Efecto de la amonificación con urea sobre la calidad nutritiva del heno de Setaria sphacelata en bovinos

Juan Marcelo Navamuel; Natalia Aguilar; Gabriela Alejandra Koza; Mario Slukwa; Sabina Soledad Arenhardt; Miguel Ángel Rolón Bruno; Santiago Manuel Calderón Sadlovsky; Luis Gandara

doi:10.30972/vet.3719222

Authors

Juan Marcelo Navamuel Cátedra Bioestadística, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4449-326X
Natalia Aguilar Cátedra de Bienestar Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-1335
Gabriela Alejandra Koza Cátedra de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4624-285X
Mario Slukwa Cátedra Manejo y Conservación de Suelos https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1900-3099
Sabina Soledad Arenhardt Cátedra de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0044-9463
Miguel Ángel Rolón Bruno Cátedra de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8089-2920
Santiago Manuel Calderón Sadlovsky Cátedra de Fisiología, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UNNE, Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7128-6362
Luis Gandara Cátedra de Nutrición Animal. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, UNNE. Sargento Cabral 2139, Corrientes (3400), Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8518-4151

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30972/vet.3719222

Keywords:

Blood urea nitrogen, dry matter intake, tropical grass, chemical treatment of forages

Abstract

In the Northeast region of Argentina (NEA), haymaking of tropical grasses at advanced phenological stages frequently results in forages of low nutritional quality, limiting cattle performance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ammoniation with increasing levels of urea on the nutritional quality of Setaria sphacelata hay and its impact on intake, weight gain, and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) in growing cattle. Low-quality Setaria hay (3.96% CP; 81.48% NDF) was treated with urea on a dry matter basis at levels of 0% (T0-control), 3.5% (T1), 7.0% (T2), and 10.5% (T3), with an incubation period of 28 days. The chemical composition of the hay (n=16 hay bales) was evaluated under a completely randomized design. Subsequently, a feeding trial was conducted with eight cattle (four calves weighing 163 ± 2 kg and four steers weighing 286 ± 3 kg) under a 4×4 Latin square design for 84 days, measuring dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG) and BUN. Ammoniation linearly increased crude protein content (from 3.96% in T0 to 12.03% in T3; p<0.001), without significantly affecting fiber fractions (NDF, ADF). DMI showed a quadratic response (p<0.05), with the highest values observed in T1 (3.93 kg d⁻¹ in calves and 5.23 kg d⁻¹ in steers). ADG showed a significant linear effect in calves (p=0.042), with positive values in T0 (+0.23 kg d⁻¹) and T1 (+0.42 kg d⁻¹) and negative values in T2 (-0.19 kg d⁻¹) and T3 (-0.25 kg d⁻¹); in steers, a similar pattern was observed although it did not reach statistical significance. BUN increased linearly (p<0.001) with urea dose, reaching 31.9-32.4 mg dL⁻¹ in T3. These results indicate that ammoniation with 3.5% urea is the optimal strategy to improve the nutritional quality of S. sphacelata hay and maximize intake and weight gain, whereas higher doses lead to excess non-protein nitrogen, evidenced by elevated BUN (>23 mg dL⁻¹) and body weight loss, suggesting an imbalance between nitrogen availability and fermentable energy in the rumen.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 21st ed. Rockville (MD): AOAC International; 2019. Disponible en: https://www.aoac.org/official-methods-of-analysis.

