy of the same ration by sheep and by cattle was measured using three steers and three sheep in twenty-one and twentyfour experiments, respectively. Five different amounts of the ration were given to each steer and six different amounts to each sheep.

2. No differences of any magnitude were found in the percentage losses of dietary energy in faeces, in urine or as methane if comparisons were made at comparable nutritional levels. Faecal energy losses increased and urine energy losses and methane production fell with increase in feeding level, the feeding level being defined as the ratio of food intake to that required to attain an energy retention of zero.

3. The net availability of metabolizable energy for maintenance was the same in both species at 80·4%. The net availability of energy for the production of fat was 53·5 ± 1·4 in sheep and 51·4 ± 2·6 in cattle.

4. The results are discussed in relation to the effect of the amount of food given on the utilization of its energy. It is pointed out that net energy per unit of food declines with increasing intake, due firstly to a decline in digestibility and secondly to the fact that oxidative processes operative at and below maintenance are more efficient processes than is the synthesis of fat.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 1961 , pp. 419 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957 a). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1957 b). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 413.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L., Clapperton, J. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1961). Energy utilization in the ruminant. In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of the Ruminant (Lewis, D., ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Rook, J. A. F. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wainman, F. W. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratzler, J. W. & Forbes, E. B. (1940). J. Nutr. 19, 611.Google Scholar
Cipolloni, M. A., Schneider, B. H., Lucas, H. L. & Pavlech, H. M. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasemann, E. (1954). In Festschrift anlässlich des 100 Jährigen Bestehens der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchsstationen Leipzig-Möckern, vol. 2 (Nehring, K., ed.). Berlin: Deutscher Bauernverlag.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Braman, W. W. & Kriss, M. (1928). J. Agric. Res. 37, 253.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Braman, W. W. & Kriss, M. (1932). J. Agric. Res. 40, 37.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Meyer, J. H. & Lofgreen, G. P. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC., Armstrong, D. G. & Blaxter, K. L. (1958). Proc. 1st Symposium on Energy Metabolism, p. 157. Rome: European Association for Animal Production.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC., Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Armstrong, D. G. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, H. (1948). Die Wirkung reiner Kartoffelstärke auf den Fettansatz beim ausgewachsenen Schaf. Thesis ETH Zurich.Google Scholar
Kellner, O. & Köhler, Z. (1905). Landw. VersSta. 53, 1.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. & Hamilton, T. S. (1932). J. Agric. Res. 45, 163.Google Scholar
Swipp, R. W., Bratzler, J. W., James, W. H., Tillman, D. A. & Meek, D. C. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 475.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Blaxter, K. L. (1958 a). Proc. 1st Symposium on Energy Metabolism, p. 80. Rome: European Association for Animal Production.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Blaxter, K. L. (1958 b). Proc. 1st Symposium on Energy Metabolism, p. 85. Rome: European Association for Animal Production.Google Scholar
Watson, C. J., Davidson, W. M., Kennedy, J. W., Robinson, C. H. & Muir, G. W. (1948). Sci. Agric. p. 357.Google Scholar