TECHNlc:AL BULLETIN 74 ISSN omo - 2:11:;

DIGESTIBILITY OF TRITICALE AND BARLEY GRAINS GIVEN TO SHEEP WHOLE, GROUND OR TREATED WITH UREA

M. Hadjipanayiotou and E. Georghiades

,.( I' ,::­

-( :.. .: "7

i~:- ~

"\\ . . . /:' ......'/ ~

"1\ ­, .- ..

_. :,. 1.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NICOSfA ('YPRlIS

DF:CF.:\1RER 191<.'

DIGESTIBILITY OF TRITICALE AND BARLEY GRAINS GIVEN TO SHEEP WHOLE, GROUND OR TREATED WITH UREA

M. Hadjipanayiotou and E. Georghiades

SUMMARY

Aoparent digestion coefficients of triticale (TG) and Athenais barley (AG) grains fed whole or ground were de­termined. [n a second experiment, digestion coefficients of untreated (C). urea sprayed (US) or urea sprayed and stored (USS) grains were determined. [n both trials the animals were offered a basic diet (400 g concentrate + 200 g barley straw. as fed) of known digestibility and 400 g of the ingredient on test: Grinding did not improve the dry mat­ter (DM) digestibility of the whole diet (ground grains 76%. whole grains 76.2%) or that of the ingredient on test (ground grains 84.8%, whole grains 85.7%). Rumen fermentation pattern. rumen pH (ground grains 6.5. whole grains 6.5) and NHJ-N concentration (ground grains 126. whole grains 188 mgll)·were also similar. No significant dif­ferences were found in DM digestibility between barley and triticale grains (expt. I:AG &4.2%. TG 86.J%; expt. 2:AG 86.6%, TG 89.5%). The addition of urea improved dry matter digestibility (C 85.3%. US 906%). Storage of urea-sprayed grains did not improve digestibility (US 906%. USS 912%) Feeding urea-treated grains increased rumen-NHJ concentration (C 174. US 450. USS J60 mgl!) but there were no differences among .treatments for rumen fermentation pattern or rumen pH.

lNTRODUCTION ground barley and triticale grains fed to sheep, and of whole grains sprayed with urea and stored. Furth­

Grinding of cereal grains has been practised ermore, rumen metabolites in. sheep were widely in order to ensure proper mixing and diges­ determined. tion. Q>rskov (1979) reported that any processing of grain given to sheep and goats is likely to be of no value. On the other hand, Vipond et al. (1980) re­ported that barley, but not oats, should be rolled for ewes. <;t>rskov, Fraser and MacHattie (1974) using early-weaned lambs found higher digestion coeffi­ MATERIALS AND METHODS cients with whole barley, oats and maize than with :>

ground grains, but the opposite was observed with Experiment 1 wheat grain. Furthermore, Berger, Anderson and Fahey (1981) stated that grain processing improved Sixteen Chios wether sheep (mean liveweight 50 utilization of cereal grains fed in high-concentrate kg and age 24 months) were used. The animals were finishing diets. This improvement resulted from the allocated to four treatment diets in a completely increased susceptibility of the starchy portion of the random design' with 2x2 factorial arrangement of kernel to microbial attack. treatments. Grain barley (variety Athenais) or

triticale (line Tel, MIA-X2148-5N-2M-3Y-2M-OY) Extensive work has shown benefits from treating comprised one qualitative factor and processing

low-quality roughages with anhydrous ammonia (whole or ground grain) the other. The animals (Kernan at a!., 1977), or urea ,(Hadjipanayiotou, were housed in metabolism crates designed for the 1982). Furthermore, dry, or organic, matter digesti­ separate collection of urine and faeces. All animals bility coefficients were 8 to 10 units higher in am­ were given a basic ration for a period of 21 days. moniated barley than in whole, untreated or The first 14 days served as adaptation period and ground, grains (Laksesvela and Slagsvold, 1980). the other seven as urine and faecal collection However, Saenger et a!. (1981) found that ammonia period. The basic ration (as fed basis) consisted of treatment had no effect on the digestibility of high 400 g of a concentrate mixture and 200 g barley moisture com, and that the nitrogen added as am­ straw per animal per day. monia was utilized as efficiently as urea.

The concentrate mixture consisted of 460 kg bar­The present trials were undertaken to determine ley grain, 308kg sorghum grain, 164 kg soybean

and compare digestion coefficients of whole or meal, 50 kg wheat bran,S kg dicalcium phosphate,

I() kg limestone and 3 kg sodium chloride. A minerai-vitamin mixture was added to supply 6000 [ U. vitamin A. 1000 I.U. vitamin 0,,8.5 I.U. vita­min -. ~S mg Mn. 1.75 mg I. 45 mg :In, 30 mg Fe, 2 mg Co and (iO mg Mg per kg of concentrate mixture. Following the measurement of digestion coefficients of thc basic diet. the ingredients on test were added (.fOO g/head/day) to the basic ration and a difference method (McDonald. Edwards and Greenhalgh. 1973) was used to calculate digestion coefficients of the grains on test. The ingredient on test was added to the basic ration for a period of 17 days. The first 10 days served as adaptation period and the last 7 days as faecal and urine collection period. Grains on test were grown under rainfed conditions. rndividual feed intake was recorded daily. The animals had free access to water. During the collection period 20C7, of the daily output of faeces and urine was stored at-20('C to provide a bulk sample at the end of the trial. Representative samples of faeces were homogenized with water before being analyzed for total nitrogen (Macro-Kjeldahl procedure). Other chemical analyses on feeds and faeces were carried out on dried (550<:::) samples, ground to pass a 1mm sieve. using methods of the A.O.A.C. (1975). Data collected were analysed using standard statistical methods (Steel and Torrie. 1960).

Experiment 2

Twenty-four Chios wether sheep (mean liveweight 51 kg and age 25 months) were used. The animals were allocated to six treatment diets in a completely random design with 2x3 factorial arrangement of treatments. Whole grain of Athenais barley or triticale (line Tel, MrA-X2148-5N-2M-3Y-2M-OY) comprised one factor. and processing (untreated, urea-sprayed, urea-sprayed and stored in sealed plastic bags) the other factor. Whole grains were treated in batches of 5 kg. Each batch was spread on a large metal tray and sprayed with 0.5 litres of a 30o/c urea solution using a small hand-sprayer. Grains were turned while being sprayed. The treated grains were then dried at 500<:: for 24 h (US) or packed in double polyethelene bags (USS). The bags were opened 42 days later and grains were ex­posed to the air for at least 48 h prior to feeding to

allow excess NH, to escape. Housing, feeding and management were identical to those employed in ex­periment 1. Chemical and statistical analyses were also similar.

2

RESULTS

Untreated triticale grain had a high crude protein (CP) content but lo~er crude fibre than unterated barley grain (Table 1). Addition of urea solution in­creased the N content of the grains. Storage or treated grains resulted in loss of N by the time of feeding (see Materials and Methods) for barley but not for triticale grain.

Dry matter intake of concentrate, barley straw, ingredients on test, and CP intake and apparent di­gestion coeficients of finished diets and ingredients on test (Experiment 1), are given in Table 2. Grind­ing the grains resulted in a slight decrease of their apparent digestion coefficients compared to whole grains. Furthermore, there were no significant dif­ferences in the digestibility coefficients between triticale and barley grain.

Although none of the measurements presented in Ta~le 3 was significantly affected by processing or kind of grain, there was a trend towards lower ru­men pH, higher VFA concentration, and lower acetic and higher propionic acid molar proportions with ground co'mpared to whole grains. A similar trend was also noted when triticale was compared to barley grain.

The effect of tr.eating whole barley or triticale grains with urea on their digestibility is shown in Table 4. Addition of urea to the grains increased N intake (P=O.OOl) by sheep. Furthennore, N intake was higher (P=0.05) with triticale than with barley grain. Spraying grains with urea resulted in a signif­icant increase of their OM (P=0.05), organic matter (OM) (P=0.05) and CP (P=O.Ol) apparent digestion coefficients. Furthermore, digestion coefficients for OM (P=O.Ol), OM (P=0.05) and CP (P=O.Ol) were higher for the whole diets containing the treated grains.

There was a trend towards lower rumen pH with triticale compared to barley grain (Table 5). Feeding urea-treated grains resulted in a significant increase (P=O.OOl) in rumen ammonia-nitrogen concentra­tion. On the other hand, neither kind of grain (bar­ley or triticale) nor processing had any significant ef­fect on total VFA concentration or molar propor­tion of individual volatile fatty adids.

Table 1. Chemical composition (g/kg OM) of feeds.