2. Brown WF, Adjei MB. Urea ammoniation effects on the feeding value of guineagrass (Panicum maximum) hay. J Anim Sci. 1995; 73(10): 3085-3093. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73103085x DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73103085x

3. Carrillo-Muro O, Rodríguez-Cordero D, Hernández-Briano P, Correa-Aguado PI, Medina-Flores CA, Huerta-López LA, Rodríguez-Valdez FJ, Rivera-Villegas A, Plascencia A. Enzymic activity, metabolites, and hematological responses in high-risk newly received calves for "clinical health" reference intervals. Animals. 2024; 14(16): 2342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14162342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14162342

4. Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CW. InfoStat versión 2020. Córdoba: Grupo InfoStat, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; 2020. https://www.infostat.com.ar/

5. Ferreira RC, Bezerra Neto F, Almeida FC de, Silva AM de A, Cordão MA, Pereira Filho JM. Chemical composition and digestibility of hays of three grasses ammonized with urea. Rev Principia. 2022; 59(3): 686-702. https://doi.org/10.18265/1517-0306a2021id5077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18265/1517-0306a2021id5077

6. Gentile E, Martin P, Gatti I. Argentina físico-natural: Clima en Argentina. ANIDA. Atlas Nacional Interactivo de Argentina. Buenos Aires: Instituto Geográfico Nacional; 2020. Disponible en: https://static.ign.gob.ar/anida/fasciculos/fasc_afn_clima.pdf.

7. He Y, Zhao S, Zhang X, Zheng N, Yan X, Wang J. Activity- and enrichment-based metaproteomics insights into active urease from the rumen microbiota of cattle. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(1): 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010176

8. Jayasinghe P, Ramilan T, Donaghy DJ, Pembleton KG. Comparison of nutritive values of tropical pasture species grown in different environments, and implications for livestock methane production: a meta-analysis. Animals. 2022; 12(14): 1806. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141806

9. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA, Sinclair LA, Wilkinson RG. Animal nutrition. 8th ed. Harlow (UK): Pearson; 2022.

10. NASEM. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 8th rev ed. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.17226/25806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/25806

11. Nenning FR, Pueyo JD, Cavallero MI. Forrajeras megatérmicas para ambientes de Chaco y Formosa. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Ediciones INTA; 2022. Disponible en: https://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/handle/20.500.12123/13336.

12. Nichols K, de Carvalho IPC, Rauch R, Martín-Tereso J. Review: unlocking the limitations of urea supply in ruminant diets by considering the natural mechanism of endogenous urea secretion. Animal. 2022; 16 Suppl 3: 100537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100537

13. Ricci HR, Toranzos MR. Índice de calidad de cuatro gramíneas tropicales en cuatro estados fenológicos. Rev Arg Prod Anim. 2004; 24(Supl 1): 120-121.

14. SAGyP-MECON. Existencias de bovinos al 31 de diciembre de 2024. Buenos Aires: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca; 2025. Disponible en: https://www.magyp.gob.ar. Último acceso noviembre 2025.

15. Sundstøl F, Coxworth E, Mowat DN. Improving the nutritive value of straw and other low-quality roughages by treatment with ammonia. World Anim Rev. 1978; 26: 13-21. Disponible en: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/records/647363eb53aa8c89630be75f. Último acceso marzo 2026.

16. Sundstøl F, Owen E, editores. Straw and other fibrous by-products as feed. Ámsterdam: Elsevier; 1984. (Developments in animal and veterinary sciences; vol. 14).

17. Tedeschi LO, Adams JM, Vieira RAM. Forages and pastures symposium: revisiting mechanisms, methods, and models for altering forage cell wall utilization for ruminants. J Anim Sci. 2023; 101: skad009. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad009

18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991; 74(10): 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

19. Wahyono T, Sholikin MM, Konca Y, Obitsu T, Sadarman S, Jayanegara A. Effects of urea supplementation on ruminal fermentation characteristics, nutrient intake, digestibility, and performance in sheep: a meta-analysis. Vet World. 2022; 15(2): 331-340. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2022.331-340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2022.331-340

20. Weimer PJ. Degradation of cellulose and hemicellulose by ruminal microorganisms. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(12): 2345. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122345

21. Zurak D, Kljak K, Aladrović J. Metabolism and utilisation of non-protein nitrogen compounds in ruminants: a review. J Cent Eur Agric. 2023; 24(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/24.1.3645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/24.1.3645