Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:07:29.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the recovery of polyethylene particles from faeces an d rumen contents of steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. Fordyce  and
M. Kay
J. Fordyce
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
M. Kay
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Summary

Two experiments were conducted with three types of polyethylene particles to establish their retention time in castrated male cattle (steers) offered diets which contained predominantly cereals ad libitum. The particles were (1) ‘Ruff Tabs’, a corrugated particle of dimension 1·27 × 0·63 × 0·95 cm3 and subsequently referred to as RT and (2) and (3) plain plastic rods of 1·27 cm length and 0·32 cm (BP) or 0·63 cm (RBP) diameter.

In the first experiment with steers weighing 170 or 260 kg, 1 kg of RT particles were excreted in the faeces at a similar rate by the steers of different weights whereas BP particles passed out in the faeces more slowly in the lighter steer.

In the second experiment 30 steers weighing 440 kg were slaughtered at 7, 14, 28 and 42 days after dosing with 1 kg of BP, RT or RBP. The recovery of RT was significantly lower (P < 0·05) than that of BP 7 days after dosing and this difference was also found at 14 and 28 days. RBP behaved like BP up to 14 days but thereafter the rate of passage of RBP was faster than tha t of BP and recovery from the rumen approached that of RT.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 1974 , pp. 101 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1974

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

Anon. 1970. Washington State tests plastic roughage replacer for steers. Feedstuffs 42: 36 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Benavides, M. C. and Preston, T. R. 1971. Synthetic plastic roughage in molasses-based diets for cattle. Rev. cubana Cienc. agric. 5: 319–329.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Freer, M. 1962. The effect of specific gravity and size of the mean time of retention of inert particles in the alimentary tract of the cow. Br. J. Nutr. 16: 507–518.Google Scholar
Kay, M., Kilkenny, J. B., Sutherland, J. E. and Walsh, J. P. 1968. Beef Production Handbook. No. 2. An intensive system of beef production from cereals using calves from the dairy herd. Meat Livestk Comm., Bletchley.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ray, M. L. and Brown, C. J. 1970. Ruff Tabs as roughage for beef cattle. Arkansas Farm Research 19: No. 2, 13.Google Scholar
Welch, J. G. 1967. Appetite control in sheep by indigestible fibres. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 849–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar