Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:46:07.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interpretation of the faecal excretion patterns of solute and particle markers introduced into the rumen of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. J. Faichney
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Production, C.S.I.R.O., Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 239, Blacktown, NSW, 2148, Australia
R. C. Boston
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia

Summary

A two-pool + time delay model was used to analyse ideal marker concentration patterns generated, using an interactive computer simulation program, from data for the mean retention times of [51Cr]EDTA and [103Ru]phen in the reticulo-rumen, abomasum and caecum-proximal colon and the transit times of these markers through the omasum, small intestine and distal large intestine of sheep. Although providing a reasonably close fit to the generated data, the fitted curves showed small but systematic deviations, indicating that the model does not consistently characterize the kinetics of the markers in the ruminant gastro-intestinal tract.

When the components of the two-pool model were correctly identified, predicted rumen mean retention times (MRT) were within – 1 to + 13% of the observed values. However, identifying the component with the longer MRT as the rumen resulted in up to 2·6-fold overestimation (17·5 v. 6·77 h). The model underestimated the time delay and the overall MRT. It is suggested that the correct identification of the two components can be achieved by the simultaneous use of a solute-and a particulate-phase marker because, in ruminants, they do not behave independently in the caecumproximal colon.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Berman, M. & Weiss, M. F. (1978). SAAM 27 Manual. US DHEW publ. No. (NIH) 78180.Google Scholar
Blaxteb, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10, 6991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, R. C., Greif, P. C. & Bekman, M. (1981).Conversational SAAM – an interactive program for kinetic analysis of biological systems. Computer Programs in Biomedicine 13, 111119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombe, J. B. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). Passage of digesta through the large intestines of sheep: retention times in the small and large intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 325338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). The chromium-51 complex of ethylene-diamine tetra-acetic acid as a soluble rumen marker. British Journal of Nutrition 18, 153162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J.(1975a). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277291. Armidale, N.S.W.: University of New England.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975b). The effect of formaldehyde treatment of a concentrate diet on the passage of solute and particle markers through the gastrointestinal tract of sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 319327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1980). Measurement in sheep of the quantity and composition of rumen digesta and of the fractional outflow rates of digesta constituents. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 11291137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Colebrook, W. F. (1979). A simple technique to establish a self-retaining rumen catheter suitablefor long-term infusions. Research in Veterinary Science 26, 385386.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Griffiths, D. A. (1978). Behaviour of solute and particle markers in the stomach of sheep given a concentrate diet. British Journal of Nutrition 40, 7182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973a). Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 3. Differential rates of passage of water and dry matter from the reticulorumen, abomasum and caecum and proximal colon. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 231240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973b). Kate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 313329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1977). Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 6. The effect of level of food intake on mathematical predictions of the kinetics of digesta in the reticulorumen and intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 38, 425436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C., Reid, C. S. W., Dellow, D. W. & Wyburn, R. S. (1973). Caecal cannulation in the sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 14, 7885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978). A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervua elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mira, J. J. F. & MacRae, J. C. (1982). Comparison of rumen and faecal sampling procedures for calculating the retention time of digesta markers in the rumen of steers. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 41, 77A.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Use of 103Ru-labelled tris(1,10-phenanthroline) ruthenium II chloride as a marker in digestion studies with sheep. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, A. C. I. (1981). Rate of passage of digesta through the gut of mammals and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B 51, 789820.Google Scholar