Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T10:36:34.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of urea on the rumen digestion in sheep of straw and grain fractions from whole crop wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

D I Givens ,
A R Moss ,
A H Adamson  and
A Reeve
D I Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit, Stratford on Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
A R Moss
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit, Stratford on Avon, CV37 9RQ, UK
A H Adamson
Affiliation:
ADAS Nutrition Chemistry Department, Bristol, BS10 6NJ, UK
A Reeve
Affiliation:
ICI Nutrition, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 2UP
Get access

Extract

There has been Increased Interest 1n the making and feeding of whole-crop wheat (WCW) 1n recent years. WCW provides an alternative source of forage to grass silage, higher dry matter (DM) yields than grass and an alternative means of straw disposal. Conservation is often based on the Incorporation of urea which is hydrolysed to ammonia which preserves the crop without the losses associated with fermentation. Ørskov et al (19B3) have shown that urea applied to whole crop barley and oats at 60gkg-1 DM produced adequate crop preservation.

Since WCW is essentially a two component diet consisting of cell wall-rich straw and starch-rich grains, it is essential to understand the digestion characteristics of each. In addition, since urea has been extensively used to upgrade straws (eg Jayasurlya and Pearce, 1983; Williams et al, 1984) any upgrading effect of urea on WCW needs confirming.

Type
Rumen Metabolism
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1992 , March 1992 , pp. 205
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

Castlejon, M and Leaver, J D (1990). Anim. Prod. 50, 584.(Abs)Google Scholar
Everlngton, J M and Givens, D I (1988). Anim. Prod. 46, 508.(Abs).Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, M C N and Pearce, G R (1983). Anim. Feed Sc1. Technol. 8, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E R and McDonald, I (1979). J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E R, Reid, G W, Holland, S M, Tait, C A G and Lee, N H (1983. Anim. Feed Sc1. Technol. 8, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E R, Kay, M and Re1d, G W (1987). In: Evaluation of Straw in Ruminant Feeding, Elsevier, Barking, pp 155–162.Google Scholar