Barley Triticale

Dry matter (OM) Composition of the OM

Crude protein Ash

Crude fat Crude fibre

Whole

897

108 42

31 85

Ground

8R6

ItO 26

Urea· sprayed

925

199 28

Urea-sprayed

and stQr~d

R06

164 39

. Whole

R89

119 20

26 38

Ground

RR3

116 tR

Urea-sprayed

922

"15 IR

Urea' sprayed

and slOred

R02

"01 24

Barley straw

900

36 82

Concentrate

RRn

IR6 94

Table 2. Apparent digestibility coefficients (%) of the whole diet and of the grains calculated by the difference method.

Whole grain Ground grain

Barley Triticale Barley Triticale SO

Feed intake (g OM/day) Concentrate 352 352 352 352 Barley straw 180 180 180 179 Ingredient on test 359 355 35" 353 CP intake (g/day) 109 III 110 112

Digestibility (%) of the whole diet OM 75.5 76.9 75.7 766 176 OM 77.2 784 77.3 78.1 1.84 CP 70.0 70.0 134 72.6 2.49

Digestibility (%) of the ingredient on test

OM 839 87.5 845 85.0 3.05 OM 86\ 88.6 86.2 86.9 3.05 CP 51.6 61.9 65.9 62.\ 136\

Table 3. Rumen metabolites In sheep given ground or whole cereal grains_

Whole grain Ground grain

Barley Triticale Barley Triticale SO

pH 66 64 6.6 64 0.34 NHJ-N(mgil) 147 229 121 130 63 Total VFA concentration (mmol/I) 64.5 84.8 85.4 907 14.13 Molar proportion of

Acetate 66.8 64.5 634 616 44 Propionate 19.9 22.7 25.9 291 6.37 Butyrate 132 \2.8 10.7 9.4 J.3R

3

Table 4. Apparent digestibility coefficients (%) of the whole diet and of the grains, calcu­lated by the difference method. I •

Barley grain Triticale gTain

Urea- Urea­Urea- sprayed-and Urea- sprayed-and

Untreated sprayed stored Unlreated sprayed stored SO

Feed intake (g OM/dav)

Concentrate .'~2 352 352 352 352 352 Barlav straw IRO 179 180 180 179 180 Ingredieril on lest .''it'> 370 379 354 369 369 CP inlake (tolal g/dav) I ()9 ~ 1486 134.9 IIU 149.8 141.1 3 ..57

Oigestihilit\· r9't» (If the ""hpk diel

OM 75.n c 77.7 abc 78.1 ab 76.8 abe 76.5 be 78.8 a 1.45 OM 77.~ a 79.4 a 79.7 a 78.3 a 77.7 a 80.1 a 1.5 CP 71.<; cd 79.4 a 74.2 be 70.8 d 79.9 a 77.5 ab 2.26

Oigestihilil\ (0/0)- of the ingredient on tcst

OM 84.2 c 905 ab 89.0 b 86.7 be 906 ab 94.3 a 3.31 OM 861 c 92.lab 90.2 abc 88.0 bc 89.3 abc 94.3 a 3.27 CP 57.7 c 91.0 a 73.8 ab 62.0 bc 897 a 84.3 a 11.87

Table 5. Rumen metabolites in sheep given untreated (C), urea-sprayed (US) or urea­sprayed-and-stored (USS) whole cereal grains.

Barley grain Triticale gTain

Urea- Urea-Urea­ sprayed-and Urea­ sprayed-and

Untreated sprayed stored Unlreated sprayed stored SO

pH 6.58 7.23 6.49 6.36 653 6.47 0.295 NH.,·N(mgll ) 153 452 361 195 448 359 56.2 Total VFA concenlrat;on (mmal!l) 7]4 80.6 780 85.0 848 78.2 16. I l Molar proportion of:

Acetate 65.4 66.4 66.0 63.2 66.2 66.0 3.56 Propionate n." 233 21.9 25.4 24.9 22.3 5.19 Bulvrale 12.1 103 12.2 11.3 8.9 11.7 2.99

DISCUSSION

In the present studies apparent digestion coeffi­cients were similar for whole and ground grains, in­dicating that sheep are capable of utilizing whole grains efficiently. ¢rskov, Fraser and MacHattie (1974) found that early-weaned lambs digest barley, oats and maize better in whole fonn. However, this was not the case for cattle where whole grain feed­ing reduced digestibility (q>rskov, 1979; Nordin and Campling, 1976).

Unlike previous studies (Hadjipanayiotou et aI., 1985) there were no significant differences in d,igesti­bility between diets with triticale and barley grain. In the present study, however, grains were fed along with a limited quantity. of roughage. .

Whole dry barley grain'·t~eated with ammonia had higher digestibility th~n 'Whole dry untreated barley or ground barley for lambs (Laksesvela and Slagsvold, 1980). In the present studies, digestion

4

coefficients for OM, OM and CP were higher for urea-sprayed and urea-sprayed-and-stored grains compared to untreated whole grains. However, the non-significant differences between US and USS treatments suggest that differences obtained bet­ween untreated whole grain and the other two treat­ments might be ascribed to a deficiency in rumen degradable protein in sheep given the untreated whole grains. Our data are supported by those of Saenger at al. (1981), who reported that ammonia treatment had no effect on the digestibility of high­moisture com, though the nitrogen added as am­monia was utilized with similar efficiency to urea.

In line with C/>rskov; Smart and Mehrez (1974), whole grains were found to absorb the urea solution completely .. In the study of 0rskov et al. (1974) there was no loss of N after six months of storage. This is in agreement with our finding for urea­sprayed-and-stored triticale grain. Urea was con­verted to NH3 in barley but not in triticale and,as a result, NH3 volatilized when the treated barley grain was exposed to the air. The loss was approximately 39% of the added N.

c;t>rskov, Fraser and Gordon (1974) reported that feeding whole grain increased the concentration of acetic acid in the rumen fluid at the expense of pro­pionic acid. In this study, however, differences did not reach significance.

It is concluded that grinding barley or triticale grains does not improve their nutritive value. Spray­ing whole grains with a urea solution improves di­gestion coefficients of high concentrate diets, but storage of urea-sprayed grains does not further im­prove their feeding value. However, the observed improvement might be ascribed to a deficiency in rumen degradable protein.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank A. Photiou, M. Karavia, N. Parouti, M. Theodoridou and S. Kourtellari for skilled technical assistance.

REFERENCES

A.O.A.C. 1975. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Of­ficial Methods of Analysis. 12th edition (ed. W. Hor­witz), Washington D.C.

Berger, L.L., G.D. Anderson and G.c. Fahey, lr. 1981 Alkali treatment of cereal grains. I. In situ and in vitro evalu· ation. Journal of Animal Science 52: 138-143.

Hadjipanayiotou, M. 1982. The effect of ammoniation using urea on the intake and nutritive value of chopped barley straw. Grass and Forage Science 37:89·93.

Hadjipanayiotou, M, S. Economides and E. Georghiades. 1985 Nutritive value of triticale and barley grain and straw Technical Bulletin 65. Agricultural Research Insti· tute, Nicosia, 5 p.

Kernan, J., E. Coxworth, H. Nicolson and R. Chaplin. 1977 Ammoniation of straw to improve its nutritional value as a feed for ruminant animals. Agricultural Science Bulletin, Animal Nutriti'Jn 51, Extension Publica· tion329, University of Saskatchewan, College of Agriculture.

Laksesvela, B. and P Slagsvold. 1980. A note on the digestibility in lambs of whole, dry barley treated with ammonia. Animal Production 30: 437-439.

McDonald, P .. R.A. Edwards and l.F.D. Greenhalgh. [973. An­imal Nutrition 2nd edition Longman. London and New York.

Nordin, M. and R.C. Campling. 1976. Digestibility studies with cows given whole and rolled cereal grains. Animal Production 23: 305·315,

Orskov, E.R. 1979. Recent infonnation on processing grain for ruminants. Livestock Production Science 6: 335­347.

@rskov, E.R., C. Fraser and G.J. Gordon. 1974. Effect of pro­cessing of cereals on rumen fennentation, digestibility, rumination time and firmness of subcutaneous fat in lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 32: 59-69

(jrskov, E.R., C. Fraser and I. McHattie. 1974. Cereal proces­sing and food utilization by sheep. 2. A note on the ef­fect of feeding unprocessed barley, maize, oats and wheat on feed utilization by early·weaned lambs. Ani­mal Production 18: 85-88.

Qrskov, E.R., R. Smart and A.Z. Mehrez. 1974. A method of including urea in whole grains. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83: 299-302.

Saenger, R.F., R.P. Lemenager and K.S. Hendrix. 1981. Intake and digestibility of com grain treated with anhydrous ammonia. Journal of Animal Sciel'lce 53 (suppl. I) 427-428 (Abstr.)

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hili, New York.

Vipond, J.E.. SA. Abdalla and M.A. King 1980. The value or processing cereal grains for sheep Animal Production 30: 487 (Abstract).

5

Issued by the Press and Information Office, Ministry to the President, Nicosia

Printed by M. S Zevlaris & Sons Ltd., Tel. 29101-2, Slrovolos

P 10 -l21Wi - nOO