Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:00:11.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-analysis of 0 to 8 h post-prandial evolution of ruminal pH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

C. Dragomir ,
D. Sauvant ,
J.-L. Peyraud ,
S. Giger-Reverdin  and
B. Michalet-Doreau
C. Dragomir
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, INRA, 63122, St-Genès Champanelle, France National R-D Institute for Animal Biology and Nutrition, Calea Bucuresti 1, Balotesti, Ilfov 077015, Romania
D. Sauvant*
Affiliation:
UMR INRA INA P-G, Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
J.-L. Peyraud
Affiliation:
UMR INRA/ENSAR Production du Lait, 35590 St Gilles, France
S. Giger-Reverdin
Affiliation:
UMR INRA INA P-G, Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
B. Michalet-Doreau
Affiliation:
Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, INRA, 63122, St-Genès Champanelle, France
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify relevant descriptors of ruminal pH post-prandial evolution that can replace the mean pH (considered unsatisfactory). These descriptors are to be used in the attempts to predict ruminal pH from dietary characteristics, in order to quantify the potential of a diet to induce subacute ruminal acidosis from its intrinsic characteristics. A total of 219 pH curves, reported as graphics in 48 published articles describing the post-prandial evolution of ruminal pH (first 8 h), were digitized by image analysis then summarized in 15 pH variables. Relationships among pH variables and the principal components (PCs) of pH variability were analyzed in order to identify possible alternatives to mean pH, as the average value of all pH data the curve is composed of. Two groups of pH variables were identified according to their relationship with the most important principal components. A first group, including mean pH, was closely related to PC1, which accounted for 78% of data variability; hence, correlations between variables of this group were generally high. Of these, threshold-related variables were distinct as their within-study correlations with mean pH were rather moderate (0.69 on average). This suggests they might carry supplementary information that could explain the variation in ruminal pH induced by within-study factors, e.g. diet characteristics. However, caution should be taken in their use because of their truncation at 0 h and their non-normal distribution. Variables from the second group were independent of the PC1, and thus of the first group of variables, whereas they were mostly related to PC2 and PC3. This implies they are complementary to mean pH. Of this second group, the rate of pH decreases or the time period when pH reaches its minimum might be useful to better describe the ruminal status, from the point of view of the risk of subacute ruminal acidosis.

Keywords

meta-analysispH-dynamicsrumensubacute rumen acidosis
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 10 , October 2008 , pp. 1437 - 1448
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argyle, JL, Baldwin, RL 1988. Modelling of rumen water kinetics and effects of rumen pH changes. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1178–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA 1991. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration and alfalfa hay quality on chewing, rumen function and milk production of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3140–3151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Buchanan-Smith, JG 1990. Effects of fiber source and method of feeding on chewing activities, digestive function and productivity of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 749–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Yang, WZ, Rode, LM 2001. Effects of barley grain processing on the site and extent of digestion of beef feedlot finishing diets. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1925–1936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Yang, WZ, Rode, LM 2003. Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity, ruminal fermentation, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 630–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, J, Neal, HDStC, Beever, DE, France, J 1992. Simulation of nutrient digestion, absorption and outflow in the rumen: model description. Journal of Nutrition 122, 2239–2256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalili, H, Huhtanen, P 1991. Sucrose supplements in cattle given grass silage-based diets. 1. Digestion of organic matter and nitrogen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 275–287.Google Scholar
Kolver, ES, de Veth, MJ 2002. Prediction of ruminal pH from pasture-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, KM, Combs, DK 2003. Effects of forage particle size, forage source, and grain fermentability on performance and ruminal pH in midlactation cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1382–1397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, M, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM, Farr, BI, Nørgaard, L 1998. Fibrolytic enzyme treatment of barley grain and source of forage in high-grain diets fed to growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2912–2920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, KM, Combs, DK, Beauchemin, KA 2003. Effects of increasing levels of refined cornstarch in the diet of lactating dairy cows on performance and ruminal pH. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1341–1353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krehbiel, CR, Britton, RA, Harmon, DL, Wester, TJ, Stock, RA 1995. The effects of ruminal acidosis on volatile fatty acid absorption and plasma activities of pancreatic enzymes in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3111–3121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiva, E, Hall, MB, Van Horn, HH 2000. Performance of dairy cattle fed citrus pulp or corn products as sources of neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2866–2875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lescoat, P, Sauvant, D 1995. Development of a mechanistic model for rumen digestion validated using the duodenal flux of amino acids. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 35, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, RI, Gilchrist, FMC 1979. Changes in lactate-producing and lactate-utilizing bacteria in relation to pH in the rumen of sheep during stepwise adaptation to a high-concentrate diet. Applied Environmental Microbiology 38, 422–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, GK, Colucci, PE, Moore, AD, Grieve, DG, Lewis, N 1994. The effects of feeding frequency of concentrates and feeding sequence of hay on eating behaviour, ruminal environment and milk production in dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maekawa, M, Beauchemin, KA, Christensen, DA 2002. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities, saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1165–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malestein, A, Van’t Klooster, AJh, Pains, RA, Connette, GM 1984. Concentrate feeding and ruminal fermentation. 3. Influence of concentrate ingredients on pH, DL-lactic acid concentration in rumen fluid of dairy cows and on dry matter intake. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C, Michalet-Doreau, B 1995. Variations in mass and enzyme activity of rumen microorganisms: effect of barley and buffer supplements. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 67, 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M initab 2000. Minitab 13.20 for Windows. Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Mould, FL, Orskov, ER, Mann, SO 1983. Associative effects of mixed feeds. 1. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of rumen pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, MR 1981. Analyzing and presenting pH data. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocek, JE 1997. Bovine acidosis: implications on laminitis. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocek, JE, Kautz, WP, Leedle, JAZ, Allman, JG 2002. Ruminal supplementation of direct-fed microbials on diurnal pH variation and in situ digestion in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 429–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oetzel GR 2003. Introduction to ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. Preconvention Seminar 7: Dairy Herd Problem Investigation Strategies. American Association of bovine practitioners. 36th Annual Conference, 15–17 September 2003, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 11pp.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, MN, Armentano, LE 2000. Partial replacement of forage with nonforage fiber sources in lactating cow diets. II. Digestion and rumen function. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2876–2887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, RE, Pell, AN 1997. Modeling ruminal pH fluctuations: interactions between meal frequency and digestion rate. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2429–2441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, RE, Van Kessel, JS, Fox, DG, Pell, AN, Barry, MC, Van Soest, PJ 1996. Prediction of ruminal volatile fatty acids and pH within the net carbohydrate and protein system. Journal of Animal Science 74, 226–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB, Wilson, DB 1996. Why are ruminal cellulolytic bacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH? Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS 1999. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 8.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Meschy, F, Mertens, D 1999. Les composantes de l’acidose ruminale et les effets acidogènes des rations. I.N.R.A. Production Animales 12, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shriver, BJ, Hoover, WH, Sargent, JP, Crawford, RJ, Thayne, WV 1986. Fermentation of a high concentrate diet as affected by ruminal pH and digesta flow. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slyter, IL, Rumsey, TS 1991. Effect of coliform bacteria, feed deprivation and pH on ruminal D-lactic acid production by steer or continuous-culture microbial populations changed from forage to concentrates. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3055–3066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM 2000. Effects of barley grain processing on extent of digestion and milk production of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 554–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM 2001. Effects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2203–2216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed