Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:55:36.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative retentions of the nitrogen of urea and groundnut in isoenergenetic diets for growing heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. A. Bines  and
C. C. Balch
J. A. Bines
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
C. C. Balch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
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. Two experiments were conducted to compare the effect on nitrogen retention of three dietary levels of N given either as groundnut or as urea to growing heifers. Additions of maize starch or dextrose were made to the diets to equalize the inputs of digestible energy within and between experiments.

2. In the first experiment, in which the maximum level of N supplementation was 69·0 g/d, the response to additional N was linear, and was identical for both sources of N. Differences in faecal N between treatments were small; differences in urinary N were large and were entirely attributable to level of N intake.

3. In the second experiment, the maximum level of N supplementation was raised to 103·3 g/d. The response to additional N was again linear and identical for both sources of N; however, for a given level of N input, the amount of N retained was 4·6 g less than in Expt 1. This reduction in N retention may have been due to the change in the proportion of digestible energy derived from the fibrous components of the ration.

4. Live-weight changes calculated from the observed N retentions have been compared with published responses to the inputs of N and energy used in these experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 1973 , pp. 457 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2 Ruminants. London: Agricltural Research Council.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis, 10th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1967). Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 3, 84.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Bines, J. A. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 14A.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 41, 98.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Sutton, J. D. & Smith, R. H. (1968). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy, p. 70.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J. & Balch, C. C. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60, 393.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J., Smith, T. & Johnson, V. W. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics II, 1.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. C., Reed, W. D. C. & Topps, J. H. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 519.Google Scholar
Helmer, L. G. & Bartley, E. E. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 25.Google Scholar
Loosli, J. K. & McDonald, I. W. (1968). F.A.O. agric. Stud. no. 75.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 333.Google Scholar