Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
López, A.  
dc.contributor.author
Arroquy, Jose Ignacio  
dc.contributor.author
Juarez Sequeira, Ana Veronica  
dc.contributor.author
DiLorenzo, N.  
dc.contributor.author
Barrionuevo, M. C.  
dc.contributor.author
Distel, Roberto Alejandro  
dc.date.available
2018-12-05T13:00:54Z  
dc.date.issued
2017-05-01  
dc.identifier.citation
López, A.; Arroquy, Jose Ignacio; Juarez Sequeira, Ana Veronica; DiLorenzo, N.; Barrionuevo, M. C.; et al.; High-sulfate water consumption determines intake and metabolic responses to protein supplementation in lambs consuming low-quality forage1; American Society of Animal Science; Journal of Animal Science; 95; 5; 1-5-2017; 2111-2120  
dc.identifier.issn
0021-8812  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/65830  
dc.description.abstract
Twenty Hampshire lambs (31±4 kg BW) in individual metabolism cages were used in a 10 treatments by 2 period (n=4) trial, to evaluate the interaction between protein supplementation and sulfate water on intake and metabolic responses when fed on low quality grass hay (Megathyrsus maximus; 6.4% CP, 79.5% NDF). Treatment structure was a 2×5 factorial: 2 water qualities (WQ; low-sulfate [LS] and high-sulfate [HS]; 442 and 8,358 mg/kg of total dissolved solids, respectively) and 5 soybean meal levels (SBM; 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00% BW/d). After 15 d of adaptation, periods consisted of 5 d for determination forage and water intake, nitrogen balance and digestion measurements (d 16 to d 20); and for blood sampling and determination of ruminal hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentration (d 21).Supplemental SBM × WQ interactions were significant for forage OM intake (FOMI; P=0.04) and total OM intake (TOMI; P=0.04), whereas a tendency was observed for total tract digestible OM intake (TTDOMI; P=0.07). Intake values of LS lambs were higher than those of HS lambs (P< 0.05) in the first and second level of SBM only. Water intake (WI) increased linearly (P<0.01) with SBM level, but was not affected by WQ (P= 0.39). Water quality and SBM supplementation affected total tract OM digestibility (TTOMD; P< 0.01); LS lambs had lower TTOMD than HS lambs (P< 0.01). Plasma urea N increased linearly in response to SBM (P < 0.01), but was not affected by WQ (P = 0.11). Nitrogen balance was not affected by SBM × WQ interaction (P> 0.12), except for N utilization (N-retained/N-intake ratio; P< 0.01). Regardless of WQ, N-intake (P> 0.01), N-urine (P> 0.01) and N-balance increased linearly (P> 0.01) with SBM level. Water quality adversely affected N-intake and N-balance, although at the highest level of SBM no differences in N-balance were observed between LS and HS lambs (P = 0.85). No changes due to WQ were observed for both urea reabsorbed by kidneys (P = 0.63) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR; P = 0.30), but renal function was affected by SBM level (P < 0.01). There was supplemental SBM × WQ interaction for ruminalH2S concentration (P < 0.01), due mainly to a greater concentration from 0.25% BW SBM in HS than in LS lambs. In conclusion, these results confirmed the existence of an interaction between sulfate water and supplemental protein, which alters intake and metabolic responses when lambs are fed low-quality grass hay.  
dc.format
application/pdf  
dc.language.iso
eng  
dc.publisher
American Society of Animal Science  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.subject
Lambs  
dc.subject
Low-Quality Forages  
dc.subject
Nitrogen Supplementation  
dc.subject
High-Sulfate Water  
dc.subject.classification
Otras Producción Animal y Lechería  
dc.subject.classification
Producción Animal y Lechería  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS AGRÍCOLAS  
dc.title
High-sulfate water consumption determines intake and metabolic responses to protein supplementation in lambs consuming low-quality forage1  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article  
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion  
dc.date.updated
2018-11-12T13:22:13Z  
dc.journal.volume
95  
dc.journal.number
5  
dc.journal.pagination
2111-2120  
dc.journal.pais
Estados Unidos  
dc.journal.ciudad
Urbana  
dc.description.fil
Fil: López, A.. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Tucumán-Santiago del Estero. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Agronomía y Agroindustrias; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Arroquy, Jose Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Agronomía y Agroindustrias; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Tucumán-Santiago del Estero. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santiago del Estero; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Juarez Sequeira, Ana Veronica. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Agronomía y Agroindustrias; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: DiLorenzo, N.. University of Florida; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Barrionuevo, M. C.. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Agronomía y Agroindustrias; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Distel, Roberto Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Agronomía; Argentina  
dc.journal.title
Journal of Animal Science  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/95/5/2111/4703651  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/https://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1264