Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:53:25.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal changes of ingesta mean retention time and forestomach fluid volume in indigenous camels, cattle, sheep and goats grazing a thornbush savannah pasture in Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. Lechner-Doll ,
T. Rutagwenda ,
H. J. Schwartz ,
W. Schultka  and
W. V. Engelhardt
M. Lechner-Doll
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, German Federal Republic
T. Rutagwenda
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, German Federal Republic
H. J. Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Berlin University, German Federal Republic
W. Schultka
Affiliation:
Institute of Botany, Giessen, German Federal Republic
W. V. Engelhardt
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, German Federal Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The study was carried out in northern Kenya in 1984–87. Forestomach volumes and digesta retention times were measured using Cr-EDTA or Co-EDTA as fluid markers and Ce-labelled particles or Cr-mordanted particles as paniculate phase markers.

Mean retention times of fluid and of particles were longer in the dry season than in the green season in all four animal species. The increase of particle mean retention time, as a percentage of the values in the green season, was highest in sheep (46%), followed by cattle (27%), goats (22%) and camels(18%). Forestomach volumes were also greater in the dry than in the green season; the increase was again highest in sheep (55%), followed by cattle (31%), goats (29%) and camels (28%). Outflow rates of fluid from the forestomach and the selectivity factor, by which small particles were retained longer in the forestomach than fluid, did not differ significantly between the seasons.

It is suggested that the increase of forestomach volumes is an effective adaptation to dry-season pasture conditions. It enables the animals to retain feed particles longer in the forestomach and so improve fibre digestion when feed quality is low. Cattle and sheep, which depend on a poor quality diet, improve fibre digestion in this way in the dry season more effectively than camels and goats. Camels and goats, on the other hand, were able to select a diet of such quality, even in the dry season, that their need to augment fibre digestion was reduced.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 115 , Issue 3 , December 1990 , pp. 409 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

REFERENCES

Aitchison, E. M., Gill, M. & Osbourn, D. F. (1986). The effect of supplementation with maize starch and level of intake of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Endura) hay on the removal of digesta from the rumen of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 56, 477–486.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. & van Soest, P. J. (1982). Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of paniculate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.Google Scholar
Coppock, D. L., Swift, D. M. & Ellis, J. E. (1986). Seasonal nutritional characteristics of livestock diets in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology 23, 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deswysen, A. G. (1988). Forestomach: control of digesta flow. In Physiological and Pharmacological Aspects of the Reticulo-rumen (Eds Ooms, L. A. A., Degryse, A. D. & Miert, A. S. J. P. van), pp. 133–154. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Fadlalla, B. & Kay, R. N. B. (1987). Digestion and retention time of stained food in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Eds McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. Armidale, Australia: University of New England.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Gherardi, S. G. (1986). Relationships between organic matter digestibility, dry-matter intake and solute mean retention times in sheep given a ground and pelleted diet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 219–222.Google Scholar
Heller, R., Lechner, M. & Engelhardt, W. V. (1986 a). Forestomach motility in the camel(Camelus dromedarius). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 84A, 285–288.Google Scholar
Heller, R., Lechner, M., Weyreter, H. & Engelhardt, W. V. (1986 b). Forestomach fluid volume and retention of fluid and particles in the gastrointestinal tract of the camel (Camelus dromedarius). Journal of Veterinary Medicine A33, 396–399.Google Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M. (1986). Selektive Retention von Futterpartikeln verschiedener Gröβe im Magen-Darmkanal von Kamelen im Vergleich mil Rindern und Schafen im Sudan. Thesis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover.Google Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M. & Engelhardt, W. V. (1989). Particle size and passage from the forestomach in camels compared to cattle and sheep fed a similar diet. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 61, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCollum, F. T. & Galyean, M. L. (1985). Cattle grazing blue grama rangeland. II. Seasonal forage intake and digesta kinetics. Journal of Range Management 38, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudgal, V. D., Dixon, R. M., Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1982). Effect of two intake levels on retention time of liquid, particle and microbial markers in the rumen of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1051–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981). Studies of cattle and sheep eating leaf and stem fractions of grasses. I. The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time in the reticulo-rumen. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutagwenda, T., Baygagaire, S. D. J., Engelhardt, W. v. & Schwartz, H. J. (1985). The potential of using locally available low cost materials in rumen and esophageal fistulation of sheep and goats. Proceedings, IV Small Ruminant CRSP, Kenya Workshop.Google Scholar
Rutagwenda, T. (1989). Adaptation of indigenous sheep and goats to seasonal changes of forage on a semiarid thornbush savannah vegetation in Northern Kenya. Thesis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover.Google Scholar
Rutagwenda, T., Lechner-Doll, M., Schwartz, H. J., Schultka, W. & Engelhardt, W. V. (in press). Dietary preference and degradability of forage on a semi-arid thornbush savannah by indigenous ruminants, camels and donkeys Animal Feed Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. J. (1988). Verbesserte Nutzung natürlicher Weiden in den Trockenzonen Afrikas durch Besatz mit gemischten Herden. In Beispiele deutscher Agrarforschung in den Tropen und Subtropen (Ed. Weniger, J. H.), pp. 33–44. Berlin: ICT GmbH.Google Scholar
Shaver, R. D., Satter, L. D. & Jorgensen, N. A. (1988). Impact of forage fiber content on digestion and digesta passage in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1556–1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniffen, C. J., Hooper, A. P., Welch, J. G., Randy, H. A. & Thomas, E. V. (1986). Effect of hay particle size on chewing behavior and rumen mat consistency in steers. Journal of Dairy Science 69, Suppl. 1, 135.Google Scholar
Staples, C. R., Fernando, R. L., Fahey, G.C, Berger, L. L. & Jaster, E. H. (1984). Effect of intake of a mixed diet by dairy steers on digestion events. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 995–1006.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. (1988). Particle separation in the forestomach of sheep. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants (Eds Dobson, A. & Dobson, M.), pp. 43–73. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Thielemans, M.F., François, E., Bodart, C. & Thewis, A. (1978). Mesure du transit gastrointestinal chez le pore à l'aide des radiolanthanides. Comparaison avec le mouton. Annales de Biologie Animate, Biochimie, Biophysique 18, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. & van Soest, P. J. (1980). Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.Google Scholar
van Soest, P. J. (1975). Physico-chemical aspects of fibre digestion. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Eds McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 351–365. Armidale, Australia: University of New England.Google Scholar
van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O&B Books.Google Scholar
van Soest, P. J., Sniffen, C. J. & Allen, M.S. (1988). Rumen dynamics. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants (Eds Dobson, A. & Dobson, M.), pp. 21–42. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Varga, G. A. & Prigge, E. C. (1982). Influence of forage species and level of intake on ruminal turnover rates. Journal of Animal Science 55, 1498–1504.Google Scholar
Weyreter, H., Heller, R., Dellow, D., Lechner-Doll, M. & Engelhardt, W. v. (1987). Rumen fluid volume and retention time of digesta in an indigenous and a conventional breed of sheep fed a low quality, fibrous diet. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 58, 89–100.Google Scholar