Effect of undegradable intake protein supplementation on urea kinetics and microbial use of recycled urea in steers consuming low-quality forage

38Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We evaluated the effect of undegradable intake protein (UIP) on urea kinetics and microbial incorporation of urea-N in ruminally and duodenally fistulated steers (n 4; 319 kg) provided ad libitum access to grass hay in a 4×4 Latin square. Casein was continuously infused abomasally in amounts of 0, 62, 124 and 186 mg N/kg body weight per d to simulate provision of UIP. Periods were 13 d long with 7 d for adaptation and 6 d for collection. Jugular infusion of [15N N15]urea followed by determination of urinary enrichment of [15N15N]urea and [14N15N] urea was used to measure urea kinetics. Forage and N intake increased (quadratic, P<0.02) with increasing UIP. Urea synthesis was 27.1, 49.9, 82.2 and 85.8 g urea-N/d for 0, 62, 124 and 186 diets, respectively (linear, P<0.01). The proportion of urea synthesis that entered the gastrointestinal tract was 0.96 for steers receiving no UIP and decreased linearly (P=0.05) to a low of 0.89 for steers receiving 186. The amount of urea entering the gastrointestinal tract was least for 0 (26.3) and increased (linear, P<0.01) to 48.7, 77.2 and 76.6 g urea-N/d for 62, 124 and 186 diets, respectively. Microbial incorporation of recycled urea-N increased quadratically (P=0.04) from 13.9 for 0 to 47.7 g N/d for 124. The proportion of microbial N derived from recycled urea increased (quadratic, P=0.05) from 0.31 to 0.58 between 0 and 124 and dropped to 0.44 for 186 mg N/kg body weight per d. UIP increased intake of hay and provided a N source for ruminal microbes via urea recycling.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wickersham, T. A., Titgemeyer, E. C., Cochran, R. C., & Wickersham, E. E. (2009). Effect of undegradable intake protein supplementation on urea kinetics and microbial use of recycled urea in steers consuming low-quality forage. British Journal of Nutrition, 101(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114508995672

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free