Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:25:35.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Peter Udén ,
T. R. Rounsaville ,
G. R. Wiggans  and
P. J. Van Soest
Peter Udén
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
T. R. Rounsaville
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
G. R. Wiggans
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
P. J. Van Soest
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
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. Digesta passage and retention were measured in heifers, sheep, goats, equines and rabbits of varying body-weights when given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay.

2. Two passage markers were compared, cobalt (III) ethylene diamine tetraacetate (CoEDTA) and chromiummordanted timothy fibre for liquid and solid phase respectively. Both markers were injected into the rumen of the ruminants and into the caecum of the equines andrabbits.

3. In ruminants, two different sets of rate constants (k1 and k2) were derived from a two-pool model for marker passage, using a graphical approach and a computer-based non-linear least-squares curve-fitting technique.

4. Retention times, due to unidirectional flow through the gastrointestinal tract (transit time) and due to pool effects (mean retention time, MRT), were calculated.

5. Curve fitting was only successful for the excretion of liquids in ruminants. The two-pool model was not applicable to the passage of solids.

6. Apparent retention of liquid was always shorter than for solids in all species, except in rabbits. However absorption of CoEDTA was too large in the rabbits to determine liquid retention accurately. Times for first appearance of the two markers were similar within animal groups.

7. MRT values were lowest in the rabbit, intermediate in equines and high in the ruminants. The MRT values (h) of solids and liquid respectively were: large heifers 65, 18; small heifers 48, 20; goats 41, 28: sheep 57, 26: equines 23, 18; rabbits 5·3, not determined.

8. Liquid retention seemed to decrease somewhat with increasing body-weight in the ruminants. Solids retention decreased with decreasing body-weight in the ruminants, but sheep had longer retention times than goats of similar size. Equines exhibited large individual variation in retention of the liquid or solid markers, seemingly unrelated to size. Noeffect of size was seen in the retention of solids in the rabbits.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 329 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Argenzio, R. A., Lowe, J. E., Pickard, D. W. & Stevens, C. E. (1974). Am. J. Physiol. 288, 454.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. Mc. & Waiman, F. W. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, C. S. & Thacker, E. J. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, P. E. (1979). Rate of passage of digesta through the gastro-intestinal tract in dairy cattle. MS thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Dennis, J. E. Jr, Gay, D. M. & Welsch, R. E. (1977). NBER Working Paper. Series no. 196. Ithaca, NY: Department of Computer Science, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Egan, E. R., Walker, D. J., Nader, C. J. & Storrer, G. (1975). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H. & Lascano, C. (1979). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 38, 2702.Google Scholar
Francois, E. & Compère, R. (1971). Bull. Rech. Agron. Gembloux, 6, 43.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H. & Heitman, R. N. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., Macrae, J. C., Spence, Angela M. & Wilson, S. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parra, R. (1978). In The Ecology of Arboreal Folivores [Montgomery, G. G., editor]. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Potter, B. J., Walker, D. J. & Forrest, W. W. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resigno, A. & Segre, G. (1966). Drug and Tracer Kinetics [Gross, P. R., editor]. Waltham, Mass: Blaisedell Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1973). Statisticul Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Udén, P. (1978). Comparative studies on rate of passage, particle size and rate of digestion in ruminants, equines, rabbits and man. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca. NY.Google Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 31, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 47, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Noot, G. W., Symons, L. D., Lydman, R. K. & Fonnesbeck, P. V. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, R. A., Durix, A. & Letourneau, J.-C. (1974). Annls. Zootech. 23, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar