Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:54:26.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of monensin or formaldehyde to control the digestion of the nitrogenous constituents of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca) in the rumen of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. E. Beever ,
H. R. Losada ,
D. L. Gale ,
M. C. Spooner  and
M. S. Dhanoa
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
H. R. Losada
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. L. Gale
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. C. Spooner
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. S. Dhanoa
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
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. Pure swards of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca) were harvested daily as primary growth (grass in May, clover in June) or regrowths (clover only in July) and offered, in the long form, to growing cattle at a feeding rate of 22 g dry matter/kg live weight. With each forage, two treatments were compared with the untreated forage (C): monensin (100 g active ingredient/kg, 250 mg/d) addition to the rumen (treatment M) or formaldehyde (30 g/kg crude protein (nitrogen x 6.25)) application to the diet (treatment F). The objective of the experiment was to examine means of manipulating N metabolism in the rumen and the duodenal non-ammonia-N (NAN) supply derived from fresh forages.

2. The apparent digestion of ingested organic matter (g/kg) in the rumen was unaffected by treatment M (C 509, M 497) but was significantly (P < 0.01) reduced by treatment F (443). The extent of cellulose digestion in the rumen was not affected by any of the treatments imposed and the changes in organic matter digestion were due mainly to effects on N digestion and rumen microbial synthesis. On the untreated diets, duodenal NAN supply averaged 0.74 g/g N intake and treatment M caused a small but non-significant increase (M 0.79 g/g N intake). In contrast, the effect of treatment F was much larger (F 0.91 g/g N intake; P < 0.01). These differences were accompanied by corresponding reductions in rumen NH3 concentrations (mg/l; C 350, M 310, F 220; P < 0.001).

3. Of the increased flow of NAN to the small intestine observed on the white clover only diets with treatment F, 0.70 was accounted for by an increased net synthesis of microbial N, while treatment M had no effect on microbial N synthesis and a marginal reduction in feed N degradability only with the regrowth white clover diet. Treatment F reduced feed N degradability to a limited extent on both clover diets (C 0.82, M 0.81, F 0.77). No corresponding measurements were made for the ryegrass diets.

4. It is concluded that the extensive loss of N from the reticulo-rumen of cattle fed on fresh forages can be reduced by the use of agents to reduce protein solubility. However, the study demonstrated that treatment F may in some circumstances increase N supply to the small intestine more through enhancing microbial N synthesis within the rumen than through increasing the passage of undegraded feed N to the small intestine. The use of monensin, to manipulate proteolytic or deaminative activity in the rumen, or both, was not found to confer any beneficial effects on duodenal-NAN supply.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Allen, J. D. & Harrison, D. G. (1979). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 38, 32A.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R., Davis, S. R. & Redekopp, C. (1982). In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production. Occasional publication of the British Society of Animal Production no. 6, pp. 146–148 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Thames Ditton: British Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Cammell, S. B. & France, J. (1986 b). British Journal of Nutrition 56, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978 a). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Losada, H. R., Cammell, S. B., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1986 a). British Journal of Nutrition 56, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Losada, H. R., Gale, D. L. & Spooner, M. C. (1984). Animal Production 38, 538.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. & Siddons, R. C. (1986). In Control of Digestion and Metabolism of Ruminants, pp. 479–497 [Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A., editors]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Wallace, A. S. (1978 b). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Cammell, S. B. (1976). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 26, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Ulyatt, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Spooner, M. C. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L., Dawes, S. T., Colebrook, W. F. & James, K. J. (1979). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Australia 4, 126.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, M. J., Dhanoa, M. S. & Spooner, M. C. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 325–347. [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinius, D. A., Simpson, M. E. & Marsh, P. B. (1976). Journal of Animal Science 42, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. T., Hayes, D. G. & Beever, D. E. (1981 a). Laboratory Practice 30, 591–593.Google Scholar
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981 b). Laboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 277–291. [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 448–464 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Gehrke, G. W., Kaiser, F. E. & Ussary, J. P. (1968). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 51, 200–211.Google Scholar
Harrop, C. J. F. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 83, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1969). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellaway, R. C., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Austin, A. R., Cammell, S. B. & Elderfield, M. L. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poos, M. I., Hanson, T. L. & Klopfenstein, T. J. (1979). Journal of Animal Science 48, 1516–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Arricastres, C., Gale, D. L. & Beever, D. E. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Nolan, J. V. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 44, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symonds, H. L., Mather, D. L. & Collis, K. A. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1981). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 67A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vérité, R., Remond, B. & Journet, M. (1984). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, Suppl., 328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar