Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:45:21.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of cold exposure on feed protein degradation, microbial protein synthesis and transfer of plasma urea to the rumen of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2009

P. M. Kennedy ,
R. J. Christopherson  and
L. P. Milligan
P. M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5, Canada
R. J. Christopherson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5, Canada
L. P. Milligan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2P5, Canada
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. Three diets of barley–canula-seed (Brassica campestiris), lucerne (Medicago sativa) or chopped brome-grass (Bromus inermis) were given at intervals of 3 h to closely-shorn Suffolk wethers held at a temperature of 1–5° (cold) or 22–24° (warm). Apparent digestibility of organic matter (OM) and nitrogen was reduced by 0·08–0·05 and 0·04 units respectively for lucerne and brome-grass diets given to cold-exposed sheep, but no treatment effects on digestibility were observed for the barley–CSM diet. Measurements achieved using infusion of the digesta markers 58Co-EDTA and 103Ru-phenanthroline (103Ru-P) showed that cold exposure depressed apparent OM digestion in the stomach and intestines by 33 and 42 g/d for the lucerne diet, and 13 and 35 g/d for the brome-grass diet respectively.

2. The turnover time (h) of the l03Ru-P marker in the rumen of warm sheep was 38·9 for barley–CSM, 18·4 for lucerne, and 15·6 for brome-grass. In cold-exposed sheep, 103Ru-P turnover time (h) tended to be reduced to 32·3, 12·3 and 15·3 for the three diets, respectively. OM fermentation in the stomach was highly related to 103Ru-P turnover time for lucerne and brome-grass diets.

3. Cold exposure increased the escape of dietary N from the abomasum by 0·04 and 0·09 of dietary N intake for sheep given lucerne and brome-grass diets respectively. Dietary N degradation was closely related to 103Ru-P turnover time for lucerne, and to the proportion of large particles in rumen digesta for the brome-grass diet. Estimates of feed N degradation made by use of information on the rate of fermentation of the diet in nylon bags and 103Ru-P turnover time were consistently lower than those observed in vivo for barley–CSM and lucerne diets. Intestinal digestibility of non-ammonia N was not significantly changed by cold exposure.

4. Transfer of urea from plasma to the rumen was 1·4–2·5 g N/d for the barley–CSM and lucerne diets, but the value for brome-grass was 4·5–4·9 g N/d. Cold exposure did not affect urea transfer. The production of ammonia from feed and endogenous protein was approximately 0·66 and 0·47 g N/g N intake of barley–CSM and lucerne diets, with no effect of cold exposure. Cold exposure reduced the value from 0·57 to 0·38 for brome-grass.

5. The results are compared with those obtained previously with pelleted hay, and the importance of large particle breakdown in the prediction of OM and N fermentation using nylon bags is discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 521 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Bryant, A. M. & Robinson, I. M. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 a). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 b). In Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants [McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Griffiths, D. A. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H. W., Christopherson, R. J. & Young, B. A. (1979). Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, C. J. F. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Christopherson, R. J. & Milligan, L. P. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Clarke, R. T. J. & Milligan, L. P. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 46, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1980 a). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 60, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1980 b). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 60, 1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, J. R. & Hogan, J. P. (1972). Aust. J. agric. Res. 23, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. & Kirsch, E. (1957). Am. J. clin. Path. 28, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Aitchison, E. M. (1981). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 96, 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Miller, E. L. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, G. & Jones, J. R. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudgal, V. D., Dixon, R. M., Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1982). J. Anim. Sci. (In the Press).Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (1975). Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 92, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism vol. 1, p. 71 [Munro, H. N. & Allison, J. B., editors]. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilgrim, A. F., Gray, F. V., Weller, R. A. & Belling, C. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. M. (1981). Aust. J. agric. Res. 32, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, R. A. & Clark, R. E. (1972). Tracer Methods for in vivo Kinetics. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stouthamer, A. H. & Bettenhaussen, C. W. (1973). Biochim. biophys. Acta 301, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotopes 22, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Coelho da Silva, J. F. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uden, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 31, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, R. & Christopherson, R. J. (1976). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56, 699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, B. A. & Degen, A. A. (1981). In Environmental Aspects of Housing for Animal Production [Clark, J. A., editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Young, B. A., Kerrigan, B. & Christopherson, R. J. (1975). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 55, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar