Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T06:25:44.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fate of water in the rumen

2.* Water balances throughout the feeding cycle in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. C. I. Warner  and
B. D. Stacy
A. C. I. Warner
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Physiology, The Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, Prospect, NSW, Australia
B. D. Stacy
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Physiology, The Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, Prospect, NSW, Australia
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. The 51Cr complex of ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid was used as a soluble marker substance in sheep fed restricted amounts (700 g daily) of roughage diets. It was injected into the rumen at various stages of the feeding cycle and rumen volumes and flow rates were calculated.

2. The average resting rumen volume for sixteen sheep (average body-weight 39 kg) was 3.9 l.; the average resting dilution rate was 0.077 h-1 so that the net inflow rate averaged 0.29 l./h; the average rate of absorption of water from the resting rumen into the blood was 0.05 l./h.

3. There were marked differences in all these values, both within sheep on different days (coefficient of variation nearly 20%) and between sheep (coefficient of variation more than 25%). The resting salivary inflow rate was also found to fluctuate considerably.

4. During feeding, the salivary inflow rate increased; there was usually both an expansion of rumen volume and an increased rate of outflow. There was no evidence of diffusion of water from the blood into the rumen.

5. Following eating, return to resting conditions was slow.

6. When the sheep drank, there was an expansion of the rumen volume and usually an increased outflow rate. The rate of absorption of water from the rumen increased slightly, but only for a short time. Occasionally after drinking it was found that rumen marker concentrations were slightly higher than expected probably because a small part of the imbibed water bypassed the rumen down the reticular groove into the omasum.

7. Most of the water drunk in a day was consumed in a few minutes. Compared with this rapid rate of drinking, the rate of absorption of water from the rumen was always a very slow process; this finding is in disagreement with recent views expressed in the literature. However, when considered over the whole day, the amount of water absorbed from the rumen may have been approximately equal to the amount of water drunk.

8. During periods of both feeding and drinking, the mean outflow rate was about 0.7 l./h in several series of experiments.

9. When sheep were held without food or water past their normal time for eating and drinking, the net inflow rate into the rumen soon started to decrease, but there was no immediate effect on rumen volume.

10. The present work reveals the potential usefulness of the soluble marker technique in defining the changing patterns of fluid movement in the rumen throughout the day.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1968 , pp. 389 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1968

References

Bailey, C. B. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C. B. (1966). Anim. Prod. 8, 325.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Line, C. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 11.Google Scholar
Bost, J., Vérine, H. & Matrat, B. (1965). C. r. Séanc. Soc. biol. 159, 2410.Google Scholar
Briggs, P. K. (1961). PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Brook, A. H., Radford, H. M. & Stacy, B. D. (1968). J. Physiol., Lond. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Bruce, J., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B., Phillipson, A. T. & Vowles, L. E. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 46.Google Scholar
Brüggemann, J., Walser-Kärst, K. & Giesecke, D. (1965). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 20, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denton, D. A. (1965). Physiol. Rev. 45, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. J. & Massey, F. J. (1957). Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A. & Phillipson, A. T. (1958). J. Physiol., Lond. 140, 94.Google Scholar
Emery, R. S., Smith, C. K. & Lewis, T. R. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, W.v. (1963). Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol. 278, 152.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes, p. 218. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Hutton, J. B., Hughes, J. W., Newth, R. P. & Watanabe, K. (1964). Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 24, 29.Google Scholar
Hydén, S. (1961 a). K. LantbrHögsk. Annlr 27, 51.Google Scholar
Hydén, S. (1961 b). K. LantbrHögsk. Annlr 27, 273.Google Scholar
Johns, A. T., Ulyatt, M. J. & Glenday, A. C. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1966). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 6, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, M. J., Giesecke, D. & Walser-Kärst, K. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 373.Google Scholar
McManus, W. R., Arnold, G. W. & Hamilton, F. J. (1962). Aust. vet. J. 38, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, M. G., Reid, R. S. & Sutherland, T. M. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 164, 26P.Google Scholar
Parthasarathy, D. & Phillipson, A. T. (1953). J. Physiol., Lond. 121, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, D. B. & Moir, R. J. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W. (1965). Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 25, 65.Google Scholar
Stacy, B. D. & Warner, A. C. I. (1966). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 51, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. (1967). Res. vet. Sci. 8, 283.Google Scholar
Trautmann, A. (1933). Arch. Tierernähr. Tierz. 9, 178.Google Scholar
Tsuda, T. (1957). Tohoku J. agric. Res. 7, 231.Google Scholar
Tsuda, T. (1964). Tohoku J. agric. Res. 15, 83.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M., Hughes, J. W. & Newth, R. P. (1965). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 8, 636.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. (1964). N. Z. Jl agric. Res. 7, 713.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1966). J. gen. Microbiol. 45, 213.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. & Stacy, B. D. (1965). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 50, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. & Stacy, B. D. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 369.Google Scholar
Watson, R. H. (1944). Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Melb. no. 180, P. 1.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. D. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 680.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. D. & Tribe, D. E. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar