Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T16:47:12.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Removal of digesta components from the rumen of steers determined by sieving techniques and fluid, particulate and microbial markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

R. M. Dixon  and
L. P. Milligan
R. M. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of AlbertaEdmonton, Canada T6G 2P5
L. P. Milligan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of AlbertaEdmonton, Canada T6G 2P5
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. When 103Ru-labelled Tris (1, 10-phenanthroline) ruthenium II chloride (103Ru-P) particulate marker in aqueous solution was added to the rumen of four steers given 5.5 kg grass hay/d at two-hourly intervals, the distribution of 103Ru-P marker among rumen particles of various sizes was the same at 4 h, 3 d and 7 d after administration, the concentration of 103Ru-P/g dry matter (DM) was inversely related to particle size and 0.30 of the 103Ru-P was associated with the DM of particles too large to be moved from the rumen at a meaningful rate. Thus, fractional outflow rate (FOR) of 103Ru-P would reflect, but was not a direct measure of, the FOR of the small particle pool in the rumen.

2. When rumen digesta were labelled with 103Ru-P, placed in nylon cloth bags and incubated in vitro with unlabelled digesta, 59% of the 103Ru-P disappeared from the nylon bag in 24 h, and 74% in 48 h. Similar results were obtained when large particles (retained by a 3.2 mm mesh screen during wet sieving) from rumen digesta were subjected to this procedure.

3. In a further experiment, the steers were given the hay in either the long or ground form and drinking water to which 10 g sodium chloride/l were, or were not, added.

4. The FOR of 51CrEDTA in centrifuged rumen fluid was increased (P < 0.05) from 1.78 to 2.10/d by grinding of the hay diet, but was not influenced by the intake of an additional 257 g NaCl/d. The FOR values of 103Ru-P in mixed rumen digesta and organic 35S in micro-organisms were linearly correlated (P < 0.05) and were not affected (P < 0.05) by grinding and salt treatments. On average, the FOR of organic 35S in micro-organisms was 0.41 of that of 51CrEDTA in centrifuged rumen fluid and 0.85 of that of 103Ru-P in rumen digesta respectively.

5. Grinding of the hay did not (P > 0.05) change the proportion of rumen DM (0.476–0.515) or faecal DM (0.107–0.153) retained by the 3.2 mm mesh and larger screens.

6. FOR from the rumen of a given size group of particles was calculated as the ratio, estimated daily flow from the rumen of the size group: rumen pool of the group. With increasing particle size there was a progressive decline in FOR; values of FOR for groups of particles greater than 4.0 mm were negligible. If the rumen DM was considered to behave as two pools, the 3.2 mm mesh screen appeared to be an appropriate division between the large-particle and the small-particle DM pools.

7. FOR of lignin present in mixed rumen digesta was 0.48 of the mean of the FOR values of the particle groups of the small-particle pool, while the FOR of lignin present in the small-particle pool was 0.92 of the mean small-particle FOR.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 347 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 32, 669–686.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Coehlo da Silva, J. F., Prescott, J. H. D. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). British Journal of Nutrition 28, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Osbourn, D. F., Cammell, S. B. & Terry, R. A. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th & Frens, A. M. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Bird, P. R. & Fountain, R. D. (1970). Analyst (London) 95, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, L. S., Rumpler, W. V., Sweeney, T. F. & Zinn, R. A. (1979). Federation Proceedings 38, 2713–2719.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. & Freer, M. (1962). British Journal of Nutrition 16, 507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M., Kennelly, J. J. & Milligan, L. P. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 49, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A., Sellers, A. F., & Gatewood, V. H. (1976). American Journal of Physiology 231, 1588–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A., Sellers, A. F. & Shaw, G. T. (1970). Journal of Applied Physiology 28, 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H. & Lascano, C. (1979). Federation Proceedings 38, 2702–2706.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W., Pearce, G. R., Burnett, J. & Pillinger, S. L. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 29, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 1129–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J., Beever, D. E. & Black, J. L. (1980–1981). Agricultural Systems 6, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Griffiths, D. A. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Agricultural Handbook 37. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 30, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thompson, D. J. & Osbourn, D. F. (1975). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G. & McAllan, A. B. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 205–226 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors].Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1969). Australian Veterinary Journal 45, 293–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. A. & Siebert, B. D. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 1037–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. R. & Moseley, G. (1977). Laboratory Practice 26, 687–689.Google Scholar
Kellaway, R. C., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Austin, A. R., Cammell, S. B. & Elderfield, M. L. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1982). Journal of Animal Science 55, 1190–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Christopherson, R. J. & Milligan, L. P. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemerle, C., Murray, R. M. & Leng, R. A. (1980). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 13, 454.Google Scholar
Milligan, L. P., Kennedy, P. M. & Christopherson, R. J. (1980). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60, 1049.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1966). British Journal of Nutrition 20, 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. V. & Leng, R. A. (1972). British Journal of Nutrition 27, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, G. R. & Moir, R. J. (1964). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 a). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1981 b). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. J. & Hendricksen, R. E. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, R. G., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 44, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. A., Marks, B. C., Davis, C. L. & Clark, J. H. (1979). Journal of Dairy Science 62, 1599–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, R. A. & Clark, R. E. (1972).Tracer Methods for In Vivo Kinetics, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sriskandarajah, N., Kellaway, R. C. & Leibholz, J. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, T. M. (1976). In Reviews in Rural Science, Vol. 2, pp. 65–72 [Sutherland, T. M., McWilliam, J. R. and Leng, R. A., editors]. Armidale, Australia: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toland, P. C. (1976). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomas, F. M. & Potter, B. J. (1975). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon USA. O&B Books Inc.Google Scholar
Walker, D. J. & Nader, C. J. (1975). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1969). Veterinary Record 84, 441–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar