Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:18:20.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 4. Particle size and buoyancy in relation to voluntary intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. M. Kennedy
P. M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Division of Tropical Animal Production, CSIRO, PB3, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The buoyancy and distribution within the rumen of feed particles were measured to assess the extent to which particle buoyancy modulated the movement of particles within and from the reticulorumen. Two experiments conducted in north Queensland in 1988 involved swamp buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis)and crossbred cattle (Bos indicus × B. taurus) fed rice straw with various supplements of energy and protein, lablab (Lablab purpureus), verano (Stylosanthes hamata cv. verano) and two grasses, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor × S. sudanense) and pangola (Digitaria eriantha). Apparent passage rate of particles from the reticulorumen bore an inverse curvilinear relationship to particle size. Passage rate of the smallest particles, retained by a cloth of aperture 50 μm, was faster in buffaloes. Mean particle size of total rumen digesta was smaller in buffaloes than in cattle in Expt 1 with rice straw, but there was no difference between the forage diets offered in Expt 2. The large particle content in digesta (dry matter per kg) in the dorsal rumen was greater than that in the ventral rumen, which in turn was greater than that in the reticulum. The sedimentation rate of particles was measured by a procedure designed to interfere as little as possible with microbial fermentation. A curvilinear relationship was evident between sedimentation rate and particle size; the medium particles sedimented faster than the fine and large particles. Sedimentation rates of some particle fractions were greater in buffaloes than in cattle. Between diets there were marked differences in sedimentation rates of large particles, but these differences decreased with smaller particle size. Large particles from the dorsal sac sedimented faster than those from the ventral sac, and there was no obvious dorsal raft. There was no apparent relationship between particle buoyancy and ease of particle escape from the reticulorumen. The results are discussed in terms of current theories of the physical factors involved in the control of voluntary feed consumption by ruminants.

Information

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 277 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Campling, R. C. (1970). Physical regulation of voluntary intake. In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Ed. Phillipson, A. T.), pp. 226–234. Newcastleupon–Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. & Freer, M. (1966). Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 8. Experiments with ground, pelleted roughages. British Journal of Nutrition 20, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desbordes, C. K. & Welch, J. G. (1984). Influence of specific gravity on rumination and passage of indigestible particles. Journal of Animal Science 59, 470–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehle, F. R., Bas, F., Barno, B., Martin, R. & Leone, F. (1984). Paniculate rumen turnover rate measurement as influenced by density of passage marker. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 2910–2913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. W., Pearce, G. E., Burnett, J. & Pillinger, S. L. (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, G. J. (1986). The kinetics of paniculate matter in the rumen. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants(Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dobson, A.), pp. 173–195. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston.Google Scholar
Gates, R. N., Skopp, J. & Waller, S. S. (1988). Moment analysis of data on sieving to quantify forage digest a particle size distributions. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2449–2456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaske, M. & Englehardt, W. V. (1990). The effect of size and density on mean retention time of particles in the gastrointestinal tract of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 63, 457–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, P. M. (1985). Effect of rumination on reduction of particle size of rumen digesta by cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. (1995). Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 3. Comparisons with four forage diets, and with rice straw supplemented with energy and protein. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. & Doyle, P. T. (1993). Particle-size reduction by ruminants – effects of cell wall composition and structure. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility. (Eds Jung, H. J., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R. D. & Ralph, J.), pp. 499–534. Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Mc Sweeney, C. S., Ffoulkes, D., John, A., Schlink, A. C., Lefeuvre, R. P. & Kerr, J. D.(1992). Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 1. The digestion of rice straw (Oryza sativa). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., Gordon, G. L. R. & Hogan, J. P. (1993).Nutritional comparisons between cattle and buffaloes and implications for draught animal power. In Draught Animal Power in the Asian–Australasian Region (Ed. Pryor, W. J.), pp. 66–71. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
King, K. W. & Moore, W. E. C. (1957). Density and size as factors affecting passage rate of ingesta in the bovine and human digestive tracts. Journal of Dairy Science 40, 528–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E.I. (1948). Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mc Leod, M. N. (1986). Physical and biological factors controlling the reduction of feed particles in the ruminant. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. & Smith, B. R. (1989). Eating and ruminating behaviour in cattle given forages differing in fibre content. Animal Production 48, 503–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSweeney, C. S., Kennedy, P. M. & John, A. (1989).Reticulo-ruminal motility in cattle and water buffaloes fed a low quality roughage diet. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 94A, 635–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, M. R., Kennedy, P. M. & Welch, J. G. (1989).Passage and rumination of inert particles varying in size and specific gravity as determined from analysis of faecal appearance using multicompartment models. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppi, D. P., Minson, D. J. & Ternouth, J. R. (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, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegel, M. R. (1972). Theory and Problems of Statistics in SI Units: Schawn's Outline Series. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. (1988). Particle separation in the forestomachs of sheep. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants (Eds Dobson, A. & Dobson, M. J.), pp. 43–73. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Teller, E., Vanbelle, M. & Kamatali, P. (1993). Chewing behaviour and voluntary grass silage intake by cattle. Livestock Production Science 33, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P. (1992). Simulation of feed particle sedimentation in the reticulum as affected by hydration and fermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 39, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattiaux, M. A., Satter, L. D. & Mertens, D. R. (1992). Effect of microbial fermentation on functional specific gravity of small forage particles. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1262–1270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weston, R. H. (1989). Factors limiting the intake of feed by sheep. XV. Voluntary feed consumption and digestion in lambs fed chopped roughage diets varying in quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 40, 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar