Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T22:34:46.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Utilization of the energy and protein of the same diet by cattle of different ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. L. Blaxter
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
J. L. Clapperton
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
F. W. Wainman
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr

Extract

1. Five experiments, each with three steers, were made in which the same diet was given in three different amounts and energy and N metabolism measured. Fasting metabolism was also determined in each experiment. The experiments were made when the steers were 15, 31, 35, 46 and 81 weeks of age.

2. Age of animal had no effect on the apparent digestibility of the diet, methane production and urine energy loss from or on the metabolizable energy of the diet. The efficiency with which the metabolizable energy of the diet was used to maintain the animals and to promote energy retention by them was also unaffected by their age. The determined efficiencies were those to be expected from the results obtained in experiments with mature ruminants.

3. Retention of N was more efficient in the younger animals, and the composition of the gains showed that protein energy accounted for 30.5% of the total energy retained in the 15-week-old animals and 24.8 % in the animals 81 weeks of age.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

REFERENCES

Blaxter, K. L., Clapperton, J. & Wainman, F. W. (1966). Brit. J. Nutrit. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Gaston, H. J., Shillam, K. W. G., Thompson, S. Y., Stobo, I. J. F. & Greatorex, J. C. (1964). Brit. J. Nutrit. 18, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar