Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T07:01:34.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion of concentrates in sheep

5.* The effect of adding fish meal and urea together to cereal diets on protein digestion and utilization by young sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

E. R. Orskov ,
C. Fraser ,
I. McDonald  and
R. I. Smart
E. R. Orskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
I. McDonald
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. I. Smart
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. In one experiment according to a latin square design five sheep with fistulas in the abomasum and terminal ileum were given diets based on barley. Five diets were compared, one without protein supplementation, two with different levels of fish meal and two with combinations of fish meal and urea.

2. The amount of non-ammonia crude protein passing through the abomasum and removed from the small intestine increased linearly with fish-meal supplementation but the only effect of supplementation with urea was to increase the crude protein removed before the abomasum. It was concluded that urea did not appear to have a sparing effect on the degradation of dietary protein.

3. Seventy-eight lambs were used in a second experiment. They were given thirteen diets made up from a basal barley diet and different combinations of fish meal and urea.

4. Digestibility of organic matter and efficiency of food conversion increased with each level of fish-meal supplementation. The effects of urea supplementation on organic matter digestibility and efficiency of food conversion depended upon the level of fish meal in the diet and at the highest level of fish-meal supplementation there were no effects.

5. The maximum digestibility of organic matter (about 820 g/kg) could be achieved both with urea alone and fish meal alone and was attained at a lower level of nitrogen in the diet with urea. In contrast, the maximum food conversion efficiency that could be achieved with a fish-meal supplement was much greater than could be obtained with a supplement of urea alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1974 , pp. 89 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. P. & Ørskov, E. R. (1970). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 4th ed. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Davidson, I., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 95, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Aust. J. Sci. 30, 215.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes p. 315. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, K., Bailey, F. J. & Annison, E. F. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, F. & Zelter, S. Z. (1970). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 10, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieson, J. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 30A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Fraser, C. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 24A.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 a). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. K., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971 b). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1972 a). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, E. A., de Wet, P. J. & Burger, W. J. (1972 b). Agroanimalia 4, 35.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & Clare, N. T. (1963). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 6, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar