Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:00:45.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marker concentration patterns of labelled leaf and stem particles in the rumen of cattle grazing bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) analysed by reference to a raft model*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. P. Poppi ,
W. C. Ellis ,
J. H. Matis  and
C. E. Lascano
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.

Large (>1600 μm), ingestively masticated particles of bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon L. Pers.) leaf and stem labelled with 169Yb and 144Ce respectively were inserted into the rumen digesta raft of heifers grazing bermuda grass. The concentration of markers in digesta sampled from the raft and ventral rumen were monitored at regular intervals over approximately 144 h. The data from the two sampling sites were simultaneously fitted to two pool (raft and ventral rumen–reticulum) models with either reversible or sequential flow between the two pools. The sequential flow model fitted the data equally as well as the reversible flow model but the reversible flow model was used because of its greater application. The reversible flow model, hereafter called the raft model, had the following features: a relatively slow age-dependent transfer rate from the raft (means for a gamma 2 distributed rate parameter for leaf 0.0740 v. stem 0.0478 h-1), a very slow first order reversible flow from the ventral rumen to the raft (mean for leaf and stem 0.010 h-1) and a very rapid first order exit from the ventral rumen (mean of leaf and stem 0.44 h-1). The raft was calculated to occupy approximately 0.82 total rumen DM of the raft and ventral rumen pools. Fitting a sequential two pool model or a single exponential model individually to values from each of the two sampling sites yielded similar parameter values for both sites and faster rate parameters for leaf as compared with stem, in agreement with the raft model. These results were interpreted as indicating that the raft forms a large relatively inert pool within the rumen. Particles generated within the raft have difficulty escaping but once into the ventral rumen pool they escape quickly with a low probability of return to the raft. It was concluded that the raft model gave a good interpretation of the data and emphasized escape from and movement within the raft as important components of the residence time of leaf and stem particles within the rumen digesta of cattle.

Keywords

MarkerResidence timeRumenRaftLeaf and stem particles
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , May 2001 , pp. 553 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2001

Footnotes

*

Approved for publication by Texas Agricultural Experiment Station as technical article TA2345.

References

Aharoni, Y, Brosch, A & Holzer, Z (1999) Comparison of models estimating digesta kinetics and fecal output in cattle from fecal concentrations of single-dosed marker of particles and solutes. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2291–2304.Google Scholar
Bailoni, L, Ramanzin, M, Simonetto, A, Oblakov, N, Schiavon, S & Bittante, G (1998) The effect of in vitro fermentation on specific gravity and sedimentation measurements of forage particles. Journal of Animal Science 76, 3095–3103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balch, CC & Campling, RC (1962) Regulation of voluntary food intake in ruminants. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 32, 669–686.Google Scholar
Baldwin, RL, Koong, LJ, Ulyatt, MJ, & Smith, N (1976) Towards a synthesis. In Reviews in Rural Science. 2. From Plant to Animal Protein. pp.175–181. [TM, Sutherland, JR, McWilliam and RA, Leng, editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Bates, DM & Watts, DG (1988) Nonlinear Regression Analysis and its Application.New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Graham, NMcC & Wainman, FW (1956) Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–91.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, GJ, Poppi, DP & Sykes, AR (1990) Theoretical considerations in the estimation of rumen fractional outflow rate from various sampling sites in the digestive tract.British Journal of Nutrition 62, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, JW (1986) Degradation of solid feeds in the rumen: spatial distribution of microbial activity and its consequences. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants. PP. 158–172. [LP, Milligan, WL, Grovum and A, Dobson, editors].Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston.Google Scholar
Deswysen, AG & Ehrlein, HJ (1981) Silage intake, rumination and pseudo-rumination activity in sheep studied by radiography and jaw movement recordings. British Journal of Nutrition 46, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhanoa, MS, Siddons, RC, France, J & Gale, DL (1985) A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53, 663–671.Google Scholar
Dixon, RM, Kennelly, JJ & Milligan, LP (1983) Kinetics of [103Ru]phenanthroline and dysprosium particulate markers in the rumen of steers. British Journal of Nutrition 49, 463–473.Google Scholar
Egan, JK & Doyle, PT (1984) A comparison of particulate markers for the estimation of digesta flow from the abomasum of sheep offered chopped oaten hay. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 279–291.Google Scholar
Ehrlein, HJ (1979) Motility of the Forestomachs in Ruminants.Gottingen: Institut Wiss, Film.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Bailey, EM & Taylor, CA (1984 a) A silicone esophageal cannulae: Its surgical installation and use in research with grazing cattle, sheep or goats. Journal of Animal Science 59, 204–209.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Lascano, C, Guerrero, J, Pond, K & Matis, JH (1982) Particle size degradation in and escape from the rumen. Federation Proceedings 41, 343.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Hill, TM & Murphy, MR (1994) Methodology for estimating digestion and passage kinetics of forages. In Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization, pp. 81–95. [GC, Fahey, editor]. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Inc, Crop Science Society of America Inc., Soil Science Society of America Inc.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Pond, KR, Lascano, CE, Telford, JPx (1984) Dietary influences on flow rate and digestive capacity. In Herbivore Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics 269–293. [FMC, Gilchrist and RI, Mackie, editors]. Craighall: The Science Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Pond, KR, Magloogi, M (1985) Physical and chemical digestion of forage fragments with emphasis on stochastic, hetergeneous rate models. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Modeling Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism 34–42.[Baldwin, RLBywater, AC, editors]. Davis, CA: Department of Animal Science,University of California.Google Scholar
Evans, EW, Pearce, GR, Burnett, J & Pillinger, SL (1973) Changes in some physical characteristics of the digesta in the reticulo-rumen of cows fed once daily. British Journal of Nutrition 29, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faichney, GJ (1975) The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant 277–291.[IW, McDonald and ACI, Warner, editors]. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ (1986) The kinetics of particulate matter in the rumen. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants 173–195.[LP, Milligan, WL, Grovum and A, Dobson, editors]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ & Boston, RC (1983) Interpretation of the faecal excretion pattern of solute and particle markers introduced into the rumen of sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 575–581.Google Scholar
France, J, Thornley, JHM, Dhanoa, MS & Siddons, RC (1985) On the mathematics of digesta flow kinetics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 113, 743–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL & Williams, VJ (1973) Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 3. Differential rates of passage of water and dry matter from the reticulo-rumen, abomasum and caecum and proximal colon 30, 231–240.Google ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL & Williams, VJ (1973) Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces 30, 313–329.Google ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL & Williams, VJ (1977) Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 6.The level of food intake on mathematical predictions of the kinetics of digesta in the reticulo-rumen and intestines 38, 425–436.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P & Kukkonen, U (1995) Comparison of methods, markers, sampling sites and models for estimating digesta passage kinetics in cattle at two levels of intake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 52, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, RE (1966) The Rumen and its Microbes.New York, NY:Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, PM & Murphy, MR (1988) The nutritional implications of differential passage of particles through the ruminant alimentary tract. Nutrition Research Reviews 1, 189–208.Google Scholar
Lascano, CE (1979) Determinants of grazed forage voluntary intake. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, DB, Ellis, WC & Worley, RR (1987) Digestion of fiber in segments of the bovine gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Animal Science 65(Suppl. 1), 340.Google Scholar
McLeod, MN & Minson, DJ (1988) Large particle breakdown by cattle eating ryegrass and alfalfa. Journal of Animal Science 66, 992.Google Scholar
Matis, JH (1972) Gamma time dependency in Blaxter's compartmental model. Biometrics 28, 597–602.Google Scholar
Matis, JH (1984) Modeling ruminant digestion and metabolism. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, University of California, Davis 10–15.[Baldwin, RLBywater, AC,editors]. Davis, CA: Department of Animal Science, University of California.Google Scholar
Matis, JH, Wehly, TE & Metzer, CM (1983) On some stochastic formulations and related statistical moments of pharmacokinetic models. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmacentics 11, 77–92.Google Scholar
Matis, JH (1987) The case for stochastic models of digesta flow. Journal of Theoretical Biology 124, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, KR, Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Ferreiro, HM & Sutton, JD (1988) Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 571–595.Google Scholar
Poppi, DP, Hendricksen, RE & Minson, DJ (1985) The relative resistance to escape of leaf and stem particles from the rumen of cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, DP, Norton, BW, Minson, DJ & Hendricksen, RE (1980) The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.Google Scholar
Poppi, DP, Minson, DJ & Ternouth, JH (1981) Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. III. The retention time in the rumen of large feed particles. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 123–127.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH, Tamminga, S & Van Vuuren, AM (1987) Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate on rumen ingesta quantity, composition and kinetics of ingesta turnover in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 17, 37–62.Google Scholar
Spillane, KT & Minson, DJ (1986) On Modelling the Passage of Digesta Particulates in Sheep.Tropical Agronomy Technical Memorandum 49,St Lucia: CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures.Google Scholar
Sutherland, TM (1988) Particle separation in the forestomachs of sheep Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants. 43–73. [Dobson, A, editor]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, RF & Minson, DJ (1973) The relationship between apparent retention time in the rumen, voluntary intake, and apparent digestibility of legume and grass diets in sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Blaxter, KL & McDonald, I (1967) The relations between the apparent digestibility of roughages in the rumen and lower gut of sheep, the volume of fluid in the rumen and voluntary feed intake. Animal Production 9, 463–470.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Dellow, DW, John, A, Reid, CSW, Waghorn, GC (1986) Contribution by chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the reticulorumen.In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants. 498–515. [LP, Mulligan, WL, Grovum and A, Dobson, editors]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston.Google Scholar
Vega, A & de Poppi, DP (1997) Extent of digestion and rumen condition as factors affecting passage of liquid and digesta particles in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 128, 207–215.Google Scholar
Weston, RH (1996) Some aspects of constraint to forage consumption by ruminants. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Reid, CSW, Ulyatt, MJ & John, A (1986) Feed comminution, particle composition and distribution between the four compartments of the stomach in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay at two feeding frequencies and intake levels. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 287–296.Google Scholar
Wylie, MJ, Ellis, WC, Matis, JH, Bailey, EM, James, WD & Beever, DE (2000) The flow of forage particles and solutes through segments of the digestive tracts of cattle.British Journal of Nutrition 83, 295–306.Google Scholar