HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2006-789v1 85/12/3348    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schroeder, G. F. Articles by Moore, E. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schroeder, G. F. Articles by Moore, E. S.

Effects of energy supply on leucine utilization by growing steers at two body weights¹

G. F. Schroeder^*, E. C. Titgemeyer^*,2 and E. S. Moore

^* Department of Animal Sciences and Industry and and Department of Clinical Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506-1600

² Corresponding author: etitgeme{at}ksu.edu

The effects of energy supplementation on Leu utilization in growing steers were evaluated in 2 experiments by using 6 ruminally cannulated Holstein steers. In Exp. 1, steers (initial BW = 150 ± 7 kg) were limit-fed (2.3 kg of DM/d) a diet based on soybean hulls and received a basal ruminal infusion of 100 g of acetate/d, 75 g of propionate/d, and 75 g of butyrate/d, as well as abomasal infusions of 200 g of glucose/d and a mixture (215 g/d) containing all essential AA except Leu. Treatments were arranged as a 3 x 2 factorial, with 3 amounts of Leu infused abomasally (0, 4, and 8 g/d) and supplementation of diets with 2 amounts of energy (0 and 1.9 Mcal/d of GE). Supplemental energy was supplied by ruminal infusion of 100 g of acetate/ d, 75 g of propionate/d, and 75 g of butyrate/d, as well as abomasal infusion of 200 g of glucose/d to provide energy to the animal without affecting the microbial protein supply. When no supplemental energy was provided, Leu supplementation increased N balance, with no difference between 4 and 8 g/d of Leu (24.5, 27.0, and 27.3 g/d for 0, 4, and 8 g/d of Leu), but when additional energy was supplied, N retention increased linearly in response to Leu (25.6, 28.5, and 31.6 g/d for 0, 4, and 8 g/d of Leu; Leu x energy interaction, P = 0.06). The changes in N balance were the result of changes in urinary N excretion. The greater Leu retentions in response to energy supplementation when Leu was the most limiting nutrient indicate that energy supplementation improved the true efficiency of Leu utilization. In addition, supplemental energy increased the gross efficiency of Leu utilization when the Leu supply was not limiting by increasing the maximal rates of protein deposition. Experiment 2 was similar to Exp. 1, but steers had an initial BW of 275 ± 12 kg and were limit-fed at 3.6 kg of DM/d. Retention of N was not affected (P = 0.22) by Leu supplementation, indicating that Leu did not limit protein deposition. Energy supply increased N retention (P < 0.01) independently of Leu supplementation (33.0 vs. 27.8 g/d). Overall, energy supplementation improved Leu utilization by modestly increasing N retention when Leu was limiting and by increasing the ability of steers to respond to the greatest amount of supplemental Leu. We conclude from these results that the assumption of a constant efficiency of AA utilization is unlikely to be appropriate for growing steers.

Key Words: cattle • energy • growth • leucine • utilization