An evaluation of biuret as a nitrogen source in wintering and fattening rations for beef cattle
by William Leo Mies
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Animal Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by William Leo Mies (1967)
Abstract:
Biuret was evaluated as a source of non-protein nitrogen for cattle in wintering and fattening rations.
The first wintering trial utilized 32 steer calves initially weighing 197.6 kg. in four treatments. The
control treatment was a 12 percent protein supplement, and the three treatments were 20 percent protein
supplements in which 50 percent of the protein equivalent was from biuret (B), urea (U), or soybean oil
meal (S). The average ration for the 112-day feeding period was 1.71 kg. of supplement, 0.54 kg.
barley, 0.54 kg. pelleted beet pulp, and 2.07 kg. wheat straw. Treatment daily gains and feed per unit
gain were as follows; C-0.58, 8.46; B-0.59, 8.41; U-0.59, 8.36; S-0.59, 8.30. Treatment did not
significantly affect gains.
These cattle were then fed a fattening ration consisting of cracked corn, 40 percent; beet pulp, 30
percent; 20 percent protein supplements, 30 percent; and wheat straw for 103 days. The control lot was
changed to a 20 percent protein supplement containing soybean oil meal with added phosphorus.
One-half in each lot were implanted with diethylstilbestrol (DES). Daily gain and feed per unit gain
were as follows: S + P-1.30, 8.11; B-1.34, 8.10; U-1.29, 8.40; and S-1.37, 7.92. Gains were not
significantly affected by protein treatments. Steers implanted with DES gained significantly more (0.16
kg. /day) than non-implanted steers (P<.01).
Yearling heifers averaging 246 kg. were used in a second fattening trial using a barley and beet pulp
ration with grass hay and 0.45 kg. of a 32 percent protein supplement containing 20 percent of the
protein equivalent from biuret (B), urea (U), one-half each from urea and biuret (U + B), and soybean
oil meal (S). Daily gains arid feed per unit gains were as follows: B-1.36, 6.68; U-1.30, 6.84; U +
B-1.30, 7.06; and S-1.31, 6.87.
There were no significant differences among gains.
Trial IV was similar to Trial I except the natural protein content of the control supplement was 10.5
percent and 10 steers per treatment were used. Initial weights averaged 204.3 kg. and the cattle were
fed for 112 days. The average daily ration was 2.27 kg. supplement and 2.72 kg. wheat straw. Daily
gains and feed per unit gains were as follows: C-0.17, 29.42; B-0.37, 13.19; U-0.33, 14.59; S-0.46,
10.44. The treated cattle gained significantly faster (P<.05).
Trial V was similar to Trial II. The steers used in Trial IV were utilized. The control supplement used
in Trial IV was used in place of the soybean oil meal, added phosphorus supplement. One-half of the
steers were implanted with DES. Daily gains and feed per unit gain were as follows: C-1.37, 7.71;
U-1.31, 8.01; B-1.29, 8.18; S-1.36, 7.73. There were no significant differences in gains due to
treatment. The DES implanted steers gained significantly more (P<.05) than non-implanted steers. AN EVALUATION OF BIURET AS A NITROGEN SOURCE IN WINTERING
AND FATTENING RATIONS FOR BEEF CATTLE
by
WILLIAM LEO MIES
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Animal Science
Approved;
Head, Major Department
Chairman, Examining Committee
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
December, 1967
-iii-
.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude and appreciation are expressed to Dr. 0. 0. Thomas for
his sincere and invaluable guidance throughout my graduate program,, in
the organization and conduction of the experiments, and his suggestions in
the preparation of the manuscript.
I also wish to express appreciation to
Dr, C. W. Newman and R. F. Eslick for their advice and suggestions with
the manuscript and analyses of data.
The understanding, help and encouragement, on the part of my wife, is
gratefully acknowledged, for without this the work would have been much
more difficult.
Appreciation is expressed to the graduate students, student workers
and farm crew for their help in collecting the data.
Appreciation is also expressed to Dow Chemical Company who provided
biuret and a grant-in-aid.
An acknowledgement of indebtedness is made to
Mrs. Mildred Latta for the final typing of the manuscript.
-iv-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
'
Page
V I T A ..................................
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................
ill
INDEX TO T A B L E S .....................................
vi
INDEX TO APPENDIX
. viii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lx
INTRODUCTION . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Early History of Urea Research
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Urea as a Nitrogen Source for Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Factors Affecting Utilization of Urea by Ruminants
. . . . . .
5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Effect of Carbohydrates
Influence of Protein on Urea Utilization
7
Influence of Sulfur and Methionine on Urea Utilization . .
9
. . . . .
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Influence of Trace Minerals on Urea Utilization
The Value of Urea as a Feedstuff
The Utilization of Urea as Affected by Adaptation Response
. „
13
Uses of Urea for Ruminant Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'14
Rations for Growing Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Rations for Growing Sheep
15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Urea in Rations for .Fattening Beef Cattle
. . . . . . . .
16
The Toxicity of Urea to Ruminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Biuret as a Nitrogen Source for Ruminant Animals
. . . . . . .
20
. . . . . . . . . . .
20
Utilization,of Nitrogen from Biuret
-V-
Page
The Adaptation Response of Biuret
. 23
Effect of Biuret on Digestibility of Nutrients in the Ration
. „ 23
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.............................. .............. . 25
Trial I ......................................................... 2 5
I
Trial II
..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trial III ..............
Trial IV
. 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trial V ............
28
............
. . . . .
33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................
38
Trial I . . .....................................' ........ ..
38
Trial II
40
..................................................
Trial III ................................
44
Trial I V ................
Trial V . . . .
SUMMARY
APPENDIX
.48
..................
50
. . . v .
56
* . * . . . 5 8
LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
-viT ABLGS
H
II.
III.
IVe
V.
VI.
ANALYSIS OF BIURET PRODUCT' MA-5
DESIGN OF TRIAL I
, * * » * .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
**<,
o**
27
. . . . . .
28
DESIGN OF TRIAL II + , o * * * , * * * * * * * , * * * , * * , ,
29
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR FATTENING STEERS
. . . . . .
30
. . . . . . . . .
32
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR FATTENING HEIFERS . . . . . .
33
DESIGN OF TRIAL IV . . . . . .
0
0
0
0
0
* *
26
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR WINTERING CAVLES
DESIGN OF TRIAL III
. . . . .
............
0
*
0
. ..............
. . . . . . .
34
H
VII.
Page
COMPOSITION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR WINTERING CALVES
. . . . . . .
35
X.
DESIGN OF TRIAL V
e * * * . * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * *
36
VIII.
XI0
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOk FATTENING STEERS
. . . . . .
37
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF STEER
CALVES FED UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL, OR A PROTEIN
DEFICIENT CONTROL RATION.
(Trial I — January 28, 1966
to May 20, 1966.-- 112 days) . . . . ........ . . . . . . . .
38
NRC REQUIREMENTS, CALCULATED PROTEIN LEVEL, ACTUAL
PROTEIN LEVEL AND AVERAGE DAILY GAIN OF 227 KG. WEANLING
CALVES FED TO GAIN 0.45 K G 0 PER DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
PROXIMATE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FEED UTILIZED IN
WINTERING CALVES IN TRIAL I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND FINANCIAL RETURNS
FOR STEER CALVES FED UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL,
AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH PHOSPHORUS.
(Trial II -June 27, 1966 to October 9, 1966 -- 104 days) . . . . . . . .
41
SUMMARY OF WEIGHT AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS
IMPLANTED AND NOT IMPLANTED WITH DIETHYLSTILBESTROL
. . . . .
42
. . . . . . . . .
43
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEEDS FED IN TRIAL II
-viiT ABLES
XVIII.
XIX,
XX.
XXI.
XXIIe
XXIII.
XXIVe
Page
CARCASS DATA FOR STEERS FED SOYBEAN OIL MEAL, WITH AND
WITHOUT HIGH PHOSPHORUS, UREA, AND BIURET. (Trial II -June 27, 1966 to October 9, 1966 -- 104 days) . . . . . . . .
44
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURNS
FOR HEIFERS FED UREA, BIURET, UREA-BIURET, AND
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL. (Trial III -- July 5, 1966 to
October 16, 1966 -- 103 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEEDS FED IN TRIAL III
. . . . . . . .
47
CARCASS DATA FOR HEIFERS FED UREA, BIURET, UREA PLUS
BIURET, AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL.. (Trial III -- July 5,
1966 to October 16, 1966 -- 103 days) . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND COST OF GAIN FOR
STEER CALVES FED A PROTEIN-DEFICIENT CONTROL, UREA,
BIURET, AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL RATION. (Trial IV -November 28, 1966 to March 20, 1967 -- 112 days) . . . . . .
49
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEED FED STEER CALVES ON
WINTERING TRIAL IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURNS
FOR STEER CALVES FED UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
OR A LOW-PROTEIN CONTROL. (Trial V -- March 20, 1967
to August 7, 1967 -- 140 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.51
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS
IMPLANTED AND NOT IMPLANTED WITH DIETHYLSTILBESTROL . . . . .
52
XXVIe
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEED FED IN TRIAL V . . . . . . . . . .
53
XXVIIe
CARCASS DATA FOR STEERS FED UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL
MEAL, OR A LOW-PROTEIN CONTROL.
(Trial V - - March 20,
1967 to August 9, 1967 -- 140 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
XXV,
XXVIIIe
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS
FED CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
SUPPLEMENTS ON BOTH WINTERING AND FATTENING TRIALS.
(Trial IV and V -- November, 28, 1966 to August 7,
1967 —— 252 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5 55
5
-viii-
INDEX TO APPENDIX
TABLES
Page
I. INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL STEERS FED
II.
III.
IVe
Ve
UREAs BIURETs SOYBEAN OIL MEAL (SBOM) OR A PROTEIN
DEFICIENT CONTROL.
(Trial I — January 28, 1966 to
May 20, 1966 -- 112 days)
e .... e e . . . . . . . . .
59
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS s AVERAGE DAILY GAINS s DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION 9 FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF
STEER CALVES FED UREAs BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
(SBOM) OR PROTEIN DEFICIENT CONTROL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial I -- January 28, 1966 to May 20, 1966 -112 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF STEER CALVES FED
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH PHOSPHORUS s UREAs BIURETs OR
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL ON A FATTENING DIET.
(Trial II -June 27, 1966 to October 9, 1966 -- 104 days) . . . . . . . .
61
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS s AVERAGE DAILY GAINS s DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN FOR
STEERS FED SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH PHOSPHORUS, UREA,
BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL. (Trial II -- June 27,
1966 to October 9 S 1966 -- 104 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
CARCASS DATA OF STEERS IN TRIAL II . . . . . . .
. ........
.63
VI0
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF HEIFERS FED UREA, BIURET,
1/2 UREA 1/2 BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial III -- July 5, 1966 to October 16, 1966 -103 days)
.... . . . . . . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
VIIo
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN OF
HEIFERS FED UREA, BIURET, 1/2 UREA 1/2 BIURET, OR
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENT. (Trial III — July 5,
1966 to October 16, 1966 -- 103 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6
VIIIo
CARCASS DATA OF HEIFERS IN TRIAL III . . . . . . . .
IXe
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF STEERS FED CONTROL,
UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial IV -- November 28, 1966 to March 20, 1967 -112 days
........
67
68
-ixTABLES
X.
XIo
XII.
XIIIe
Page
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF
STEER CALVES FED A CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN
OIL.MEAL SUPPLEMENT.
(Trial IV -- November 28, 1966
to March 20, 1967 -- 112 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF STEERS FED CONTROL,
UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS,
(Trial V -- March 20, 1967 to August 7, 1967 -140 days) .................................................... 7 0
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND FINANCIAL RETURN
FOR STEERS FED CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL
MEAL SUPPLEMENTS. (Trial V -- March 20, 1967 to
August 7, 1967 -- 140 days) .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
CARCASS DATA OF STEERS IN TRIAL V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
-X-
ABSTRACT
/
Biuret was evaluated as a source of non-protein nitrogen for cattle
in wintering and fattening rations. The first wintering trial utilized 32
steer calves initially weighing 197.6 kg. in four treatments. The control
treatment was a 12 percent protein supplement, and the three treatments
were 20 percent protein supplements ii> which 50 percent of the protein
equivalent was from biuret (B), urea (U), or soybean oil meal (S). The
average ration for the I12-day feeding period was 1.71 kg. of supplement,
0.54 kg. barley, 0.54 kg. pelleted beet pulp, and 2.07 kg. wheat straw.
Treatment daily gains and feed per unit gain were as follows; C-0.58, 8.46;
B-0.59, 8.41; U-0.59, 8.36; S-0.59, 8.30. Treatment did not significantly
affect gains.
These cattle were then fed a fattening ration consisting of cracked
corn, 40 percent; beet pulp, 30 percent; 20 percent protein supplements,
30 percent; and wheat straw for 103 days. The control lot was changed to
a 20 percent protein supplement containing soybean oil meal with added
phosphorus. One-half in each lot were implanted with diethylstilbesfcrol
(DES). Daily gain and feed per unit gain were as follows: S + P-1.30,
8.11; B-I.34, 8.10; U-I.29, 8.40; and S-1.37, 7.92. Gains were not signifi­
cantly affected by protein treatments. Steers implanted with DES gained
significantly more (0.16 kg. /day) than non-implanted steers (P<^.01):
Yearling heifers averaging 246 kg. were used in a second fattening
trial using a barley and beet pulp ration with grass hay and 0.45 kg. of a
32 percent protein supplement containing 20 percent of the protein equiva­
lent from biuret (B), urea (U), one-half each from urea and biuret (U + B),
and soybean oil meal (S). Daily gains arid feed per unit gains were as
follows: B-I.36, 6.68; U-1.30, 6.84; U + B-1.30, 7.06; and S-1.31, 6.87.
There were no significant differences among gains.
Trial IV was similar to Trial I except the natural protein content of
the control supplement was 10.5 percent and 10 steers per treatment were
used. Initial weights averaged 204.3 kg. and the cattle were fed for 112
days. The average daily ration was 2.27 kg. supplement and 2.72 kg. wheat
straw. Daily gains and feed per unit gains were as follows: C-Q.17,
29.42; B-0.37, 13.19; U-0.33, 14.59; S-0.46, 10.44. The treated cattle
gained significantly faster (P<y05).
Trial V was similar to Trial II. The steers used in Trial IV were
utilized. The control supplement used in Trial IV was used in place of the
soybean oil meal, added phosphorus supplement. One-half of the steers were
implanted with DES. Daily gains and feed per unit gain were as follows:
C-I.37, 7.71; U-1.31, 8.01; B-1.29, 8.18; S-1.36, 7.73. There were no
significant differences in gains due to treatmerit. The DES implanted
steers gained significantly more (P<^„05) than non-imp!anted steers.
INTRODUCTION
Urea was the first synthetic organic material ever to be compounded«
It had its beginning in the eighteenth century when chemists isolated
a nitrogenous substance from animal urine and called it urea.
In 1828,
a German chemist named Wohler compounded synthetic urea from ammonia
and cyanic acid.
During World War II, the Germans perfected a process
whereby ammonia and carbon dioxide were combined under pressure to form
urea.
Urea is still made today from these two basic compounds (Cyanamid,
1959).
Since it was first synthesized, urea usage has grown to hold an
important place in American agriculture both as a fertilizer for plants
and as a nitrogen source for protein synthesis in the ruminant animal.
The use of urea for ruminant feeding has grown tremendously in the
last ten to fifteen years.
Its use is well-recognized as an effective
nitrogen source for ruminants.
has certain disadvantages.
Urea is hydrolyzed too rapidly in the rumen
to permit maximum utilization.
can be toxic.
Along with its effectiveness, urea also
If good management is not practiced, urea
These two disadvantages limit the use of urea to a
recommended level of one-third of the protein equivalent of a ration.
Because of these disadvantages of urea, many other non-protein
nitrogen (NPN) compounds have been evaluated for ruminant feeds (Belasco,
1954).
One of the compounds which has been evaluated in recent years
is biuret.
This compound is synthesized by heating urea in the absence
of water at a temperature over 271° F.
Because of its slow hydrolysis
and low toxicity relative to urea, biuret should be a good nitrogen
source for beef cattle in wintering and fattening rations.
The structural
-2foranlas for urea and biuret are shown below.
UREA
BIURET
H-N-H
I
I
C=O
H-N-H
I
I
I
I
C=O
I
H-N-H
N-H
I
I
C=O
H-N-H
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Early History of Urea Research
Zuntz (1891) postulated a possible use of non-protein nitrogen by
ruminants.
Zuntz felt that the mechanism for this utilization might lie
in the conversion of organic nitrogen to bacterial nitrogen.
The work of
Zuntz was confirmed twenty years later by Armsby (1911)„ when he reported
that bacterial protein was utilized for growth, milk production or mainten­
ance.
Armsby also raised the question of direct metabolic utilization of
ammonia by ruminants.
Voltz (1920) found that, when one-half of the
nitrogen in the ration was furnished by urea, the digestible nitrogen was
increased by 77.7 percent.
When all the nitrogen in a ration was provided
by urea, a lamb gained 11.91 kg. in a nine-month period.
It was postulated
that urea was synthesized into bacterial protein in the gastro-intestinal
V
.
tract and that 80 to 90 percent of this bacterial protein was digested.
The results of this work agreed with the theory of Zuntz made twenty-nine
years earlier.
Voltz also calculated that 350 grams of urea would replace
1000 grams of protein.
In later work (Voltz ejt aJL., 1922), found that the
recommended level of feeding should be 150 grams of urea per head daily
for dairy cattle.
This level was confirmed by Honcamp e_t al. (1923), who
found that cows could consume 150 to 200 grams daily without ill effects.
When urea was included in a carbohydrate-rich; easily digestible ration,
the urea caused an increase in the amount of fat and milk produced.
In
later work, Honcamp and Schneller (1923) found that, when urea was added
to an all-roughage ration, the urea was excreted almost quantitatively,
while on the carbohydrate-rich ration, a positive nitrogen balance
occurred.
-4-
Urea as a Nitrogen Source for Ruminants
The first work done in America using urea as a nitrogen source for
ruminants was done by Hart et al. (1938).
They fed growing dairy calves
four rations; basal (6 percent protein), basal plus ammonium carbonate,
basal plus casein, and basal plus urea.
protein equivalent of 18 percent.
The three treated groups had a
The gains in weight for the four
groups were 15.9 kg., 25 kg., 39.1 kg., and 28.0 kg., respectively.
This
work showed actual utilization of urea by ruminants on a growing ration.
This work was confirmed by Bartlett and Cotton (1938), who stated that
urea-fed calves showed no difference in average daily gain from calves
fed natural protein; however, urea did not appear to be utilized as
effectively as natural protein.
Hart et al. (1939), working with dairy
heifers in a comparison of three levels of urea, ammonium bicarbonate,
and casein, found urea to be utilized for growth; however, if more than
50 percent of the total nitrogen was supplied by urea, kidney damage
resulted.
Work and Henke (1939) concluded that conventional natural pro­
tein supplements were better than urea as a protein source.
However, had
the authors fed a lower protein deficient control ration, more advantage
,might have been shown for urea.
Kammlade et al. (1940), found no difference
in average daily gains of Iqmbs fed urea-supplemented rations or rations
■ ■ ■■■
.
■
from natural protein.
grades.
■
There also was no difference in final carcass
This work indicated that urea could be utilized by ruminant
animals and converted to body protein.
.
The results of these trials stimu­
lated studies to evaluate urea as a feedstuff.
-5-
Factors Affecting Utilization of Urea by Ruminants
Much experimental work has been done to determine the value of feed­
ing urea in ruminant rations.
This work has shown that urea can be of
considerable value in replacing natural protein in a ruminant ration.
The amount of urea which can be utilized depends on the following factors;
(a)
(b)
(c)
amount and kind of carbohydrates in the ration;
amount and kind of true protein contributed.by
the ingredients of the ration;
level of urea causing toxicity.
Other factors such as age of animal, mineral elements, roughages, and
concentrates in the ration also have a bearing on the utilization of urea
(Reid, 1953).
The above-mentioned nutrients as well as sulfur, methinon?
ine, and trace minerals have been shown to affect utilization of urea,;
Effect of Carbohydrates
The effect of carbohydrates on urea utilization was first studied by
Mills et al. (1942).
They found, that, when timothy hay was fed with
urea, the level of protein in the rumen contents was the same as when
timothy hay was fed alone or in combination with starch.
However, when
timothy and urea were fed, the rumen ammonia nitrogen was higher than
when timothy was fed alone.
The addition of starch to the timothy-urea
mixture raised the level of protein in the rumen ingesta.
They concluded
that timothy hay did not supply a suitable medium for bacterial synthesis
of protein from urea.
Mills et al. (1944) reported that, by combining
molasses and timothy, the protein content of the rumen ingesta was 7
percent.
When urea was added to this ration, the protein content of the
rumen contents was raised to 9.3 percent.
However, the addition of starch
-6-
to the timothy, molasses, urea ration gave a protein content of 11 percent
in rumen contents.
These results indicated that starch improved urea
utilization to.a greater degree than did molasses.
conducted with growing heifers.
A further study was
A ration of timothy hay, molasses, and
urea, in which the urea provided 60 percent of the total nitrogen in the
ration, gave a daily gain of 0.31 kg.
An addition of 0.14 kg. of starch
per head per day to the above ration gave a daily gain Of 0.64 kg.
When
casein was added at the same rate as starch, the daily gain was 0.73 kg.
The conclusion reached was that cellulose in a ration is not broken down
rapidly enough to provide an energy source for urea utilization.
Therefore, a readily soluble carbohydrate is needed for maximum utiliza­
tion.
Bell et al. (1951) reported that calves fed a combination of ground
corn and urea had a higher nitrogen retention than did calves fed urea
and molasses.
by urea.
Thirty percent of the nitrogen in the ration was provided
Arias et al. (1951) concluded from iji vitro studies that there
is a specific need for small amounts of readily available energy such as
dextrose, sucrose, or starch when the principal energy source is cellu­
lose, in order to get optimum urea utilization in fermentation.
The
authors explained that during rapid hydrolysis of urea in the rumen energy
was needed in order to convert ammonia to bacterial protein.
When cellu­
lose was the only energy source, it was not broken down quickly enough to
aid in the utilization process.
These findings were substantiated by
Pearson and Smith (1943b), when they found starch to be superior to
-
glucose, maltose, galactose, and many other similar carbohydrate sources
-7-
in promoting protein synthesis.
These results coincided with the earlier
work done by Wenger et al. (1940), who reported cellulose to be a poor
energy source for protein synthesis.
Belasco (1956) found that urea
utilization i_n vitro was determined by the amount and type of carbohydrate
used as ah energy source.
with cellulose.
Urea utilization was greater with starch than
Similar results were found by Drori and Loosli (1961).j|
and Bloomfield et al. (1958).
Bloomfield concluded that perhaps the
amylose to amylopectin ratio affected urea utilization in the rumen.
Fontinot et al. (1955) added cerelose to wintering rations where all the
protein was provided by conventional protein sources.
The cerelose
addition increased the biological value of the protein, depressed the
digestibility of the crude fiber, increased the digestibility of the
nitrogen-free extract, decreased the apparent digestibility of the
nitrogen-free extract, decreased the apparent digestibility of the protein,
and increased the true digestibility of the protein.
It may be concluded
that a readily soluble carbohydrate is needed in ruminant rations in
order to achieve maximum utilization for both natural protein and non­
protein nitrogen utilization in the rumen.
Influence of Protein on Urea Utilization
The nature of the ration which includes urea has a definite effect
on urea utilization.
The protein content of the ration has been examined
in this regard by Wenger ejt al. (1940) in in vitro studies. - They found
that the level of protein in an inoculum of rumen micro-organisms influ­
enced the rate of conversion as well as the amount of urea converted to
protein.
As the amount of casein was increased, the conversion of urea
-8-
to protein decreased.
In later work, Wenger £t al. (1941a) used a fistu-
lated heifer to study protein synthesis.
When roughages were fed, the
animal could consume a 20 percent protein ration and still have the 4
percent protein equivalent from urea fully utilized; however, if the
protein equivalent from urea was increased to 6 percent, in an 18 percent
protein ration its utilization was depressed.
The rate of conversion of
urea to protein decreased as the protein content of the ration exceeded
12 percent protein.
Wenger £t al. (1941b) found that when urea made up
I to 5 percent of the dry matter of the ration, urea disappeared from
the rumen in 4 to 6 hours.
Pearson and Smith (1943b) found that certain
amino acids promoted and others depressed the conversion of urea to pro­
tein.
They concluded that when a ration contains insoluble protein, the
amount of ammonia released from the protein may be small, thus favoring
utilization of ammonia from urea.
Hamilton ejb al. (1948) found that urea
was used less effectively in a 16 percent protein ration than in an 11.4
percent protein ration.
They concluded that at least 25 percent of the
total nitrogen in the ration must come from plant protein and that the
ration should not exceed 12 percent protein for sheep; however. Burroughs
et al. (1951) found that the nitrogen required by ruminal micro-organisms
was in the form of ammonia and amino acids were not required.
Loosli and
Harris (1954) found that the addition of methionine increased urea utili­
zation.
Gallup et al. (1952a) found no differences in nitrogen retention
when urea was added to a ration containing either cottonseed meal, soybean
oil meal, or corn gluten meal.
nitrogen in the ration.
Urea provided 30 percent of the total
From this, one may conclude that the poor
-9-
utilization of urea shown in many of the early experiments may be attri­
buted to an excessively high level of protein in the basal ration.
Influence of Sulfur and Methionine on Urea Utilization
The first workers to recognize the importance of sulfur in th!e non­
protein nitrogen diets were Harris and Mitchell (1941b).
In their work,
they tried to maintain a sulfur to non-protein nitrogen ration of 1:15.
Loosli and Harris (1945) compared a basal diet of 6.55 percent protein,
basal plus urea, basal plus urea and sodium sulfate, basal plus urea
and methionine, and basal plus linseed, meal.
were calculated to contain 10 percent protein.
The four treatment rations
The average daily gains
of lambs were 0.03 kg., 0.08 kg., 0.13 kg., and 0.14 kg.
The percent of
absorbed nitrogen retained was the same for basal plus urea and methion­
ine and basal plus linseed meal.
This indicated that the protein formed
from urea was inferior to natural protein when methionine was absent from
the ration.
The sulfate improved the nitrogen balance but did not improve
the average daily gain.
Lofgreen et al. (1947) also reported an improved
nitrogen retention due to the addition of methionine to a urea ration.
This improved retention was found even though they fed only 18 percent as
much methionine and 31 percent more urea.
Thomas et: al. (1951) used a
urea ration with and without sulfur added to the diet in lamb rations.
In
three replications, the lambs without sulfur died between 90 and 146 days
unless they were removed from the trial.
Those lambs receiving sulfur
gained weight and were in a positive nitrogen balance.
This work indicates
that the lambs utilized inorganic sulfates to improve the quality of the
protein synthesized in the rumen.
Gallup et al. (1952b) added methionine
-10“
at the rate of 1.6 grams, 2 grams, and 3 grams per day to a 10.2 percent
protein ration in which urea provided 30 percent of the total nitrogen.
All three levels of methionine increased the digestibility of the ration
nutrients and increased nitrogen utilization; however, these differences
were not statistically significant.
Barth et al. (1959) used a basal5
diet in which urea made up 87 percent of the ration nitrogen.
Methionine
and/or tryptophan were added to replace 17 percent and 11 percent,
respectively, of the urea.
They found that with either methionine or
tryptophan or both, the retention of the absorbed nitrogen was increased.
The digestibility of the nutrients in the ration was not affected.
Other
workers have used elemental sulfur to determine if rumen bacteria can
manufacture their own methionine when given the necessary raw materials.
Garrigus et al. (1950) found no difference in gain when urea supplements
had either elemental sulfur or methionine added.
Starks et al. (1952)
found that lambs receiving a sulfur supplemented diet retained more
nitrogen than did non-supplemented lambs.
The data of Albert et al.
(1956) suggested that sodium sulfate provided a better source of sulfur
for methionine formation than did elemental sulfur.
The data reviewed here suggest that when urea is fed in a ration,
sulfur supplementation has little value if the ration contains 0.1 percent
sulfur or more, if the sulfur to non-protein nitrogen ratio approximates
1:15.
Little work has been done on sulfur^requirements and availability
of different forms of sulfur.
Influence of Trace Minerals on Urea Utilization
There has been a limited amount of work published on the effect of
-11-
trace minerals on urea utilization.
The work that has been accomplished
is somewhat contradictory suggesting that more research needs to be done
in this area.
Thomas et.
(1953) discovered that when no trace minerals were
provided, animals fed soybean oil meal rations gained more rapidly than
animals fed urea supplemented rations.
However, when trace minerals were
added to the urea supplemented ration, there was no significant difference
between daily gains of cattle fed soybean oil meal and urea rations.
indicates that trace minerals improved urea utilization.
This
Similar results
were found by Nelson ej: al. (1957) who reported that with cattle on dry
range grass, trace minerals aided in urea utilization.
However, when fed
as a supplement to prairie hay, no advantage for trace minerals was
detected.
The latter result may have been due to the trace mineral content
of the prairie hay.
In opposition to these two findings, Gossett and Riggs
(1956) and Gossett et al. (1962) found no benefit from adding trace miner­
als (Mn, Fe, Cu, Co, I, and Zn) to urea supplemented rations.
The addition of carbohydrates, protein, sulfur and methionine, and
trace minerals to urea rations probably improves the biological value of
the urea for the ruminant.
It is clear that to attain maximum urea
utilization, many factors must be in balance and the ration must be proper­
ly fed.
The Value of Urea as a Feedstuff
The value of urea as a feedstuff is a question on which much research
has been done.
The most common measurement used is a determination of the
biological value of urea to the ruminant.
Miller and Morrison (1942)
-12-
reported that, in 325 nitrogen balance trials, there was very little dif­
ference in quality of protein of most feedstuffs when fed to ruminants.
They also stated that when urea provided more than 50 percent of the total
nitrogen in the ration, the nitrogen was used less efficiently than in
rations containing an equivalent amount of nitrogen from linseed meal and
urea.
Johnson et al. (1944) concluded that, in ruminants, non-protein
nitrogen was first synthesized by the bacteria into their own cellular
proteins and protozoa utilized the bacterial protein to a considerable
extent in their growth.
Finally, the host digested the protozoa protein
and the remaining bacterial protein.
Thus, all nitrogen would exhibit a
biological value characteristic of the mixed micro-organisms reaching the
abomasum and duodenum.
This value seems to be about 60.
Earlier workers,
working without benefit of this knowledge, tried to compute a different
biological value for each feedstuff.
Harris and Mitchell (1941a) reported
a biological value of 62 for urea and 79 for casein at levels just main­
taining nitrogen equilibrium in lambs.
Harris and Mitchell (1941b)
reported a biological value of 60 for corn silage and urea.
They observed
that the biological value of nitrogen decreased as the amount of urea in
the ration increased.
Lofgreen et al. (1947) concluded that urea had a
higher biological value when methionine was added to urea diets.
He
reported values of 71 for urea, 74 for urea plus methionine, 76 for linseed
meal, and 80 for dried egg.
Therefore, the methionine addition improved
the quality of the urea protein; however, Hamilton et. al. (1948) showed
biological values of 45 when 80 percent of the ration nitrogen was
provided by urea.
Miller and Morrison (1942), Gallup ejt «al. (1954), and
-13-
Johnson e_t al. (1944) all reported a biological value of approximately 60
for urea nitrogen.
The Utilization of Urea as Affected by Adaptation Response
The adaptation response of urea is the increased utilization of urea
nitrogen as a function of the length of time a ruminant is fed urea.
relationship was first explored by Campbell et al. (1956).
This
They found
that nitrogen utilization from urea increased the longer it was fed to
animals.
Diethylstilbestrol was found to increase nitrogen utilization.
The factor of time increased nitrogen utilization with and without the use
of diethylstilbestrol.
Welch et al. (1957) found that animals fed urea
for 35 days attained their maximum nitrogen utilization.
bestrol decreased this time to 10 days.
Diethylstil­
Smith et. al. (1957) also conclud­
ed that diethylstilbestrol decreased the adjustment period for lambs.
Lambs retained 7 percent more nitrogen as the adjustment period was
increased from 10 to 35 days without the use of diethylstilbestrol.
Six
percent more absorbed nitrogen was retained following periods of 10 and
15 days when diethylstilbestrol was used.
did not increase nitrogen retention.
with McLaren et al. (-1959).
At 35 days, diethylstilbestrol
These findings were in agreement
MaLaren et: al. (1960) concluded that diethyl­
stilbestrol and time influenced the retention of absorbed nitrogen through
direct action on the tissues to promote better utilization of non-protein
nitrogen.
Smith et al. (1960) concluded that nitrogen retention was
increased by 2 percent for each 10-day period on feed up to 50 days.
Barth et al. (1961) used a semipurified diet in an in vitro study.
made up 87 percent of the total nitrogen in the ration.
Urea
They found that
“14protein synthesis did not increase as a function of time, indicating that
a change in rumen micro-organisms was not the cause of the adaptation
response to urea nitrogen.
In these nitrogen metabolism trials, utiliza­
tion increased from 36 percent to 51 percent from the first to the fifth
week using the purified diet from the in vitro trials.
was greater than for lambs fed a lower percent urea.
The response shown
The results of the
work reviewed here may be used as criteria for interpreting or evaluating
many of the trials which showed poor urea utilization, as the animals
used in many of the studies reported were not adapted to the urea nitrogen.
Uses of Urea for Euminant Animals
Rations for Growing Cattle
Bartlett and Cotton (1938) worked with dairy heifers ranging in age
from 7 to 17 months.
A 142-day feeding trial was used.
The low-protein
control heifers had an average daily gain of 0.45 kg., whereas the lowprotein plus urea-fed heifers had an average daily gain of 0.56 kg.
Thus,
the addition of 0.06 kg. of urea increased the rate of gain by 0.11 kg.
per day.
They concluded that heifers fed natural protein showed no dif­
ference in gain from urea but that urea may be less efficient than
natural protein.
Hart et al. (1939) and Work and Henke (1939) found that
growing calves could utilize urea with no ill effects.
They also conclud­
ed that conventional supplements were better utilized and more efficient
than urea.
These experiments encompassed one year each so the adaptation
response would not have been a factor.
Loosli and McCay (1943) proved
that calves two months of age could utilize urea.
They used a basal ration
containing 4.4 percent protein and the basal ration plus urea to give a
-15-
ration containing 16.2 percent protein.
were in a negative nitrogen balance.
The calves fed a basal ration
The urea-fed calves were in a posi­
tive nitrogen balance and gained 90-95 percent of what is considered to
be normal growth.
The urea-fed calves utilized 24-36 percent of their
dietary nitrogen.
When the calves on the basal ration were placed on
the basal plus urea ration, they gained 22.8 kg. in 47 days.
Briggs et
al. (1947) found that feeds containing 25 percent and 50 percent of the
total nitrogen from urea were just as effective as cottonseed meal when
fed to yearling heifers on range.
Gallup et aT. (1953) recommended that
urea should supply no more than 25 percent of the dietary nitrogen in
growing rations for cattle.
When urea was used at this level for winter­
ing beef cattle, the steers fed urea supplement gained the same as the
steers fed the plant protein supplement.
Brown et al. (1956) found no
difference in average daily gain or feed efficiency between protein and
urea, when each supplied 54 percent of the dietary nitrogen in their
respective rations.
The rations were fed to young dairy calves from 2
days of age to 86 days of age.
The work reviewed here shows that growing
cattle can utilize urea effectively.
Rations for Growing Sheep
Johnson et al. (1942) showed that growing lambs could utilize urea
nitrogen, if urea did not provide more than 25 percent of the ration
nitrogen and the ration did not exceed 12 percent protein.
They found
that 16 to 17 percent protein rations, of which 65 or 46 percent of the
total nitrogen was provided by urea, would not satisfy the nitrogen
requirements for growing lanibs.
Harris and Mitchell (1941a) reported
-16 -
earlier that casein nitrogen was superior to urea nitrogen for growing
lambs.
Hamilton et ajL. (1948) found that urea was more efficiently
utilized in a ration containing 11.4 percent protein (urea provided 46
percent of the nitrogen) than a 16.3 percent protein ration in which
urea provided 63 percent of the dietary nitrogen.
They also found
linseed oil to be more efficiently used than urea in a 12.percent protein
ration.
Their conclusions agreed with Johnson et al. (1942)»
Gallup et
al. (1954) found that a protein ration of 10 percent protein gave maximum
nitrogen retention with urea making up 16, 30, or 43 percent of the diet­
ary nitrogen.
However, a greater nitrogen retention was achieved with a
12 percent protein ration that consisted of cottonseed meal as the primary
protein source.
It can be concluded that urea can replace natural pro­
tein up to a level of one-fourth of the dietary nitrogen in a ration of
12 percent protein dr less.
Urea in Rations for Fattening Beef Cattle
Briggs et: al. (1947) conducted two fattening trials in which urea
was compared to cottonseed meal.
The supplements which contained 25 and
50 percent of their nitrogen from urea were found to be equal to cotton­
seed meal.
The pellets containing one-half their nitrogen from urea were
unpalatable toward the end of the trial.
In both trials, a protein-
deficient control low enough to give urea and cottonseed meal a fair
comparison was not used.
In each case, the animals on the basal ration
gained only slightly less than the animals receiving the experimental
treatments.
Long at al. (1951) attempted to evaluate urea and cottonseed
meal as protein sources.-
Because of their experimental design, the only
-17-
conclusion reached was that urea had some value as a protein replacement
in fattening rations.
percent protein.
Later, Long ejt al. (1952) used a basal diet of 9.7
Urea was added to the basal to give a total protein
equivalent of 12.5 percent protein.
Cattle fed equivalent cottonseed
meal rations gained approximately 1.0 kg. per day, whereas the urea-fed
cattle gained on 0.82 kg. per day.
The urea-fed cattle consumed about 10
percent less corn and thus had a lower intake of nutrients.
This was
attributed to urea’s unpalatability reported by Briggs et al. (1947).
Baker ejt al. (1944) compared urea, soybean oil meal, and a combination of
one-half urea, one-half soybean meal as protein sources.
No significant
differences in average daily gain were found among the treatments.
The
basal ration provided 0.62 kg. digestible protein, while the treatments
provided 0.69 kg. digestible protein.
Watson et al. (1949) conducted
feeding, metabolism, and slaughter studies on beef calves weighing approx­
imately 175 kg.
A basal ration of 4.3 percent protein was used.
Either
casein or urea was added to the basal ration to provide enough protein
to satisfy the protein requirement.
Urea-fed calves gained 70 percent
as much weight as did the casein-fed calves.
The casein-fed calves gained
more protein and less fat than did the urea-fed calves.
The gain in
energy by urea-fed calves was approximately 81 percent of the gain made
by casein-fed calves.
Gallup et £l. (1953) recommended that urea should
supply no more than 30 percent of the dietary nitrogen in a fattening
ration.
They also observed that steers utilized urea better in fattening
rations than did lambs.
of vitamin A.
Urea did not affect the storage or blood level
Smith et. al» (1964) found that urea did not affect vitamin
-18“
A storage in the Iivers although urea did cause liver enlargement.
Thuss one may conclude from this evidence that urea may be used as a
replacement for part of the protein in fattening rations for beef cattle.
The amount of urea which may be used effectively is dependent upon further
experimentation utilizing a low-protein control and adequate amounts of
carbohydrates„ proteins, sulfur, trace minerals, and adequate time allow­
ance for adaptation response.
The Toxicity of Urea to Ruminants
Dinning et al. (1948) were the first to study urea toxicity in a
systematic manner.
They orally administered 20 grams of urea per 45 kg.
of body weight to steers.
They found that one-half to one hour after
ingestion, the steers showed uneasiness, staggering, kicking at the flanks,
followed by indoordination, tetany, prostration, and subsequently followed
by convulsions, slobbering at the mouth, bloating and finally death.
These symptoms were attributed to ammonia toxicity, as the steers had a
high blood level of ammonia.
Repp et al. (1955) found that in 34 kg.
lambs, 20 grams of urea gave peak blood values at 30 minutes after treat­
ment.
Forty grams of urea produced toxicity symptoms or death.
Acetic
acid injected into the rumen or intravenously did not reverse the toxicity
if the animal had already gone into tetany.
The symptoms found were simi­
lar to those reported by Dinning et al. (1948).
Whitehair et al. (1955)
found that 20 grams of urea per 45 kg. body weight produced toxicity in
steers only after the steer had been fasted.
There were no toxicity
symptoms at the same level of urea in adjusted steers.
They concluded
that conditions that led to possible toxicity were as follows;
-19-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
starving or fasting cattle before feeding urea;
animals with "'hoggish" appetites;
unadjusted animals;
improperly mixed feeds or feeds too high in urea;
high levels of urea fed with poor quality, high
roughage rations.
Hale and King (1955) found that the administration of ammonium carba­
mate either orally or intravenously produced symptoms similar to those of
urea toxicity.
They suggested that ammonium carbamate was the lethal
factor in ammonia toxicity.
They further stated that the bloating syndrome
was similar to that displayed by cattle consuming immature legume pastures
which were naturally high in non-protein nitrogen (ammonium carbamate) and
noted that this may have been the toxic factor here, too.
Hale (1956)
further explained that ammonium carbamate may be formed as an intermediate
product in urea hydrolysis by urease, and when ammonium carbamate builds,
up in the rumen, it may pass to the blood stream and be toxic.
Lewis
(1960) concluded that toxicity is almost certainly due finally to a direct
effect of the circulating ion level, although, in the case of urea, there
is an earlier effect that may be of a pharmacological type and less
severe.
Therefore, because of the problems involved in the use of urea as a
protein replacement in ruminant ration, namely, toxicity and inefficient
utilization due to the very rapid hydrolysis by urease, it became necessary to find another non-protein nitrogen compound which would overcome
these defects.
Biuret has been shown to be non-toxic and slower than urea
in ammonia release.
Biuret is a condensation product of urea.
When urea
is heated above 271° F. in the absence of water, ammonia is lost and
-20-
biuret is formed.
The chemical formula for biuret is NHgCONHCONHg.
molecular weight is 103.
The
The protein equivalent is 237.5.
Biuret as a Nitrogen Source for Ruminant Animals
The first investigations into the use of biuret concerned the possible
toxicity of biuret.
If biuret was shown to be toxic, it would be of no
more value than urea.
Repp et al, (1955), working with lambs, found
biuret to be non-toxic at levels which urea produced death.
Research
reported by Meiske et al. (1955), Hatfield et al. (1955), Hatfield et: al.
(1959), Clark et al. (1965) indicates that biuret is non-toxic.
Berry et
al. (1956) reported that biuret was non-toxic to rats, poultry, lambs,
and steers.
There were no acute or chronic toxicity symptoms exhibited.
Although the lack of toxicity of biuret has not been disputed, the ability
of the ruminant to utilize the nitrogen from biuret has not been clearly
established.
The investigation of biuret as a nitrogen source was the
next logical step.
Utilization of Nitrogen from Biuret
Gaither et: al. (1955) found no differences in nitrogen retention from
urea and crude biuret.
It should be noted that crude biuret was used in
many of the early experiments.
The crude biuret sometimes assayed as much
as 40 percent urea so that some of the results obtained may be attributed
to the action of urea.
Hatfield et al. (1955) compared urea, biuret, and
soybean oil meal when fed to steers in metabolism trials.
No difference
was observed in dry matter digestibility or nitrogen retention among the
three treatments.
The nitrogen balance was higher in the urea and soybean
oil meal-fed steers than with the biuret-fed steers.
The biuret-fed steers
-21-
ingested 90 grams of biuret per day and excreted 12.8 grams of actual
biuret in the urine.
Meiske et al. (1955) reported no difference in daily
gain in fattening lambs with urea, crude biuret, biuret, and soybean meal
as nitrogen sources.
The calves fed crude biuret, however, were the least
efficient in feed conversion of all four treatments.
The conversion rates
were 10.52 for crude biuret compared to 9.76, 9.86, and 9.53 for the other
three treatments.
Gaither et: al, (1955) found no difference in nitrogen
retention in metabolism trials with lambs when biuret was compared to
urea as a supplemental nitrogen source.
Meiske et al. (1955) found that
crude biuret, when compared to urea, depressed apparent nitrogen digesti­
bility but did not affect nitrogen utilization.
reduced the utilization of nitrogen.
Pure biuret, however,
Smith et al. (1957) found no differ­
ence in nitrogen utilization in a comparison of urea and crude biuret.
However, one-half urea and one-half biuret depressed utilization.
McLaren
et al. (1958) conducted an jLn vitro study in which the production of acid
at various times was used as a criterion for growth,
found between crude biuret and urea.
No difference was
McLaren e_t al. (1959) reported that
crude biuret did not affect nitrogen retention when compared to urea.
Garrigus et: aL, (1959) conducted metabolism trials with biuret, urea, and
biuret urea comparison.
The highest nitrogen balance obtained was with
biuret as the sole source of non-protein nitrogen (8.5 grams nitrogen per
day).
The basal ration with only urea added had a nitrogen balance of
7.6 grams per day.
All combinations of urea and biuret had lower nitrogen
balances than straight urea.
Anderson et al. (1959) noted nitrogen
utilization was not significantly changed when crude biuret supplied 50
-22-
percent of the supplemental nitrogen.
When biuret supplied 100 percent
of the supplemental nitrogen, nitrogen utilization was depressed.
The
lambs fed 100 percent crude biuret had a negative nitrogen balance.
Hatfield et al. (1959) concluded that sheep and cattle could maintain a
positive nitrogen balance when biuret furnished a major portion of the
dietary nitrogen intake.
The utilization of biuret appeared to be influ­
enced by the level of feed intake.
At high levels of feed, a urea-biuret
mixture had the highest nitrogen balance.
Campbell et al. (1963) found no
difference in nitrogen retention with lambs when comparing urea and
biuret.
However, urea-fed steers had a higher nitrogen retention than
those fed biuret.
Karr et al. (1963) reported that biuret had a higher
nitrogen retention than urea, but lower than soybean oil meal.
Karr et
al. (1964a) found that when steers were fed silage to which biuret had
been added at ensiling time, a higher nitrogen retention resulted than
when steers were fed urea supplemented silage.
Clark et: al. (1965) found
no difference in nitrogen retention when comparing urea, biuret, triuret,
and cyanuric acid with sheep.
Berry et aj.. (1956) suggested that because of the variable response
of biuret when fed to ruminants, it would not be a dependable source of
non-protein nitrogen.
Johnson and McClure (1963) found that biuret had
no effect on rumen ammonia or blood urea.
Micro-organisms taken from urea-
or biuret-adapted animals could not release ammonia from biuret when
incubated in vitro.
They suggested that if ruminants do utilize biuret,
it is not through direct utilization of biuret nitrogen by rumen micro­
flora
-23-
The work reviewed here indicates that biuret can be used as an effect­
ive nitrogen source in ruminant animals.
The Adaptation Response of Biuret
Campbell et: al. (1956) found that nitrogen utilization of biuret
increased with time, with and without diethylstilbestrol,
Welch et al.
(1957) reported maximum utilization of both urea and biuret at 35 days.
Diethylstilbestrol decreased this time to 10 days.
Ewan et al. (1958)
reported biuret needed a longer adaptation period than urea.
Campbell et
al. (1963) stated that biuret rations became more efficient with time,
usually two to three weeks.
Karr et al. (1964b) reported that diethyl­
stilbestrol appeared to reduce adaptation time on urea rations but not
biuret rations indicating the adaptation mechanism for the two may be
different.
Mackenzie and Altona (1964) noted that the gain response of
cattle was slower than that of sheep when they were placed on biuret
rations.
The data reviewed indicate that animals do need a certain length
of time to adapt to biuret.
How long an animal requires is unclear and
the mechanism of this adaptation is unknown.
.
Biuret adaptation time by
ruminants clearly requires more research.
Effect of Biuret on Digestibility of Nutrients in the Ration
The effect of biuret on the digestibility of nutrients in the ration
is often disputed in that the findings of various researchers are contra­
dictory.
Hatfield et "al. (1955) found no difference in dry matter digesti­
bility among treatments of urea, biuret, and soybean meal as sources, of
nitrogen.
Welch et al. (1956) reported.no depression of dry matter
digestibility with crude biuret; however, pure biuret did depress organic
-24-
matter and protein digestion.
Anderson et al. (1959).
This finding was supported by the data of
Campbell et al. (1956), on the other hand, found
diethylstilbestroI plus crude biuret depressed protein and organic matter
digestibility.
Smith at al. (1957) reported that the digestibility of
crude protein, organic matter, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract were
all depressed by feeding crude biuret as opposed, to feeding urea.
When
urea and biuret each made up one-half of the non-protein nitrogen in a
ration, the digestibilities were depressed even more.
substantiated by the work of McLaren et al. (1959).
These findings were
Garrigus et al. (1959)
found a decrease in dry matter digestibility as the percent of biuret in
the ration increased.
Biuret has not yet been released by the Food and Drug Administration
for commercial use.
The experiments reported in this paper were designed
to evaluate biuret as a source of protein for wintering and fattening
rations for beef cattle.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
These experiments were conducted at the Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana.
Cattle used in the trials were
either produced at the Red Bluff Research Ranch, Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Norris, Montana or purchased locally.
«•
•
The calves
■
were eartagged for identification, branded, and vaccinated for
Blackleg, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (Red Nose), and Leptospirosis
upon arrival at the feedlot.
All calves were treated with Rulene for
grub control.
The feed was mixed, weighed into large cans, and spread in the feed
bunks twice daily.
Straw was used as bedding and was added to the back
half of each pen as needed.
Initial and final weights of cattle were taken after an overnight
shrink (15 hours) without feed and water.
The calves were individually
weighed every 28 days throughout the trial.
The data presented in this manuscript are in the metric system.
All
tables of data presented in the appendix are in the English system.
Trial I
Thirty-two Hereford steer calves produced at the Red Bluff. Research
Ranch, Norris, Montana were used in Trial I.
The steers were stratified
by weight and randomly assigned within weight groups to each of four pens
Eight calves were assigned to each lot.
The experimental area consisted of four pens with fenceline bunks.
The pens were 36 feet by 26 feet and covered with asphalt allowing each
calf 117 square feet.
each lot.
Salt boxes were located at the end of the bunk in
There was one electrically heated watering cup per two lots.
- 26“
A board fence
feet high provided a windbreak on the north side of the
8
pens.
T h e
o f
t h e
1 9 6 6 ,
s t e e r s
w e r e
e x p e r i m e n t .
a f t e r
a n
A l o t t e d
t o
I n d i v i d u a l
o v e r n i g h t
t h e i r
i n i t i a l
r e s p e c t i v e
w e i g h t s
l o t s
w e r e
p r i o r
t o
t h e
s t a r t
o b t a i n e d
o n
J a n u a r y
2 8 ,
s h r i n k .
Three supplements were formulated to contain 20 percent protein with
50 percent of the equivalent crude protein furnished by urea, biuret, or
soybean oil meal.
The biuret used was labeled MA-5 and produced by Dow
Chemical Company.
The analysis of this product is shown in Table I.
TABLE I.
ANALYSIS Of BIURET PRODUCT MA-5*.
1
Contents
Biuret
Urea
Triuret
Cyanuric Acid
Moisture
Nitrogen
Percent of Mixture
67.0
5.6
6.9
12.3
7.8
38.0
Parts per Million
Arsenic
Heavy Metals (Pb)
. 2
2 0
a Analysis by Dow Chemical Company.
A protein deficient control ration was formulated to contain 12
percent protein.
Calyes ,Xgere fed 1.82 kg. of supplement, 0.45 kg. steam
rolled barley, 0.45 kg. pelleted beet pulp, and 2.27 kg. wheat straw per
day for a period of two weeks prior to the start of the trial to allow
calves to become adapted to the ration.
Ther design of the experiment
and the average daily ration are shown in Table II.
-27-
8
oo
No. Steers
13
<t
Lot No.
15
%
16
8
i
Treatment
Average daily ration (kg.)
Steam rolled barley
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
0.45
0.45
1.82
2.27
0.03
5.02
0.45
0.45
1.82
2.27
0.03
5.02
0.45
0.45
1.82
2.27
0.03
5.02
0.45
0.45
1.82
2.27
0.03
5.02
The 112-day wintering trial was terminated on May 20, 1966, after
a 15 hour restriction from feed and water.
Individual final weights
were subjected to analysis of covariance, using initial weights as the
concomitant variable.
Weights were also tested for significant difference
using the multiple range test described by Duncan (1955).
The composition
of the supplements used in Trial I is shown in Table III.
These steers were continued on a finishing trial, and carcass data
were obtained at the termination of the finishing period.
—28~
TABLE III.
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR WINTERING CALVES.
MSU Formula No,
Treatment
471
472
473
'GtihWe/lv
Urea
Biuret
Ingredients
Corn
Barley
Soybean oil meal
Urea
Biuret
Wheat millrun
Alfalfa, dehydrated
Molasses
Trace minerals
Monosodium phosphate
Calcium carbonate
Sulfur
Vitamin A & Da
Protein (actual percent)
474
SBOM
Percent of Ration
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
,
48.00
25.00
0 . 0 0
3,55
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
4.00
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
0 , 0 0
72.50
>
5.50. 0.50
0.30
1 0 . 0 0
50.00
ISvOO
50.00
18.00
0 . 0 0
.
0 . 0 0
5.50
0.50
0.65
1.25
5.50
0.50
1 . 2 0
5.95
0.50
0.65
1.25
0 . 0 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 0 0
9
18.80
o«aa.
22.30
OOO
14.10
9
99
0 0
2 0 . 2 0
090
0 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
a Vitamin A added to supply 11,000 I. U. per kg. of feed.
Vitamin D added to supply 2,000 I. U. per kg. of feed.
Trial II
The thirty-two steer calves used in Trial I were used itL Trial II.
The steers remained in the same pens.
Initial weights were obtained on
June 27s 1966,
The design of Trial II is shown in Table IVo
r
-29-
TABLE IV.
Lot No.
DESIGN OF TRIAL II.
....
1-i
13
No. Steers
14 .
7a
Treatment
8
SBOM+P
Average daily ration (%)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
■
. Wheat straw
Salt
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
Urea
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
16
7b
8
Biuret
SBOM
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
& Steer No. 507 developed urinary calculi on July 25, 1966, and was
removed from the experiment.
b Steer No. 545 developed urinary calculi and was removed September 9,
1966.
The ration used for this finishing trial consisted of 40 percent
cracked corn, 30 percent pelleted beet pulp, and 30 percent of a 20 percent
protein supplement.
Steers also received wheat straw ad libitum.
The four
supplements were similar to those used in Trial I, except that the control
supplement was changed to 20 percent protein with 50 percent of the protein
provided by soybean meal, plus a high level of phosphorus.
The steers
were brought to full feed over a period of one month with all lots
receiving equal amounts of feed.
in Trial II is shown in Table V
0
The composition of the supplements used
-30-
TABLE'Vc.
SPECIFICATIONS OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR FATTENING STEERS,
.MSU Formula No,
479 .
Treatment
SBOM+P
476
Urea
477
478
Biuret
SBOM
I
‘'
Percent of Ration
Ingredients
Corn
Soybean oil meal
Urea
Biuret
Wheat millrun
Alfalfa, dehydrated
Molasses
Trace minerals
Monosodium phosphate
Calcium carbonate
Salt
Sulfur
Vitamin A & Da
19.65
22.56
59.00
59.00
0 . 0 0
i
24.25
22.50
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
3.55
0 . 0 0
0.00
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
4.00
0 . 0 0
40.00
IOi
5.00
0.25
0 0
2 0 , 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
37.50
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
5.25
0.25.
0.70
5.00
0.25
0 . 2 0
0 . 0 0
0.50
5.75
0.25
0.70
0.15
0.50
0,50
0.50
0 . 0 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 0 0
...o.
....
....
....
2 . 1 0
0 . 0 0
a Vitamin A added to provide 22,000 I!. U. per kg. feed.
Vitamin D added to provide 2,200 I, U. per kg. feed.
0 , 0 0
'
,
Initially, the four smallest calves in each lot were given a 24 mg.
One month later, four calves in each lot were
diethylstilbestroI implant.
given an injection of one million I . U. of Vitamin A.
Of these four
calves, two had previously been implanted with diethylstilbestrol.
Final
weights for the 104-day finishing trial were obtained on October 9» 1966,
after a 15 hour restriction from feed and water.
The steers were transported to New Butte Butchering Company, Butte,
Montana, on October 9, 1966,
carcass grade and weight.
The steers were sold on the basis of
Upon arrival at Butte, the cattle were unloaded
and maintained without feed and water until slaughtered the following
day.
Carcass identity was maintained during the slaughtering procedure.
-31-
A record was made of the number of abscessed livers and the rumens were
examined for parakeratosis.
Carcasses were weighed warm following
shrouding, and three percent shrink was used as an estimate of cold
carcass weight.
Approximately 48 hours following slaughter, the carcasses were
graded, and a marbling score of the rib eye at the twelfth rib was
determined by a U. S. D. A. grader.
At this time, rib eye area and
backfat thickness at the twelfth rib were obtained.
steers were subjected to analysis of covariance.
Final weights of the
Other data were analyzed
by analysis of variance and the Chi square test.
Trial III
Eleven yearling Hereford heifers produced by the Red Bluff Research
Ranch of the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station and wintered at
the Fort Ellis Branch of the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
and twenty-nine Hereford yearling heifers purchased from William Black
of Gallatin Gateway, Montana, were included in the trial.
These forty
heifers were placed in the feedlot and fed for one month to adjust them
to feedlot conditions.
During this time, the heifers were branded and
vaccinated for Blackleg, Leptospirosis, and Infectious Bovine Rhinotraceitis.
They were fed 0.91 kg. steam rolled barley, 0.45 kg. pelleted
beet pulp, 0.45 kg. of a 20 percent protein supplement, and grass hay
ad libitum.
Four 32-percent protein supplements were formulated with urea,
biuret, a combination of urea-biuret, or soybean meal furnishing twothirds of the 32-percent protein.
On June 28, 196,6,, the heifers were
-32-
stratified by weight and source and placed in eight lots of five head
each.
Two replications per treatment were used,
Ttie heifers were weighed
initially July 5, 1966, after an overnight shrink.
On July 7, 1966, the
heifers were implanted with 12 mg, of diethylstilbestrol each.
Heifers
were fed 0,45 kg. per head per day of their respective 32-pefcent protein
and the concentrated mixture of 80 percent steam rolled barley and
2 0
percent beet pulp was gradually increased until the heifers reached full
feed.
The heifers were also fed 1.36 kg. of grass hay and 0.45 kg. of
oyster shell per head per day.
The amount of oyster shell was reduced to
0.23 kg. per head on August 2, 1966.
The design of Trial III and the
average daily rations are shown in Table VI.
TABLE VI.
DESIGN OF TRIAL III.
Lot No.
5
No. Heifers
MSU Formula No.
Treatment
.
_______
_
V/
17 -
6
7
8
5
5
5
5
4
488
489
490
491
491
^Urea SBOM
%Biuret
SBOM
Urea
Biuret
Average daily ration (kg. )
Steam rolled
barley (%)
80.00 80.00
Pelleted beet
pulp (%)
Supplement (kg.) 0.45
0.45
Oyster shell
(kg.)
0.25
q.25
Grass hay (kg.)
Salt
0.03
0.03
2 0 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
1 , 0 0
8
18
19 v-
2 0
5
5
5
490
489
488
%Urea
Biuret Urea
%Biuret
80,00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00 '80.00
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
a Heifer No. 513 died of bloat oh August 25, 1966.
based on 4 heifers.
Calculations shown are
-33-
The composition of the supplements used is shown in Table VII.
MSU Formula No. .
488
Treatment
489
Urea
Biuret
Ingredients
490
%Urea
%Biuret
491
SBOM
Percent of Ration
Corn
Soybean oil meal
Urea
Biuret
Wheat miIIrun
Alfalfa, dehydrated
Molasses
Trace minerals
Monosodium phosphate
Calcium carbonate
Salt
Sulfur
Vitamin A & Da
37.10
35.85
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
7.15
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
8.40
21.50
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
57.70
3.55
4.20
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
2 2 . 0 0
2 2 . 0 0
2 2 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
6 . 0 0
6 . 0 0
6 . 0 0
6 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
0.65
0.40
0.50
0.65
0.40
0.50
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 0
0 . 0 0
....
....
0.65
r 0.40
0.50
0 . 2 0
....
1.00
0 . 0 0
. '
0.50
0
0
0
a Vitamin A added to provide 44,000 I.rU. per kg. of feed,
Vitamin D added to provide 6,600 I. U. per kg. of feed.
Individual final weights were taken on October 16, 1966, and the
.
heifers were immediately loaded onto trucks for transport to the New Butte
Butchering Company at Butte, Montana.
Trial II.
Carcass data were obtained as in
The heifers were sold on the basis of carcass grade and weight.
Statistical analysis of data was performed as in Trial II.
Trial IV
Twenty head of Hereford steer calves produced at the Red Bluff
Research Ranch of the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station and 20 head
of Hereford steer calves purchased from the Williams ranch of Willow
Creek, Montana, were used in this study.
The calves were vaccinated and
-34-
branded as in Trial I and were given two weeks to adjust to the feedlot
conditions on a ration described in Trial I.
On October 28, 1966, the
calves were stratified as to weight and source and randomized into
4
lots
of ten calves each.
Three supplements were formulated to contain 20 percent protein with
50 percent of the protein furnished by urea, biuret, or soybean oil meal,
A control supplement was formulated to contain 10,5 percent protein.
The
calves were fed 2.27 kg. of the supplement and 2.73 kg. of wheat straw.
Forty-two percent of the total protein equivalent in the ration was
furnished by urea, biuret, or soybean oil meal.
After allowing four weeks
for the calves to adjust to the ration, they were individually weighed on
experiment after a 15 hour overnight shrink on November 28, 1966*
pen received equal amounts of feed daily.
Each
Table VIII shows the design
and average daily ration of Trial IV.
TABLE VIII.
■ .°
DESIGN
OF r
TRIAL
IV.
—
"
1
Lot No.
13
14
15
No, Steers
1 0
1 0
1 0
Urea
Biuret
Treatment
Average daily ration (kg.)
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
Control
16
gfl
SBOM
2.27
2.72
2.27
2.72
2.27
2.72
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 6 2
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
2.27
. 2.72
..
H ....
'
I
'' ._
a Steer No. '7 was removed from this lot on January 23, 1967, as the steer
became a chronic bloater.
1
1
-35-
The composition of the supplement used in Trial IV is shown in
Table IX.
TABLE IX.
COMPOSITION QF SUPPLEMENTS FOR WINTERING
CALVES.
.... .
MSU Formula No.
Treatment
527
524
Control
Urea
Ingredients
Corn
Steam rolled barley
Soybean oil meal
Urea
Biuret
Wheat millrun
Alfalfa, dehydrated
Molasses
Trace minerals
Monosodium phosphate
Calcium carbonate
Sulfur
Vitamin A & Da
525
Biuret
526
SBOM
Percent of Ration
54.50
18.00
50.00
18.00
50.00
18.00
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
25.00
23.00
25.00
0 . 0 0
3.55
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
4.20
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
5.95
0.50
0.30
0.75
6.45
0.50
0.65
0.75
5.80
0.50
0.65
0.75
5.95
0.50
0 . 0 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 0 0
....
....
....
....
0 . 0 0
0.55
a Vitamin A added to provide 449000 I. U. per kg. of feed.
Vitamin D added to provide 6,600 I. U. per kg. of feed.
A final individual shrunk weight was obtained on March 20, 1967.
The
steers were continued on a fattening trial after which carcass data were
obtained.
Trial V
Trial V was a replication of Trial II.
used in Trial IV were used in Trial V,
The thirty-nine steer calves
The steers remained in the same
lots and an individual initial shrunk weight was obtained on March 20,
1966.
The design of Trial V is shown in Table X.
-36-
TABLE Xe DESIGN OF TRIAL V,
Lot No.
13
14
15
No. Steers
10
10
10
Urea
Biuret
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
Treatment
Control
Average daily ration (%)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
a Steer No. 7became a
on January 23, 1967.
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
16
9a
SBOM
40.00
30.00
30.00
ad libitum
ad libitum
chronic bloater and was removed from the experiment
The ration used for the finishing trial consisted of 40 percent
cracked corn, 30 percent pelleted beet pulp and 30 percent of a 20 percent
protein supplement.
Steers also received wheat straw ad libitum.
supplements were formulated.
Four
Three supplements contained 20 percent
protein with one-half of the protein furnished by urea, biuret, or
soybean oil meal.
A 10 percent protein control ration similar to the
control ration used in Trial IV was also formulated.
The steers were
brought to full feed over a period of one month with all lots receiving
equal amounts of feed.
V is shown in Table XI.
The composition of the supplements used in Trial
-37-
TABLE XI,
SPECIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTS FOR FATTENING STEERS.
MSU Formula No„
Treatment
527
Control
Ingredients
Corn
Soybean oil meal
Urea
Biuret
Wheat millrun
Alfalfa, dehydrated
Molasses
Trace minerals
Monosodium phosphate
Calcium carbonate
Salt
Sulfur
Vitamin A & Da
524
Urea
525
Biuret
526
SBOM
Percent of Ration
46.25
59.40
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
3.55
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
v
0 . 0 0
58.70
0 . 0 0
24.25
22.50
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0
,4.25
0 . 0 0
37.50
2 0 . 0 0
2 0 . 0 0
37.50
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
1 0 . 0 0
5.00
0.25
0.35
0.15
0.50
5.00
0.25
0 . 0 0
o « « e
5.00
0.25
5.00
0.25
0 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 0
0.50
0.50
QfOO
0.50
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 0 0
« 0 4 0
O 4 O 4
....
a Vitamin A added to provide SSaOOO I. U. per kg. of feed.
Vitamin D added to provide 2 a200 I. U. per kg. of feed.
Initially, the four smallest calves in each lot were given a 24 mg,
diethylstilbestroI implant.
Final weights for the 140-day finishing trial
were obtained on August 7 S 1967, after a 15 hour restriction from feed and
water.
The steers were immediately loaded on trucks for transport to the
New Butte Butchering Company at Butte, Montana.
obtained as in Trials II and III.
carcass grade and weight.
in Trials II and III
Carcass data were
The steers were sold on the basis of
Statistical analysis of data was performed as
RESUL T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
T rial I
The initial and final weights, average daily gains, average daily
feed consumption and feed conversion data are presented in Table XII.
TABLE XIIe
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS* DAILY FEED CONSUMP­
TION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF STEER CALVES FED
UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL, OR A PROTEIN DEFICIENT CONTROL
RATION. (Trial I -- January 28, 1966 to May 20, 1966 — 112
days).
"
Lot No.
13
Treatment
Control
No. Steers
8
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
262
197
65
0,58
14
Urea
8
267
2 0 1
6 6
15 .
Biuret
16
SBOM
8
8
264
198
261
195
6 6
6 6
0.59
0.59
0.59
Average daily ration (kg.)
Concentrate mixture
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
1.07
1.71
2.07
0.03
4.90
0.93
1.90
2.07
0.03
4.93
0.93
1.91
2.07
0.03
4.94
1.07
1.72
2.07
0.03
4.89
Kg. feed per kg. gain
8.46
8.36
8.41
8.30
Feed cost per kg. gain ($)
0.37
0.37
0.36*
0.37
a Feed prices: concentrate mixture, $0«,05984/kg,; supplement, $0,07304/kg.
wheat straw, $0.011/kg.; salt, 0.0308/kg.
The steers in Trial I initially weighed an average of 198 kg.
The
average daily gain of steers (Table XII) fed urea, biuret, soybean oil
meal, or a protein deficient control ranged from .0.58 to 0.59 kg. per day.
Analysis of covariance indicated no significant difference (P^>.05) due
to treatment.
The protein deficient control ration had been calculated
-39-
fco supply 75 percent of the NRC requirements for protein (Table XIII).
TABLE XIII
0
NRC REQUIREMENTS, CALCULATED PROTEIN LEVEL, ACTUAL PROTEIN
LEVEL AND AVERAGE DAILY GAIN OF 227 KGe WEANLING CALVES FED
TO GAIN 0,45 KG, PER DAY,
Protein
Required
(NRC)
(kg,) '
Treatments
Control ,
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
0,59
0,59
0.59
0.59
Protein
Calculated
(kg,)
0,3946
0,5300
0.5300
0.5300
Actual
Protein
Fed Per
Day (kg,)
Percent
of NRC
Require ments
Average
Daily
Gain
0.3832
0.5198
0.4951
0.5267
65.0
0.58
8 8 . 0
0.59
84.0
89.0
0.59
0.59
As shown in Table XIII, the protein deficient control group was
actually fed only 65,0 percent of their NRC requirement for protein, yet
gains were similar in all treatments.
This lack of response was probably
due to the fact that 65,0 percent of the NRC requirement is not low enough
to show a response due to the addition of either urea, biuret, or soybean
oil meal to the ration.
Because the steers within each lot were group-fed, a statistical
analysis of feed per unit gain could not be conducted.
varied from 8,30 to 8,46 kg, of feed per kg, of gain.
considered unimportant.
The feed efficiency
This difference is
-40-
TABLE XIV
0
PROXIMATE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FEED UTILIZED IN WINTERING
r
*AT
TM r
PDT AT
Mois­
ture
%
Feed
Steam rolled
barley
Pelleted beet
pulp
Wheat straw
Control supplement
471
Urea supplement
472 '
Biuret supplement
473
SBOM supplement
.474
t
a
Ether
Ash
Extract
. 7.
. .%
Crude
Protein
%
Crude
Fiber
' 7.
Phos­
phorus
7.
Cal­
cium
7.
11.50
1,60
2.70
3.50
0.37
0.06
7.80
5.00
9.00
1.70
7.80
0.90
5.80
4.10
15.70
50.30
0.06
0.14
0.28
0.09
9.90
14.10
3.50
5.30
7.40
0.44
0.60
11.30
2 0 . 2 0
3.30
3.90
4.70
0.38
0.50
11,90
18^80
3.70
3.70
4.70
0,41
0.55
1 1 . 1 0
22.30
2.50
5.90
9.20
0.45
0 . 6 8
1 2 , 1 0
a Analysis by Chemistry Departments Montana State University,
Average daily feed consumption was similar in all groups.
This is
logical because the amount of straw fed was governed by the lot consuming
the least straw.
to the four pens.
Equal amounts of other portions of the rations were fed
This was done so that each steer could consume the same
amount of nitrogen from either urea
3
biuret, or soybean oil meal.
Trial II
The initial and final weights, average daily gains, average daily
feed consumption, feed conversion, and financial returns are presented in
Table XV,
-41-
TABLE XV. , SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED CONSUMP­
TION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND FINANCIAL RETURNS FOR STEER CALVES
FED UREA, BIURET, ,SOYBEAN MEAL, AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH
PHOSPHORUS. (Trial II -- June 27, 1966 to October 9, 1966 -104 days).
,V
Lot No.
Treatment
No. Steers
13
14
15
16
SBOM+P
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
7
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (kg.)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
8
7
8
421
286
135
1.30
426
292
134
1.29
428
289
139
1.34
423
281
142
1.37
3.35
2.52
2.96
3.51
2.65
3.00
3.51
2.65
3.00
3.51
2.65
3.00
1 . 6 6
1 . 6 8
1 . 6 6
1 . 6 8
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
10.81
10.85
10.51
10.85
Kg. feed per kg. gain
8 . 1 1
8.40
8 . 1 0
7.92
Feed cost per kg. gain ($)c
0.48
0.49
0.46*
0.46
Financial returns per steer ($)
163.28
Initial cost
Feed cost
64.95
3.24
Trucking
Total investment
231.47
Gross return
196.15
-35.32
Net return
163.54
65.37
3.28
232.19
193.12
-39.07
*3
6
164.06
64.32
3.29
231.67
192.55
-39.12
160.94
65.89
3.26
230.09
194.52
-35.57
a Cost of biuret not included.
b Initial cost; $0.671/kg. delivered at Bozeman, Montana.
c Feed prices; cracked corn, $0.0638/kg.; pelleted beet pulp, $0.0528/
kg. I supplement-, $0.075/kg.; wheat straw, $0.011/kg.; salt, $0.0308/kg.
° Trucking; $0.0077/kg. live weight.
e Sold on carcass grade and weight basis; Choice, $0.836/kg. and Good,
$0.814/kg.
-42-
The average daily gains of steers (Table XV) fed soybean oil meal
plus phosphorus, urea, biuret, or soybean oil meal varied from 1.29 to
1.37 kg. per head per day.
Analysis of covariance showed this
percent
6
difference to be non-significant (P^>.05).
Because the cattle were lot fed, no statistical analysis could be
calculated for feed efficiency. It may be observed (Table XV) that the
'
i
■
'
biuret-fed steers were 3.7 percent more efficient than the urea-fed
steers; 8.1 as compared to 8.4 kg. of feed per kg. of gain.
TABLE XVI. SUMMARY OF WEIGHT AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS IMPLANTED
____________AND NOT IMPLANTED WITH DIETHYLSTILBESTROL.___________________
Lot No.
13
14
15
Treatment
Supplement
DES
SBOM+P
+
O
Urea
+
O
Biuret
o
+
SBOM
+
O
No. Steers
4
3
4
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
3
434 403
307 258
127 145
1.23 1.40
4
4
433 420
310 275
123 145
1.19 1.40
16
4
459 405
325 262
134 143
1.29 1.37
4
425 423
291 271
134 152
1.29 1.45
The steers implanted with stilbestrol had a significantly greater
gain (P<^«01) than did the non-implanted steers.
Vitamin A had no effect
on gain.
The proximate chemical analysis of the feed ingredients used in this
trial are given in Table XVII.
-43-
TABLE XVII,
Feed
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEEDS FED IN TRIAL XI.a
Ether
Ash
Crude Phos­
Mois­
Crude
ture
Protein Extract
Fiber phorus
7,
%
%
%
%
%
Cracked corn
Beet pulp
SBOM+P supplement
Urea supplement
Biuret supplement
SBOM supplement
Wheat straw
9.40
4.60
10.30
6.50
6.60
9.40
8.40
8.80
9.70
2 1 . 2 0
4.30
0.40
5.60
3.70
2 1 . 2 0
8 . 0 0
19.70
1.30
4.80
0.70
2 1 . 1 0
1.50
5.30
7.10
5.10
4.80
1.50
17.30
8.50
5.80
8.60
45.50
3.30
6 . 1 0
6 . 1 0
0.28
0.08
1.15
0.62
0.59
0.78
0.03
Cal­
cium
7.
0.05
0 . 1 1
0.23
0.29
0.25
0.23
0.05
a Analyses by Chemistry Departmentg Montana State University.
Table XVIII contains the pertinent carcass data of the steers in this
trial.
The data showed a significant difference (F<^iOS) in loin eye area
per kg. carcass weight.
The urea and soybean-fed calves had significantly
larger (P<^.05) loin eyes in terms of square centimeter per kilogram
carcass weight (0.29 and 0.28) than did the soybean oil meal plus high
phosphorus lot (0.26).
There was no significant difference between the
biuret treatment (0.27) and any of the other treatments.
There also was
no significant difference between the urea and soybean oil meal treatment.
The analysis of variance and the Chi-square test showed no significant
difference (PJ>.05) between treatments in the remainder of the carcass
data presented in'Tab,Ie XVIII.
There were no dark cutting cattle, and
only two livers were condemned. One liver was condemned in each of lots
14 and 15
-44-
TABLE XVIII.
CARCASS DATA FOR STEERS FED SOYBEAN OIL MEAL, WITH AND
WITHOUT HIGH PHOSPHORUS, UREA, AND BIURET. (Trial II —
June 27, 1966 to October 9, 1966 --■ 104 days)
6
Lot No.
Treatment
No. Steers
13
14
15
16
SBOM+P
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
7
Carcass grade
High choice
Average choice
Low choice
High good
Average good
Low good
>'
O O O
8
«
« O O O
5
I
I
6 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
4
2
....
I
I
Carcass grade Scorea
18.6
Marbling score
Dressing percent
'3
7
....
O O O O
3
I
2
8
6 6 0 0
I
2
I
4
I
....
18.1
17.9
18.0
11.7
11,3
10.7
10.9
56.2
55.1
54.4
55.2
Rib eye area
(sq. cm./kg. carcass)
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.28
Fat cover over
th rib (cm.)
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
I
7
6
1 2
Liver condition
Condemned
Non-condemned
O OAO
7
I
n
....
8
a 20 = Average choice, 19 = Low choice.
^ 12 = Small, 15 = Modest, 18 = Moderate.
Trial III
The initial and final weights, average daily gains, average daily
feed consumption, feed conversion, and financial returns are presented in
Table XIX.
The, heifers used in Trial III initially averaged 246 kg.
The average
-45-
final weight was 382 kg.
The average daily gains ranged from 1.29 to
1.35 kg. per head per day.
No significant difference (P^>. OS) was shown
by analysis of covariance.
Analysis of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test showed that
the heifers fed urea and biuret supplements were more efficient (P <<05)
than the heifers fed the supplement in which urea and biuret made up twothirds of the protein equivalent.
No significant difference was shown
between the heifers fed the soybean oil meal supplement and any other
group.
These data are in direct contradiction with the findings of
Hatfield et al. (1959).
The reason for this difference is not known.
However, these data agree with the findings of Smith et al. (1957),
-46-
TABLE XIX.
SUMMARY OF.WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED CONSUMP­
TION, FEED'EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURNS FOR HEIFERS FED
UREA, BIIjRET;,.UREA-BIURET, AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL. (Trial III
Lot No.
5
Urea
Treatment
No. Heifers
5
2 0
Urea
5
18
■
7
%Urea
%Urea
Biuret Biuret ^Biuret %Biuret SBOM
6
5
19
5
8
5
5
5
17
SBOM
4a
Average weights (kg.)
Final
380
371
383
381
395
381
377
384 .
Initial
252
240
250
248
245
245
245
246
Gain
131
136
143
130
135
136
132
138
Daily gain
1.32
1.38
1.27
1.31
1.26
1.33
1.29
1.34
Average daily ration (kg.)
Barley
5.69
Beet pulp
1.42
Supplement
0.44
Oyster shell
0.25
Grass hay
Salt
0.03
Total
8.83
5.72
1.43
0.45
0.25
5.74
1.44
0.45
0.26
5.92
1.48
0.45
0.26
5.92
1.48
0.45
0.26
5.81
1.45
0.45
0.26,
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 1
0.03
9.14
0.03
9,00
0.03
9.0k
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
1 . 0 0
0.03
8 . 8 8
0.03
8.92
0.03
9.14
5.85
1.46
0.54
0.25
0.99
0.03
9.12
Kg. feed per kg. gain 6,92
6.76
6.76
6.60
7.23
6.89
7.00
6.74
Feed cost per kg
gain ($)°
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.37
0.35
0.37
0.35
Financial returns per heifer ($)
Initial costc
140.97 145.79
Feed cost
46.82 47.20
Trucking^
2.95
Total investment 190.65 195.94
Gross return
167.26 175.18
Net return
-23.39 -20.76
144.18
47.00
2.93
194.11
176.61
-17.50
148.20
1 . 0 0
0.36
2 . 8 6
6
5.81
1.45
0.45
0.26
147.66 143.92 143.92 144.72
48.29 48.25 48.30 48.71 48.72
3.04
2.93
2.90
2.95
2.93
199.53 198.84 195.15 195.53 196.39
178.27. 174.30 179.24 176.03 174.23
-21.26' -24.54 -15.91 -19.50 -22.16
b Feed prices; steam rolled barley, $0.053/kg.; pelleted beet pulp,
$0.0528/kg.; supplement, $0.0785/kg.; oyster shell, $0.0418/kg.; grass
hay, $0.022/kg.; and salt, $0.0308/kg.
c Initial cost: $0.5885/kg.
d Trucking: $0.0077/kg. live weight.
e Sold on carcass grade and weight basis: Choice, $0.836/kg.; and Good,
$0,814/kg.
-47-
TABLE XX0
Feed
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEEDS FED IN TRIAL III0a
Mois­
Crude
Ether
Crude
Ash
ture
Protein Extract
Fiber
%
%
7o
% ■'
%
Steam rolled
barley
Pelleted beet
pulp
Grass hay
Urea supplement
(MSU 488)
Biuret supplement
(MSU 489)
% urea, % biuret
supplement
(MSU 490)
Soybean oil meal
supplement
(MSU 491)
Phos­
phorus
7=
Cal­
cium
%
11.90
3.00
5.50
3.40
0.27
0.13
9.70
6.60
0.40
1.30
17.30
36.70
5.30
0.08
0 . 1 1
8 . 1 0
0 . 1 0
0.34
31.50
4.20
10.50
7.80
0.58
1.65
9.60
27.50
4.80
1 1 . 0 0
7.10
0.53
1.65
9.60
30.70
4.40
10.70
7,00
0.51
1.45
8.60
30.70
5.50
11.50
8.40
0.58
1.45
1 0 . 2 0
4.60
5.30
1 0
.
0
,
0
a Analyses by Chemistry Department, Montana State University.
The carcass data of the heifers used in Trial III are presented
in Table XXI.
There were no dark cutters but
catjtle ,in Trial III,
7.
6
livers were condemned in the
Two livers were condemned in both lot
One liver was condemned in both lot
6
and lot 5.
8
and lot
There were no
-significant differences (P^>.05) due to treatment in any of the carcass
data
-48-
TABLE XXIo
CARCASS DATA FOR HEIFERS FED UREAs BIURETs UREA PLUS BIURETs
AND SOYBEAN OIL MEAL, (Trial III -- July, 5, 1966 to October
16 1966 -- 103 days) o ______ ___________ _________________
9
Lot No.
5
Urea
Treatment
No. Heifers
5
2 0
Urea
18
7
%Urea
%Urea
Biuret Biuret ^Biuret %Biuret SBOM
5
19
6
5
5
Carcass grade
High choice
Average choice
Low choice
I
High good
I
Average good
3
’ f
Carcass grade scorea 17.60
19.00
18.40
19.00
Marbling score
1 1 . 0 0
13.80
1 2 . 2 0
Dressing percent
55.16
55.33
56.05
.
O O O
O O O
. . .
. . .
3
I
O O O
1
•
2
2
17
8
5
O O O
5
SBOM
4
5
. 2
I
. . .
,
I
I
I
3
I
I
. . .
. . .
19.00
19.80
19.40
18.00
12.80
13.80
13.80
13.00
11.75
54.50
55.31
56.58
56.14
55.42
O O O
I
O O O
O O O
2
2
3 '
O O O
I
I
. . .
'
O O O
3 ,
..'' ,Ir
*1
Rib eye area
(siq. cm./kg.
carcass)
6.315
0.331
0.317
6.325
0.326
0.340
0.313
0.320
Fat cover at 12th
rib (cm.)
1.50
1.30
1.50
1.30
1.60
1.30
1.50
1.60
Liver condition
Condemned
Non-condemned
I
4
O O O
5
I
4
O O O
5
2
3 ,
O O O
5
2
3
. . .
4
a 20 = Average choice; 19 = Low choice,
b 12 = Small; 15 = Modest; 18 = Moderate.
Trial IV
The initial and final weights, average, daily gains, average feed
consumption and feed conversion data are presented in Table XXII,
The average initial weight of the steers in Trial IV was 214 kg«
control group gained 18 kg. per head in the 112 day period.
The
The urea-fed
steers gained 38 kg.; biuret-fed steers, 42 kg.; and soybean oil meal-fed
-49steers „ 51 kg. per head in 112 days.
Analysis of variance and Duncan's
Multiple Range Test showed that the three high protein groups out-gained
the low protein control group (P<^.05).
The soybean 'oil meal-fed steers
out-gained the urea and biuret-fed steers (P<%05).
There was no signifi­
cant difference between the urea and biuret-fed groups.
TABLE XXIIe
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS„ AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED CONSUMP­
TION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND COST OF GAIN FOR STEER CALVES FED
A PROTEIN-DEFICIENT CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, AND SOYBEAN OIL
MEAL RATION, (Trial IV -- November 28, 1966 to March 20,
1967 -- 112 days).
Lot No.
Treatment
No. Steers
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (kg.)
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
Kg. feed per kg, gain
Feed cost per kg. gain ($)c
13
14
15
16
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
1 0
232
214
18
0.17
2.27
2.61
1 0
1 0
250
254
2 1 2
2 1 2
9*
38
0.34
42
0.37
267°
216
51
0.46
2.27
2.61
2.27
2.61
2.27
2.51
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0.02
0 . 0 2
4,90
4.90
4.90
4.80
28.42
14.59
13.19
10.44
1 . 2 1
0.59
0.53d
0.48
a Caljf No. 7 removed as a chronic bloater January 23, 1967.
b Average weights, daily gains and average daily feed are presented for
the 9 calves which remained in lot 16.
c Feed prices; control supplement, $.0.0759/kg.; urea supplement, $0.0741/
kg.; biuret supplement, $0.0739/kg.; soybean oil meal supplement,
$0.0849/kg.; wheat straw, $0.011/kg; and salt, $0.0360/kg.
^ Cost of biuret not included.
-50-
Because the steers in each lot were group-fed in a hunk,'a statistical
analysis of feed required per-unit gain could not be conducted.
However,
as shown in Table XXII, the biuret lot was 9.42 percent more efficient
than the urea lot.
The soybean lot was 26.30 percent more efficient than
the biuret lot and 39.75 percent more efficient than the urea lot.
'
E
The,proximate chemical analyses of the feed ingredients used in Trial
IV are presented in Table XXIII.
TABLE XXIII
Feed
0
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEED FED STEER CALVES ON WINTERING
TRIAL IV.a
_____________________ ______________________
Crude
Crude PhosMoisEther
Ash
Calture
Protein
Extract
Fiber phorus cium
%
'
%
%
%
%
%
%
Control supplement
(MSU 527)
Urea supplement
(MSU 524)
Biuret supplement
(MSU 525)
SBOM supplement
(MSU 526)
Wheat straw
6.50
11.70
3.20
4.30
6 . 1 0
0.42
0.36
5.80
21.70
3.40
4.60
5.90
0.50
0.41
6.30
2 1 . 1 0
3.50
4.60
6.50
0.39
0.40
6.50
8.40
18.90
1.30
3.10
5 . 2 0
0.70
3.30
7.10
45.50
0.47
0.03
0.34
0.05
a Analyses by Chemistry Department, Montana State University.
>
Trial V
The initial and final weights, average daily gains, average daily
feed consumption, feed conversion and financial returns are presented in
Table XXIV
-51-
TABLE XXIV.
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED CONSUMP­
TION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURNS FOR STEER CALVES
FED UREA, BIURET. SOYBEAN OIL MEAL OR A LOW-PROTEIN CONTROL,
20, 1967 to August 7, 1967
Lot No.
Treatment
No. Steers
13
14
15
Control
Urea
Biuret
1 0
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (kg.)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt
Total
•
1 0
*
1 0
It:
SBOM
9
424
232
192
1.37
434
250
184
1.31
435
254
181
1.29
458
267
191
1.36
3.71
2.79
2.79
1.24
3.71
2.79
3.71
2.79
3,71
2.79
2.79
1.24
2.79
1.24
2.79
1.24
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
0 . 0 2
10.55
10.55
10.55
10.55
Kg. feed per kg. gain
7.71
8 . 0 1
8.18
7.73
Feed cost per kg. gain ($)^
0.45
0.48
0.48*
0.47
Financial returns per steer ($)
Initial costc
132.86
Feed cost
Trucking^
3.26
Total investment
222.80
Gross return
231.24
Net return
8.44
8 6 . 6 8
6
143.00
8 8 . 8 6
3,34
235.20
238.61
3.41
145.34
- 87.38
3.35
236.85
152.62
89
3.52
246.02
253.35
0.78
7.31
236.07
, > 8 8
a Cost of biuret not included,
b Feed prices: cracked corn,'$0.0638/kg.; pelleted beet pulp, $0.0528/kg.;
supplements: control, $0.0735/kg.; urea, $0.0792/kg.; biuret, $0.0752/
kg.; SBOM, $0.0816/kg.; wheat straw, $0.011/kg.; salt, $0.0308/kg.
c Initial cost; $0.572/kg. delivered at Bozeman, Montana,
d Trucking: $0.0077/kg. live weight.
e Sold on carcass grade and weight basis': Choice, $0.968/kg. and Good,
$0.902/kg.
-52The average daily gain of steers (Table XXIV) fed a control ration,
urea, biuret, and soybean oil meal varied from 1.29 to 1.37 kg. per head
per day.
Analysis of covariance showed this
6
percent difference to be
non-significant (P>.05).
Because the cattle, were lot fed, no analysis could be calculated
for feed efficiency.
It may be observed (Table XXIV) that the steers fed
the control ration were
biuret.
6 . 1
percent more efficient than the steers fed
The urea-fed steers were 2 percent more efficient than the biuret-
fed steers, 8.01 as compared to 8.18.
the results of Trials TI and III.
varied results.
These results do not coincide with
No explanation can be given for the
The steers fed soybean oil meal wete more efficient (7.73)
than either.the urea or biuret-fed steers and less efficient than the
control steers (7.71).
TABLE XXV
0
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS IMPLANTED
AND NOT IMPLANTED WITH BIETHYLSTILBESTROL.
Lot No.
14
13
Treatment
Supplement
DES
Control
O
+
O
No. Steers
5
5
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
429
245
184
1.32
Urea
H-
5
5
426 442
260 240
199 , 166
1.41 1.18 1.45
419
2 2 0
2 0 2
15
16
Biuret
+
O
. SBOM
+
O
5
5
5
442
268
427
240
174 187
1.24 1.34
4
451 466
278 253
173 213
1.23 1.53
The steers implanted, with stilbestrol gained significantly faster
'
(P<L01) than did the steers not implanted with stilbestrol.
-53-
The proximate chemical analysis of the feed ingredients used in this
trial are given in Table XXVI.
TABLE XXVIa
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEED FED IN TRIAL V.a
Mois­
Crude
Ether
Ash
Crude
ture
Protein Extract
Fiber
Feed
7.
Cracked corn
9.40
Beet pulp
4.60
Control supplement
(MSU 527)
10.50
Urea supplement
(MSU 524)
Biuret supplement
10.50
(MSU 525)
SBOM supplement
(MSU 526)
8.40
Wheat straw
1 0 . 1 0
1 0 . 0 0
7.
7.
7,
.
Phos­
phorus
7.
7.
Cal­
cium
7.
8.80
9.70
4.30
0.40
1.50
5.30
1.50
17.30
0.28
0.08
0.05
12.90
3.30
4.20
6.90
0.54
0.19
17.80
4.10
4.00
5.30
0.53
0.19
22.60
4.90
4.30
5.20
0.59
0 . 2 0
20.30
1.30
3.10
0.70
4.20
3.30
6.90
45.50
0.43
0.03
0.18
0.05
0 . 1 1
a Analyses by Chemistry Department, Montana State University.
Table XXVII contains the pertinent carcass data of the steers fed in
this trial.
The data showed a significant difference (P<^.05) in fat cover
over the 12th rib.
The soybean oil meal calves had significantly more fat
over the 12th rib (1.99 cm.) than.'did the steers fed the control supple­
ment (1.53 cm.)=
the other groups.
There were no significant,differences between any of
Analysis of variance and the Chi-square test showed no
significant (P%>.05) difference in the rest of the carcass data presented
in Table XXVII.
Steer number 625 in lot 16 was a dark cutter.
livers were condemned.
was condemned in lot 13.
Four
Three livers were condemned in lot 15 and one
-•54-
TABLE XXVII.
CARCASS DATA FOR STEERS FED UREA. BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL,
(Trial V — March 20» 1967
OR A LOW-PROTEIN CONTROL,
kigusfc 9-s 1967 -- 140 days'
13
14
15
16
Treatment
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
No. Steers
10
1 0
1 0
Lot No.
Carcass grade
Average choice
Low choice
High good
Average good
Low good
9
I
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
4
3
I
3
4
I
2
■1
. . .
17.80
18.00
17.90
18.40
9.40
10.30
10.50
11.30
57.60
57.50
57.60
57.80
Rib eye area
(sq. cm./kg. carcass)
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
Fat cover at 12th rib (cm.)
1.53
' 1.81
1.73
1.99
Carcass grade score®
Marbling score
*1
Dressing percent
Liver condition
Condemned
Non-condemned
I
6
9
10
■
„ O
3
7
. , .
® 20 = Average Choice; 19 - Low Choice.
° 12 - Small, 15 = Modest, 18 - Moderate.
The average daily gain for a composite of both Trial IV and Trial V
was compiled and analyzed.
The data consisted of the daily gain of the
steers over a 252 day period.
XXVIII
Average daily gains are shown in Table
-55-
TABLE XXVIIIo
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS OF STEERS FED
CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS ON
BOTH WINTERING AND FATTENING TRIALS, (Trials IV and V - 252 days),
November 28, 1.966 to August 7, 1967
Lot No.
Treatment
No. Steers
Average weights (kg.)
Final
Initial
Gain
Daily gain
13.
14
15
16
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
1 0
1 0
424
214
434
435
2 1 2
2 1 2
2 1 0
2 2 2
223
0.83
9
1 0
0 . 8 8
0 . 8 8
458
215
243
0.96
Analysis of variance and Duncan1s Multiple Range Test showed that the
steers fed soybean oil meal supplements gained significantly more (Pt^ OS)
0
than did the steers on any other treatment.
There were no significant
differences in gain among the control, urea, or biuret-fed steers.
The
fact that no differences were shown between the gains of the urea and
biuret-fed steers and the steers fed the control diet may be explained
partially by the fact that the control steers made a compensatory gain in
the fattening period.
SUMMARY
The effect of adding urea, biuret, or soybean oil meal to basal
rations for wintering and fattening beef cattle was studied.
Weight gains,
feed efficiency, and carcass data were used to assess the value of biuret
as compared to urea and soybean oil meal.
In Trial I, 32 Hereford steer calves were used to conduct this 112-day
wintering trial.
A protein-deficient control supplement was formulated to
contain 12 percent protein.
Three 20 percent protein supplements were
formulated with one-half of the protein equivalent furnished by urea, V-"' "
biuret, or soybean oil meal.
Treatment did not significantly affect gains.
Trial II utilized the same 32 steer calves for a fattening trial of
104 days.
The steers were fed a ration of 40 percent cracked corn, 30 per­
cent pelletqd beet pulp, 30 percent of a 20 percent protein supplement,
and wheat straw ad libitum.
The control lot was changed to a 20 percent
protein supplement with 50 percent of the equivalent crude protein
furnished by soybean oil meal with a high level of phosphorus added.
One-
half of the steers in each lot were implanted' with diethylstilbestrol.
Gains were not significantly affected by protein treatments.
Steers
implanted with diethylstilbestrol gained significantly more '(F^.
0 1
) than
did non-imp!anted steers.
Trial III consisted of 40 yearling Hereford heifers fed a finishing
ration consisting of 80 percent barley and
2 0
percent beet pulp.
Each
heifer received one pound per day of a 32 percent protein supplement.
Two-thirds of the protein equivalent of each supplement was provided by
urea, biuret, a 50:50 combination of urea and biuret., or soybean oil meal.
Treatment did not significantly affect gains or carcass data.
The groups
-57receiving urea and biuret were significantly more efficient in feed
conversion (P<<Q5) than was the group fed the 50:50 combination of urea
and biuret.
In Trial IV
9
40 Hereford steer calves were used to conduct a 112-
day wintering trial.
The design of the trial was similar to Trial I.
The control ration was lowered to a 10 percent protein supplement.
The
steers were fed 2.27 kg. of supplement and 2.61 kg. of wheat straw.
The
three treatment groups gained significantly more (P<^.Q5) than did the
control group.
The group fed soybean oil meal gained significantly more
( P 05) than did the groups fed urea or biuret.
Feed efficiencies
reflected the rate of gains.
Trial V utilized the 40 steer calves from Trial IV.
The steers were
continued on the same treatments as in Trial IV.
The steers were fed a
ration identical to the ration used in Trial II.
One-half of the steers
were implanted with diethylstilbestrol.
affect gains.
Treatment did not significantly
The steers implanted with diethylstilbestrol gained
significantly more (P<^.01) than did the non-imp!anted steers.
fed soybean oil meal had significantly more fat over the
1 2
The steers
th rib than
did the control group (P<^.05).
A total of 112 beef cattle was fed in five trials.
In all cases,
biuret-fed steers equaled urea-fed steers with respect to daily gain.
On the basis of these trials, biuret shows promise as a nitrogen
source in wintering and fattening rations for beef cattle.
APPENDIX
S
-59APPENDIX TABLE I=
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL STEERS FED
UREA BIURET SOYBEAN OIL MEAL (SBOM) OR A PROTEIN
DEFICIENT CONTROL. (Trial I — January 28, 1966
to May 20» 1966 -- 112 days).____ _____________ _
9
_______________
Lot Noo 13
9
(Control)
Lot No. 14
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
507
511
525
534
535
541
546
551
Lot No. 15
Initial
411
448
458
491
433
400
382
443
Final
574
582
582
671
598
513
478
606
(Biuret)
Weights (lbs.)
'
Steer No.
524
527
529
531
542
544
549
557
Lot No. 16
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
508
519
521
540
543
545
547
550
Initial
457
481
477
483
410
439
392
352
Final
621
661
542
671
565
584
528
477
(Urea)
Initial
447
478
468
429
448
460
360
442
Final
580
635
610
585
613
618
468
585
(SBOM)
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
510
517
528
533
536
537
547
554
Initial
476
425
444
417
423
440
424
373
Final
.621
590
576
569
585
573
518
548
v ■’
APPENDIX TABLE II.
-60-
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS„ AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF
STEER CALVES FED UREA, BIURET, SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
(SBOM) OR PROTEIN DEFICIENT CONTROL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial I -- January 28, 1966. to May 20, 1966 -days) o
1 1 2
Lot No.
Treatment;
No. Steers
Average weights (lbs.)
Initial
Final
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (lbs.)
Steam-rolled barley
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt and mineral
Total
Feed per cwt. gain (lbs.)
Feed cost per cwt. gain ($)a
13
14
15
16
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
8
8
8
433
576
143
1.27
442
587
145
1.30
436
581
145
1.29
1.03
1.32
3.76
4.55
0.06
10.72
0.91
1.15
4.17
4.'55
0.06
10.84
0.91
1.15
4:20
4.55
0.06
10.87
846.00
836.00
841.00
16.78
16.64
16.21b
8
428
573
145
1.29
1.03
1.32'
3.78
4.55
0.06
10.74
830.00
16.66
a Feed prices; steam rolled barley, $2.40/cwt.; pelleted beet pulp,
$2.40/cwt,; supplements; control, $3„32/cwt.; urea, $3.39/cwt.;
biuret, $3.22/cwt.; soybean oil meal, $3.45/cwt.°
s•wheat straw, $0.50/
cwt.; salt and mineral, $1.40/cwt.
Cost of biuret not included.
”
APPENDIX TABLE tIEI„
61
_
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF STEER CALVES FED
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH PHOSPHORUS„ UREA BIURET OR
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL ON A FATTENING DIET.
(Trial II —
9
Lot No. 13
(SBOM+P)
Lot No. 14
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
507
511
525
534
535
541
546
551
Lot No. 15
Initial
629
632
624
716
674
575
505
677
Final
Died*
881
945
996
937
898
1007
818
(Biuret)
Steer No.
508
519
521
540
543
545
547
550
Initial
6 6 6
724
592
751
611
652
574
529
Final
999
960
924
1068
958
Dieda
858
820
(Urea)
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
524
527
529
531
542
544
5.49
557
Lot No. 16
Weights (lbs.)
9
•i,
Initial
612
694
' 674
648
669
685
516
642
Final
938
949
938
968
950
969
862
930
(SB0M)
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
510
517
528
533
536
537
, 547
554
Data not included in analysis of covariance.
Initial
672
638
625
614
626
624
535
616
Final
942
953
943
949
900
962
879
930
-62-
APPENDIX TABLE IV
0
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS„ AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED .
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN FOR
STEERS FED SOYBEAN OIL MEAL-HIGH PHOSPHORUS, UREA,
BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
(Trial II -- June 27,
1966 to October 9« 1966 -- 104 days). ■
____
0
Lot No.
Treatment:
13
14
15
16
SBOM+P
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
No, Steers
7a
Average weights (lbs.)
Initial
Final
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (lbs.)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt and mineral
Total
Feed per cwt. gain (lbs.)
Feed cost per cwt. gain ($)c
7b
8
643
938
295
2.84
635
941
306
2.94
619
932
313
3.01
7.36
5.55
6.53
3.64
0.05
23.13
7.72
5.82
6.59
3.70
0.04
23.87
7.72
5.82
6.59
3.63
0.04
23.80
7.72
5.82
6.59
3.70
0.04
23.87
811.00
840.00
810.00
792.00
21.35
20.24
21.05
163.54
164.06
64.32
3.29
231.67
192.55
-39.12
160.94
65.89
3.26
230.09
194.52
-35.57
629
926
297
2 . 8 6
2 1 . 1 0
Financial returns per steer ($)
163.28
Initial cost*
Feed cost
64.95
3.24
Trucking
Total investment
231.47
Gross return
196,15
-35.32
Net return
6
8
65.37
3.28
232.19
193.12
-39.07
a Steer No, 507 developed urinary calculi on July 25, 1966 and was
removed from the experiment,
b Steer No, 545 developed urinary calculi on September 9, 1966 and was
removed from the experiment,
c Feed prices: cracked corn, $2»9Q/cwt,, pelleted beet pulp, $2,40/cwt,i
supplements: soybean oil meal + -phosphorus, $3,61/cwt„; urea, $3,39/ .
cwt,;. biuret, $3,22/cwt., soybean oil meal, $3,46/cwt,; wheat straw,
$0.50/cwt,; salt and mineral, $1,40/cwt,
^ $26,00/cwt, delivered at Bozeman,
e Sold on carcass grade and weight basis: Choice, $38,00/cwt. and Good,
$37,00/cwt.
-63-
APPENDIX TABLE V,
CARCASS DATA OF STEERS IN TRIAL II.
Lot No.
13
14
15
16
55.16
56.16
54.90
54.43
Rib eye area, 12th rib
(sq, in./cwt,)b
1.82
2.01
‘ 1.92
Fat thickness 12th rib
(in„)c
0.55
0.59
0.51
Carcass yield (%)a
2 . 0 1
0.55
a Based on warm carcass weight minus 3 percent pencil shrink. Final test
weight used as live weight,
k Rib eye area at the 12th rib per cwt, cold carcass,
c Average of 3 measurements vertical to points 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 along line
through widest part of rib eye.
-64-
APPENDIX TABLE VI
0
INITIAL AND FINAL WEIGHTS OF HEIFERS FED UREA
BIURET 1/2 UREA 1/2 BIURET OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL
SUPPLEMENTSo (Trial III — Jmly S 1966 to ■
9
9
9
9
Lot No o 5
(Urea)
Lot No .
6
Weights (lbs.)
Heifer No.
366
371
469
473
549
Lot No . 7
Initial
526
526
504
538
541
Final
818
790
764
859
847
(1/2 Urea 1/2 Biuret)
Weights (lbs.)
Heifer No.
365
472
534
3041
3043
Lot No .
8
Weights (lbs.)
Heifer No.
363
529
542
1425
3046
Lot No. 17
Initial
509
568
587
580
515
Final
748
894
909
842
794
(Biuret)
Initial
550
561
584
481
,518
Final
850
869
874
746
851
(Soybean oil meal)
Weights (lbs.)
Heifer No.
368
369
530
1153
3045
Initial
534
513
572
488
582
Final
825
743
893
761
924
(Soybean oil meal)
Weights (lbs.)
Weights (lbs.)
Initial
Heifer No.
520
475
';
580
.513.
560
523
560
3049
370
570 .
Final
.795
Died3;.'f
873
842 ■
867
Heifer No.
367
468
474
548
1692
Initial
491
585
532
551
529
Final
, 808
898
837
831
817
”65=
A P P E N D I X T A B L E V I a- Continued,
Lot No. 19
(Biuret)
Lot No. 20
Weights (lbs.)
'r
Heifer No.
467
510
1151
1156
3047
Weights (lbs!)
•••
- .
Initial
522
622
504
561
543
(Hrea)
1
Final
797
964
796
931
851
Heifer,No.
372
543
552
1154
3042
a Data not included in analysis of covariance
Initial
525
516
564
604
516
Final
821
838
812
890
853
-
A P P E N D I X T A B L E ¥11,
66
-
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSIMPTIONi, FEED EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL RETURN OF
HEIFERS FED UREA BIURET 1/2 UREA 1/2 BIURET OR
SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENT. (Trial III — July 5S
1966_ to October 16 „ 1966 -- 103 days]
9
9
Lot No.
5
Treatment;
Urea
No. Heifers
5
6
I
5
. 7
%Urea
^Biuret
5
9
8
SBOM
5
9
18
19
.%Urea
SBOM 'gBiiirefc Biuret Urea
17
4a
2 0
5
5
5
Average weights (lbsi.)
541
554
552
538
538
Initial
545
527
539
Final
843
838
844
838
829
816
837
Gain
314
300
298
299
285
291
303
289
2.80
Daily gain
3.04
2.92 2.83
2.95
2.89
2.91.
2.77
8 6 8
Average daily rationi (lbs.)i
Barley
12.52 12.58 12.63
Pelleted beetz pulp» 3.13
3.15 . 3.16
Supplement
0.96
0.98
0.99
Oyster shell
Grass hay
0.54
0.56
0.57
Salt and mineral
0.07
0.07
0.07
19.42 19.54 19.62
Total
2 . 2 0
Feed per cwt. gain
(lbs.)
Feed cost per cwt.
gain ($)“
2 . 2 0
2 . 2 0
13.01
3.25
1 . 0 0
2 . 2 0
0.58
0.07
15.72
Financial returns per heifer ($)
Initial costc
140.97 145.79
46.82 47.20
Feed cost
; Truckingd
2.95
Total investment 190.65 195.94
Gross returns®
167.26 175.18
Net return
-23.39 -20.76
2 . 8 6
13.01 12.78
3.25 . 3.20
1.00
0.99
12.78
3.19
0.99
2 . 2 0
2 . 2 0
2.23
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
20.11 20.06 20.11 19.81 19.84
692.00 676.00 676.00 660.00
16.20
1 2 . 8 6
'3.21
1.18
2.18
0.56
16^93 16.74
723.00 689.00 700.00 674.00
16.08
16.10 ' 15.38
15.84
144.18 148.20 147.66 143.92 143.92 144.72
47.00 48.29 48.25 48.30 48.71 48.72
2.90
2.93
2.95
2>3
'3.04
2.93
194.11 199.53 198.84 195.15 195.53 196i39
176.61 178.27 174,30 179.24 176.03 174.23
-17.50 -21.26 -24.54 -15,91 -19.50 -22.16
a Heifer No, 513 died of bloat on August 25, 1966.
b Feed prices; steam rolled barley, $2.40/cwt„| pelleted beet pulp, $2,40/
•cwt.; supplements; urea, $3.47/cwt., biuret, $3.11/cwt., 1/2 urea 1/2
biuret, $3.29/cwt.| soybean oil meal, $4.41/ewt.g oyster shell, $1.90/
cwt.I grass hay, $1.00/cwt.; salt and mineral, $1.40/cwt.
c Initial cost; $26.75/cwt. delivered to Bozeman, Montana.
d Trucking cost; $0.35/ewt..
e Sold on carcass grade and weight basis; Choice, $38.0Q/cwt. and Good,
$37.00/cwt„
-67”
A P P E N D I X T A B L E VIII.
Lot No,
CARCASS D A T A O F HEI F E R S IN T R I A L III.
5
Carcass yield (%)a 55.16
6
7
56.05
55.31
8
56.14
17
18
19
2 0
55.42
56.58
54.50
55.33
Rib eye area, 12th
rib (sq„ in./
ewt.)b
2 . 2 2
2.24
2.29
2 . 2 0
2,26
2.40
2.25
2.33
Fat thickness 12th
rib (in.)c
0.59
0.59
0.65
0.57
0.65
0.50
0.52
0.52
a Based on warm carcass weight minus 3 percent pencil shrink. Final test
weight used as live weight,
b Rib eye area at the 12th rib per cwt, cold carcass,
c Average of 3 measurements vertical to points 1/4S 1/2s 1/3 along line
through widest part of rib eye.
-68-
A P P E N D I X TABLE IX.
I N ITIAL A N D F I N A L W E I G H T S O F STEERS FED CONT R O L ?
UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial IV — November 28, 1966 to March 20, 1967 -days).
______ ______ _
1 1 2
Lot No. 13
(Control)
Lot No. 14
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
9
23
25
26
30
601
612
618
621
626
Initial
425
485
521
487
462
477
435
518
454
435
Final
478
526
624
532
506
496
500
518
490
440
Lot No. 15I (Biuret)
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
5
8
19
32
33
616
620
627
639
640
Lot No. 16
2
15
18
2 1
34
604
608
609
614
623
Initial
420
453
511
496
476
493
450
465
425
484
Final
522
536
606
580
569
592
538
542
503
602
a Data not included in this analysis.
Initial
500
431
449
468
465
496
486
442
492
443
Final
605
514
532
536
510
600
594
523
560
526
(SB0M)
Weights (lbs,)
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
(Urea)
Steer No.
7
1 0
1 2
24
31
600
625
630
631
656
Initial
465
485
426
528
463
502
464
467
513
414
Final
Removed"
572
536
642
.583
604
568
583
. 660
535
■' !•' Li
I
-69~
APPENDIX TABLE X.
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS AVERAGE DAILY GAINS $ DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION,, FEED EFFICIENCY AND COST OF GAIN OF
STEER CALVES FED. A CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN
OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENT.
(Trial IV -- November 28, 1966
to March 20, 1967 —
days).
9
1 1 2
Lot Noo
Treatment;
Noo Steers
Average weights (lbs.)
Initial
Final
Gain
Daily gain
Average daily ration (lbs.)
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt and mineral
Total
Feed per cwt. gain (lbs.)
Feed cost per cwt. gain ($)
13
14
15
16
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
1 0
1 0
1 0
9
3
470
•511
41
0.37
467
550
83
0.74
467
559
92
0.82
5.00
5.75
0.04
10.79
5,00
5.75
0.04
10.79
5.00
5.75
0.04
10.79
5.00
5.52
0.05
10.57
2942.00
1459.00
1319.00
1044.00
26.75
24.12
21.87
55.03b
474
587
113
1 . 0 1
a Steer No. 7 was removed from the experiment on January 23, 1967 as he
became a chronic bloatero
k Feed prices; supplements; control, $3o45/cwt0; urea, $3o37/cwto,
biuret, $3o36/cwto; soybean oil meal, $3,86/cwto.
-70A P P E N D I X TABLE XI.
INITIAL A N D F I N A L W E I G H T S O F STEERS F ED C O N T R O L ^
UREA BIURET OR SOYBEAN OIL MEAL SUPPLEMENTS.
(Trial V -- March 20s 1967 to August 7, 1967 140 days).
__________ _
5
Lot No, 13
5
(Control)
Lot No. 14
Weights (lbs.),
Steer No,
9
23
25
26
30
601
612
618
621
626
Lot No. 15
Steer No.
2
15
18
2 1
34
604
608
609
614
623
Initial
478
526
624
532
506
496
500
518
490
440
Final
912
880
1004
948
839
996
970
971
918
885
(Biuret)
Initial
522
536
606
580
569
592
538
542
503
602
Weights (lbs.)
Steer No.
' 5
'
19
32
33
616
620
627
639
640
8
Lot No, 16
Final
907
916
993
994
906
970
1015
942
920
998
(Urea)
Steer No,
1 0
1 2
24
31
600
625
630
631
656
Initial
500
431
449
468
465
496
486
442
492
443
Final
914
954
922
844
992
1028
982
958
998
956
(SBOM)
Initial
572
536
642
583
604
568
583
660
535
Final
902
995
1095
902
960
1043
.1050
1 1 0 0
1014
APPENDIX TABLE XII
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, AVERAGE DAILY GAINS, DAILY FEED
CONSUMPTION, FEED EFFICIENCY, AND FINANCIAL RETURN
FOR STEERS FED- CONTROL, UREA, BIURET, OR SOYBEAN OIL
MEAL SUPPLEMENTS„ (Trial V — March 20, 1967 to
Lot No.
Treatment:
No. Steers
13
14
15
16
Control
Urea
Biuret
SBOM
1 0
Average weights (lbs.)
Initial
Final
Gain
Daily gain
.511
932
421
Average daily ration (lbs.)
Cracked corn
Pelleted beet pulp
Supplement
Wheat straw
Salt and mineral
Total
550
955
405
1 0
559
956
397
2.84
9
587
1007
420
3.00
3.01
2.89
8.17
6.13
6.13
8.17
8.17
6.13
6.13
6.13
8,17
6.13
2.72
2.72
6.13
2.72
6.13
2.72
0.05
0.04
23.19
0.05
23.20
0.04
23.19
771.00
801.00
818.00
773.00
($)* 20.59
21.94
22.01
21.40
Financial return per steer ($)
Initial cost"
132.86
Feed cost
Trucking
3.26
Total investment
222:80
Gross return4*
231.24
Net return .
8.44
8 6 . 6 8
42
10
23.20'
Feed per cwt. gain (lbs. )
Feed cost per cwt. gain
.
143.00
8 8 . 8 6
3.34
235.20
238.61
3.41
145.34
87.38
3.35 ,
236.07
236.85
0.78
152,62
89.88
3.52
246.02
253.35
7.31
a Feed prices: cracked corn, $2,9Q/cwt.;/pelleted beet pulp, $2.40/cwt.;
supplements: control, $3.34/cwt.; urea, $3.60/cwt.; biuret, $3.42/cwt.
soybean oil meal, $3»71/cwt„; wheat straw, $0,50/cwt.; salt, $1.40/cwt.
^ Initial cost: $26.00/cwt. delivered to Bozeman, Montana.
® Trucking cost: $0.35/cwt.
“ Sold on carcass grade -and weight basis: Choice, $44.00/cwt. and Good,
$4I. /cwt.
0 0
A J T C L t V i U JLA .
,L A l J lLfl1Ci
At. JL A. JL e
Lot Nb.
Carcass yield (%)a
V jr m v A o o
U A JLA
v r
D J L titiiX D
JLlN
JLJX 1L A l i
V o
13
14
15
16
57.64
57.52
57.60
57.80
Rib eye area, 12th rib
(sq, in./cwt.)b 1■
2.04
2 . 0 1
2 . 0 0
1.96
Fat- thickness 12th;'fib
(in.)c
0.60
0.71
0.69
0.78
a Based on warm carcass weight minus 3 percent pencil shrink. Final test
weight used as live weight,
b Rib eye area at the 12th rib per cwt. cold carcass,
c Average of 3 measurements vertical to points 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 along line
through widest part of rib eye.
1
LITERATURE CITED
Albert, W. W«, U. S. Garrigus, R. M. Forbes and H. W. Norton. 1956. The
sulfur requirement of growing-fattening lambs in terms of methionine,
sodium sulfate, and elemental sulfur. J. Animal Sci. 15:559.
American Cyanamid Company.
Cyanamid Bui.
Urea Nitrogen for Agriculture.
American
Anderson, G. C,, G. A. McLaren, J. A. Welch, C. D. Campbell and G. S.
Smith. 1959. Comparative effects of urea uramite, biuret, soybean
protein, and creatine on digestion and nitrogen metabolism in lambs.
J. Animal Sci. 18:134-40.
Arias, C., W. Burroughs, P. Gerlaugh and R. M. Bethke. 1951. The influ­
ence of different amounts of sources of energy upon in vitro urea
utilization by rumen micro-organisms. J. Animal Sci. 10:683,
Armsby, H. P. 1911. The nutritive value of the non-protein portion of
feedstuffs. U. S. Dept, of Agr. Bur. Animal Ind. Bui. 139:49.
Baker, M. L. 1944. The use of urea for fattening yearling steers.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Fifty-eighth Ann. Rpt, p. 71-72.
Neb.
Barth, K. M., G. A. McLaren, G. C. Anderson, J. A. Welch and G. S. Smith.
1959. Urea nitrogen utilization in lambs as influenced by methionine
and tryptophan supplementation. J. Animal Sci, 18:1521.
(Abstr.)
Barth, K, M., G. A. McLaren and G. C. Anderson, 1961. Relationship
between microbial protein synthesis and the adaptation response.
J, Animal Sci. 20:924.
(Abstr.)
Bartlett, S. and A. G. Cotton.
the diet of young cattle.
Belasco, I. J. 1954.
tory evaluation.
1938. Urea as a protein substitute in
J. Dairy Res. 9:263-72.
New nitrogen feed compounds for ruminants-a labora­
J. Animal Sci. 13:601.
Belasco, I. J. 1956. The role of carbohydrates in urea utilization,
cellulose digestion and fatty acid formation. J. Animal Sci.
15:496.
Bell, M. C., W. D. Gallup and C. K. Whitehair, 1951. Utilization by
steers of urea nitrogen in rations containing different carbohydrate
feeds. J. Animal Sci. 10:1037.
(Abstr.)
Berry, Jr., W. T., G. K. Riggs and H. D. KunkeI. 1956. The lack of
toxicity of biuret to animals. J. Animal Sci. 15:225-232.
-74Bloomfield, R. A., M. E. Muhrer and W. Ho Pfander. 1958. Relation of
composition of energy source to urea utilization by rumen micro­
organisms. J. Animal Sci. 17:1189.
(Abstr.)
Briggs, H. M., W. D. Gallup, A. E. Barlow, D. F. Stephens and C. Kinney.
1947. Urea as an extender of protein when fed to cattle. J.
Animal Sci. 6:445.
Brown, L. D 9, C. A. Lassiter, J. P. Everett and J. W. Rust.
1956. The
utilization of urea nitrogen by young dairy calves. J. Animal Sci.
15:1125.
Burroughs, W., C. Arias, P. DePaul, P. Gerlaugh and R. M. Bethke. 1951.
In vitro observation upon the nature of protein influences upon
urea utilization by rumen microorganisms. J. Animal Sci. 10:672.
Campbell, C„ D., G. A. McLaren, G. S. Smith, J. A. Welch, D. C. Shelton
and G. C. Anderson. 1956. The influence of DES, urea and biuret
upon digestibility and nitrogen metabolism in lambs. J. Animal Sci
15:1264.
(Abstr.)
Campbell, T. C., J; K. Loosll, R. G. Warner and I. Tasaki. 1963.
Utilization of biuret by ruminants. J. Animal Sci. 22:139.
Clark, R. E., E. L. Barratt and J. H. Kellerman.
1965.
A comparison
between nitrogen retention from urea, biuret, triuret, and cyanuric
acid by sheep on a low protein roughage diet. J. S . Afr. Vet. Med.
Assn.
36:79.
Dinning, J. S., H. M. Briggs, W. D. Gallup, H. W. Orr and R. Butler.
1948. Effect of orally administered urea on the ammonia and urea
concentration in the blood of cattle and sheep with observations
on blood ammonia levels associated with symptoms of alkalosis.
Amer. Jour. Physiol. 153:41.
Drori, D. and J. K. LoosIi. 1961. Urea and carbohydrates versus plant
protein for sheep. J. Animal Sci. 20:233.
Ewan, R. C., E. E. Hatfield and U. S. Garrigus. 1958. The effect of
certain inoculations on the utilization of urea and biuret by
growing lambs. J. Animal Sci. 17:298.
Fontenot, J. P., W. D. Gallup and A. B. Nelson. 1955. Effect of added
carbohydrate on the utilization by steers of nitrogen in wintering
rations. J. Animal Sci. 14:807.
Gaither, William, U. S. Garrigus, R. M. Forbes and E. E. Hatfield. 1955
Biuret as a source of NPN for sheep. J. Animal Sci. 14:1203.
(Abstr.)
-75Gal Iup $ W= D
L= S= Pope and C= K= Whitehair= 1952a. Ration factors
affecting the utilization of urea nitrogen by lambs. J= Animal Sci=
11:621-630=
= 9
Gallup W= D= L= S= Pope and C= K= Whitehair= 1952b= Value of added
methionine in low-protein and urea rations for lambs. J= Animal
Sci= 11:572=
9
9
Gallup W= D= L= S= Pope and C= K= Whitehair= 1953= Urea in rations for
cattle and sheep: a summary of experiments at the Oklahoma Agr= Exp=
Sta= 1944 to 1952. Okla= Agr= Exp= Sta= Bul= B-409.
9
9
Gallup W= D
C= K= Whitehair and M= C= Bell= 1954= Utilization of urea
and protein nitrogen by ruminants fed high molasses and sugar rations.
J= Animal Sci= 13:594=
9
= 9
Garrigus U= S= H= H= Mitchell W= H= Hale and J= S= Albin= 1950. The
value of elemental sulfur in a methionine deficient sheep ration= J=
Animal Sci= 9:656.
(Abstr=)
9
9
9
Garrigus U= S
E= E= Hatfield A. L= Neumann, R= M= Forbes and K= M=
McKee= 1959= Effect of varied rations of urea to biuret on NPN
utilization by shhep and beef cattle. J= Animal Sci= 18:1170.
9
= 9
9
Gossett J= W= and J= K= Riggs. 1956= The effects of feeding dehydrated
alfalfa leaf meal and trace minerals to growing beef calves fed poor
quality prairie hay. J= Animal Sci= 15:848,
9
Gossett W= H=j T= W= Perry M= T= Mohler M= P= Plumlee and W= M= Beeson.
1962= Value of supplemental Iysine methionine, methionine analog,
and trace minerals on high urea fattening rations for beef steers.
J. Animal Sci= 21:248=
9
9
9
9
Hale, W= H= and R= P= King. 1955= Possible mechanism of urea toxicity in
ruminants, Proc= Soc= Exptl= Biol. Med= 89:112-14.
Hale
9
W= H= 1956= Rumen metabolism of non-protein nitrogen.
Food Chem. 4:948=
J= Agr=
Hamilton, T= S=, W= B= Robinson and B=^C= Johnson, 1948= Further compari­
sons of the utilization of nitrogen of urea with that of feed protein
of sheep. J= Animal Sci= 7:26-34=
Harris L= E= and H= H= Mitchell. 1941a. The value of urea in the
synthesis of protein in the paunch of the ruminant = I. In mainten­
ance. J= Nutrition. 22:67-82,
9
-76-
Harriss L= E= and H= H= Mitchell= 1941b, The value of urea in the syn­
thesis of protein in the paunch of the ruminant, II. In growth.
J= Nutrition, 22:183-96=
Hart
Hart
9
9
E. B=, G= Bohstedt H= J. Deobald and M= I. Wenger. 1938. The
utilization of the nitrogen of urea and ammonium bicarbonate by
growing calves. Proc= Am, Soc= Animal Production. 31:333r6.
9
E= B
G= Bohstedt H= J= Deobald and M= I = Wenger,
1939. The
utilization of simple nitrogenous compounds such as urea and ammonium
bicarbonate by growing calves. J= Dairy Sci. 22:785-98=
= 9
9
Hatfield E= E=, R= M= Forbes9.A= L= Neumann and U= S= Garrigus = 1955.
A nitrogen balance study with steers using urea, biuret, and soybean
oil meal as sources of nitrogen. J= Animal Sci. 14:1206. (Abstr.)
9
Hatfield, E= E=, U= S= Garrigus R= M= Forbes, A. L= Neumann and William
Gaither= 1959. Biuret-a source of NPN for ruminants, J= Animal
Sci. 18:1208-19. '
9
Honcamp F=, St. Koudela and E. Muller. 1923. Urea as a protein substi­
tute in milk producing ruminants. Biochem, Z. 14:11-55. As quoted
by Krauss W. E= 1927« J= Dairy Sci. 10:400-15.
9
9
Honcamp, F= and E= SchneHer.
1923. Urea as a protein substitute for
ruminants. Biochem. Z, 13:461-96. As quoted by Krauss W= E= 1927.
J= Dairy Sci. 10:400-15.
9
Johnson B. C= T= S= Hamilton, H= H= Mitchell and W. B= Robinson. 1942.
The relative efficiency of urea as a protein substitute in the
ration of ruminants. J= Animal Sci. 1:236-245.
9
9
Johnson B. C=, T= S. Hamilton, W= B. Robinson and J= C. Garey= 1944. On
the mechanism of non-protein nitrogen utilization by ruminants, J.
Animal Sci, 3:287-298.
9
Johnson R. R. and K= E. McClure. 1963. In vitro and in vivo study on
the adaptation of sheep to biuret. J. Animal Sci. 22:1123. (Abstr.)
9
Kammlade W= G= H= H= Mitchell and Sleeter Bull, 1940. Urea as a source
of protein for sheep. Ill= Univ. Coll. Agr. Animal Husb, Dept.
Sheep Div. Project 1123.
9
Kara
9
Karr
9
9
M= R., C. L= Davis E, E. Hatfield and U= S= Garrigus. 1963.
Factors affecting the utilization by lambs of nitrogen from different
sources. II. Treatment of corn. J= Animal Sci. 22:1109-1141.
9
M= R., U. S= Garrigus E= E. Hatfield, H. W= Morton and B= B= Doane=
1964a. Utilization from ensiled rations. J= Animal Sci. 23:880.
9
-77Lewisg D„
1960,
Ammonia toxicity in the ruminant,
J, Agr, Sci,
55:111,
Lofgreen, G, P., J„ K, Loosli and L, A, Maynard. 1947. The influence of
protein source upon nitrogen retention by sheep. J. Animal Sci.
6:343.
Long, R. A., L. S. Pope, A. E. Darlow, R. W, MacVicar, 0. B. Ross and W.
D. Campbell. 1951. A study of various substitutes for corn and
cottonseed cake for fattening beef calves. Okla. Agr, Expt. Sta.
Misc. PubI, M P . 22:85-89.
Long, R. A., L. S. Pope, A. E. Darlow, R. W. MacVicaf and W. D. Campbell.
1952, Optimum protein levels and substitutes for cottonseed cake for
fattening steer calves. Okla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Misc, Publ. MP. 27:
100-105.
Loosli, J. K. and C. M. McCay. 1943.
J. Nutrition. 25:197-202.
Utilization of urea by young calves.
Loosli, J. K. and L. E. Harris. 1945. Methionine increases the value of
urea for lambs. J. Animal Sci. 4:435-437.
McLaren, G. A., C.
D. Campbell, J. A. Welch, G. C. Anderson and G. S.
Smith. 1958. A microbiological
assay for the determination of the
utilization of NPN compounds by rumen bacteria. J. Animal Sci.
7:1191. ' (Abstr.)
McLaren, G. A., G.
C. Anderson, J. A. Welch, C. D. Campbell and G. S.
Smith. 1959.
DES and length of preliminary period in the utiliza­
tion of crude biuret and ureaby lambs. I. Digestion and nitrogen
retention. J, Animal Sci. 18:1319-26.
McLaren, G. A., G,. C. Anderson, J. A. Welch, C. D. Campbell and G. S.
Smith. 1960. Various aspects of nitrogen metabolism. J. Animal
Sci. 19:44.
Mackenzie, H. I. and R. E. Altona. 1964. Observations on a biuretcontaining lick as a nitrogen supplement to low quality roughage.
J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Assn. 35:309-312.
I
Meiske, J. C., W. J. Van Arsdell, R. W. Leucke and J. A. Hoefer. 1955.
The utilization of urea and biuret as sources of nitrogen for growingfattening lambs. J. Animal Sci. 14:941.
Miller, J. I. and F. B. Morrison. 1942. The relative efficiency for
ruminants of the protein furnished by common protein supplement.
Animal Sci. 1:353. (Abstr.)
J.
-78Mills, R. C.s A No Booth, Go Bohstedt and E« B. Hart. 1942. The
utilization of urea by ruminants as influenced by the presence of
starch in the ration. J. Dairy Sci. 25;925.
0
Mills, R„ C., Co Co Lardinois, I. W. Rupel and E. B. Hart. 1944.
Utilization of urea and growth of heifer calves with corn molasses
or cane molasses as the only available carbohydrate in the ration.
J. Dairy Sci. 27:571.
Nelson, A„ B., M. G. Greeley and W. D. Campbell. 1957. Protein supple­
ments for wintering beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 16:1085. (Abstr.)
Pearson, R. M. and J. A. B. Smith. 1943a. The utilization of urea in
the bovine rumen. II. The conversion of urea to ammonia. Biochem.
J. 37:148.
Pearson, R. M. and J. A. B. Smith. 1943b. The utilization of urea in
the bovine rumen. III. The synthesis and breakdown of proteins in
rumen ingesta. Bioehem. J. 37:153.
Reid, J. T, 1953. Urea as a protein replacement for ruminants:
review. J. Dairy Sci. 36:955-91.
a
Repp, W. W., W. H. Hale, E. W. Cheng and W. Burroughs. 1955, The influ­
ence of oral administration of non-protein nitrogen feeding compounds
upon blood ammonia and urea levels in lambs. J, Animal Sci. 14:
118-31.
Repp, W. W., W. H. Hale and W. Burroughs. 1955. The value of several
non-protein nitrogen compounds as protein substitutes in lamb fatten­
ing rations. J. Animal Sci, 14:901-908.
Smith, G„ S., G. C. Anderson, G. A. McLaren, C. D. Campbell, J. A. ,Welch
and D. C„ Shelton. 1957. Biuret and DES in rations for lambs, Proc.
West Va. Acad. Sci. 29-30:16-22.
Smith, G. S., R. S. Dunbar, G. A. McLaren, G. C. Anderson and J. A. Welch.
I960. Measurement of the adaptation response to urea-nitrogen
utilization in the ruminant. J. Nutr. 71:20.
Smith, G. S., S. B. Love, W. M. Durdle E. E, Hatfield, U. S. Garrigus,
and A. L. Neumann. 1964. Influence of urea upon vitamin A nutrition
of ruminants. J. Animal Sci. 23:47.
3
Starks, P. B., W. H. Hale, U. S. Garrigus and R. M. Forbes. 1952. The
utilization of elemental sulfur and urea nitrogen by growing lambs
on a purified ration. J. Animal Sci. 11:776. (Abstr.)
-79-
Thomas, W. E., J„ K. Loosli, H= H= Williams and L= A. Maynard. 1951.
The utilization of inorganic sulfates and urea nitrogen by lambs.
Jour= Nutr= 43:515.
Thomas, 0. 0=, D= C. Clanton and F= S= Willson. 1953. Efficiency of
urea utilization as influenced by mineral constituents in a winter­
ing ration for beef steers. J= Animal Sci. 12:933.
(Abstr.)
Voltz W= 1920. The substitution of urea for protein in the diet of
growing ruminants: the food value of straw and chaff according to
Beckmann’s method. Biochem. Z. 102:151-227. As quoted by Krauss
W= E. 1927. J. Dairy Sci. 10:400-15.
9
9
Voltz W., W= Dietrich and H. Jantzon= 1922. The valuation of urea in
milk production studies with cows. Biochem. Z. 130:323-431. As
quoted by Krauss W. E= 1927. J= Dairy Sci. 10:400-15.
9
9
Watson C. J= J. W. Kennedy W. M= Davidson G= H= Robinson and G. W.
Muir. 1949. The nutritive value of nitrogenous compounds for
ruminants. I. The nutritive value of urea as a protein supplement.
Sci. Agr. 29:173-184.
9
9
9
9
Welch J. A., G= A. McLaren, G. S. Smith C. D. Campbell, D. C. Shelton
and G= C. Anderson. 1956. The relative value of biuret, creatine,
soybean protein and other nitrogenous materials for lambs in diges­
tion and nitrogen metabolism trials. J. Animal Sci. 15:1265.
(Abstr.)
9
9
Welch, J= A. G= C= Anderson G= A. McLaren, C. D= Campbell and G. S=
Smith. 1957. Time DES and vitamin Bg in adaptation of lambs to NPN
utilization. J. Animal Sci. 16:1034.
(Abstr.)
9
Wenger M. I., A. N. Booth G= Bohstedt and E. B. Hart. 1940. The in
vitro conversion of inorganic nitrogen to protein by microorganisms
from the cow’s rumen. J. Dairy Sci. 23:1123-9.
9
9
Wenger M= I., A. N= Booth G. Bohstedt and E. B. Hart. 1941a. The
utilization of urea by ruminants as influenced by the level of
protein in the ration. J= Dairy Sci. 24:835-844.
9
9
Wenger M= I=, A. N. Booth G= Bohstedt and E. B. Hart. 1941b. Prelimin­
ary observations on chemical changes of rumen ingesta with and with­
out urea. J. Dairy Sci. 24:51-6.
9
9
Whitehair C= K., J. P. Fontenot C. C. Pearson and W. D. Gallup. 1955.
Disturbances in cattle associated with urea feeding. Okla. Agr,
Expt. Sta. Misc. Publ. 43:92-5=
9
9
- 80-
Work, S. H. and L. A, Henke, 1939, The value of urea as a protein supple­
ment replacement for dairy heifers, Proce Am, Soc, Animal Production,
p, 404-406.
Zuntz N e 1891. Remarks on the digestion and nutritional value of cellu­
lose. Arch, ges Physiol. Pfluger’s. 49:477-84. As reviewed in Urea
and Nonprotein Nitrogen in Ruminant Nutrition.
1
MONTANA STATE
3 1762 10014958
H378
M
cop.2
H B b
Mies, W. L.
An evaluation of
biuret as a nitrogen source in
wintering and. fattening rations
for beef cattle.
5 8 6
WVi'