Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:03:17.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the absence of rumen ciliate protozoa on growing lambs fed on a roughage–concentrate diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2009

J. Margaret Eadie  and
J. C. Gill
J. Margaret Eadie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. C. Gill
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Lambs were removed form their dams at 2 d of age, and at 5 weeks of age eitht of one group were incoulated with a mixed rumen ciliate and seven in a second group were maintained ciliate-free throughout the 61 weeks of the experiment. Performance of the groups was compared when given a 2:1 roughage:concentrate diet as a set ration and with ad lib. roughage.

2. Mixed ciliate populations developed in all faunated lambs and average-sized populations were maintained. Large numbers of flagellate protozoa developed in the ciliate-free animals after flagellates had been introduced into the building with the ciliate-free animals after flagellates had been introduced into the building with the ciliate inoculum.

3. Higher numbers of rumen bacteria were found in the ciliate-free group.

4. Only between the 14th and 21st weeks was there a significant different between groups in weight gain and this was infavour of the faunated group. The only significant different in body measurements was greater girth in the ciliate-free lambs.

5. Only minor differences were found between the groups in calorimetric trials, digestibility and nitrogen balanes. There were no differences between groups in concentration of total protein N and soluble sugar in the rumen. The ammonis concentration was significantly higher in the faunated group.

6. The concentrations of total rumen volatile fatty acids (VFA) were higher in the faunated group. Differences, between groups, in proportions of VFA were attributed to the activity of the rumen bacteria rather than the ciliates per se.

7. No differences between groups were found in the concentrations of blood sugar and haemoglobin.

8. It was concluded that the changes due to the presence of rumen ciliates were not great enough to be reflected in animal performance under the conditions of this experiment.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 155 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Abou Akkada, A. R. & El Shazly, K. (1964). Appl. Microbiol. 12, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou Akkada, A. R. & El Shazly, K. (1965). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 64, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Methods of Analysis 9th ed.Washington: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Becker, E. R. (1932). Q. Rev. Biol. 7, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, E. R. & Everett, R. C. (1930). Am. J. Hyg. 11, 362.Google Scholar
Becker, E. R., Schulz, J. A. & Emmerson, M. A. (1930). Iowa St. J. Sci. 4, 215.Google Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Eadie, J. M. & Raitt, K. (1957). J. gen. Microbiol. 17, 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 11, p. 441.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I., Cuthbertson, D. P. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 44, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, M. I., Davidson, J., Eadie, J. M. & Gill, J. C. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 29A.Google Scholar
Christiansen, W. C., Kawashima, R. & Burroughs, W. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A. & Smith, F. (1956). Analyt. Chem. 28, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. (1962). J. gen. Microbiol. 29, 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. (1967). J. gen. Microbiol. 49, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, F. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilmeyer, L. (1943). Spectrophotometry in Medicine p. 70. London: Hilger.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. N., Mann, S. O. & Summers, R. (1966). J. gen Microbiol. 45, 5P.Google Scholar
Hugget, A. St. G. & Nixon, D. A. (1957). Lancet ii, p. 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes p. 126. London: Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd.Google Scholar
Klopfenstein, T. J., Purser, D. B. & Tyznik, W. J. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. & Mann, S. O. (1968). J. gen. Microbiol. 51, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luther, R., Trenkle, A. & Burroughs, W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pounden, W. D. & Hibbs, J. W. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Millard, D. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 16, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainman, F. W. & Blaxter, K. L. (1969). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 12, p. 429.Google Scholar