Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:50:51.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passage rate of solids and fluids in the digestive tract of buffaloes, cattle and sheep: selection of non-linear model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Amici ,
S. Bartocci ,
S. Terramoccia  and
F. Martillotti
A. Amici
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, Roma, Italy
S. Bartocci
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, Roma, Italy
S. Terramoccia
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, Roma, Italy
F. Martillotti
Affiliation:
Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, Roma, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Five mathematical models were compared to select the most satisfactory model to describe digesta kinetics of solids and fluids in the gastrointestinal tract of buffaloes (Mediterranean bulls), cattle (Friesian bulls) and sheep (Delle Langhe rams) given food at maintenance level, according to a Latin-square arrangement for four consecutive periods of 21 days. Chromium mordanted alfalfa hay and cobalt-ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid were used as nonabsorbable markers and were administered through the rumen cannula in a single dose. Four different isonitrogenous diets (N × 6·25 = 140 g/kg dry matter) with different concentrate:forage ratios (12·5:87·5, 25:75, 37·5:62·5, 50:50) were used.

Faecal chromium and cobalt concentration curves were fitted with five non-linear models: three gamma (G2, G3, G4) age-dependent one-compartment, one gamma age-dependent/age-independent two-compartment (G2G1) and one multicompartment (MC).

Wilcoxon tests on residual sums of squares of the different models for solids showed that MC and G4 gave a better fit than G2G1, G2, G3 for all the data and within the species. The comparison of MC v. G4 did not show any significant difference (P > 0·05) for all the data computed together or within each species. Nevertheless, MC had a higher number of curves with lower residual sums of squares in comparison with G4 and was also able to produce estimates of digesta kinetics in the second compartment.

The cobalt excretion curves for fluids, considering all the data, and only within sheep, showed G4 as the best fitting model. When G4 was compared with other models no significant differences were recorded either for cattle: G4 v. G2 (F = 0·6645), G4 v. G2G1 (P = 0·0620) and for buffalo: G4 v. G2 (P = 0·1575), G4 v.G3(P = 0·0796) and G4 v. G2G1 (P = 0·1641).

It is concluded that the multicompartment model (MC) and G4 model were the best fits for solids and for fluids respectively.

Keywords

buffaloescattlemathematical modelssheeptransit time
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 63 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. and Wainman, F. W. 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10: 69–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C., France, J. and Gale, D. L. 1985. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53:663–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H. and Lascano, C. 1979. Quantitating ruminal turnover. Federation Proceedings 38:2702–2706.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Pond, C. E., Lascano, C. and Terford, J. P. 1984. Dietary influences on flow rate and digestive capacity. In Herbivore nutrition in subtropics and tropics (ed. Gilchrist, F. M. C. and Mackie, R. I.), pp. 269–293. The Science Press.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. 1986. The kinetics of particulate matter in the rumen. In Control of digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A.), pp. 173–195. Reston Publishing, Reston, Va.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. and Boston, R. C. 1983. Interpretation of faecal excretion patterns of solute and particle markers introduced into the rumen of sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 161: 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British journal of Nutrition 30: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, P. M. 1989. Digestion and passage of tropical forages in swamp buffaloes and cattle. Proceedings of the final research co-ordination meeting on the use of nuclear techniques to improve domestic buffalo production in Asia. Rockhampton (AU), 20-24 February 1989, pp. 21–40. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. M., McSweeney, C. S., Ffoulkes, D., John, A., Schlink, A. C., LeFeuvre, R. P. and Kerr, J. D. 1992. Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 1. The digestion of rice straw (Oriza satyva). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 119: 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P. M. and Murphy, M. R. 1988. The nutritional implication of differential passage of particles through the ruminant alimentary tract. Nutrition Research Revieiv 1: 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, B. A. and Raghavan, G. V. 1974. Effect of level of intake on the rate of passage of food, and its effect on the digestibility of nutrients in Murrah buffaloes and Hariana cattle. Indian journal of Animal Science 24: 211–216.Google Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M., Kaske, M. and Engelhardt, W. V. 1991. Factors affecting the mean retention time of particles in the forestomach of ruminant and camelids. In Physiological aspects of digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Tsuda, T., Sasaki, Y., Kawashima, R.), pp. 455–482. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, E. S., Pond, K. R., Harvey, R. W. and Crickenberger, R. G. 1989. Effects of corn grinding and time of corn feeding on growth, starch utilization and digesta passage characteristics of growing steers fed hay-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 67:1603–1611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martillotti, F., Antongiovanni, M., Rizzi, L., Santi, E. and Bittante, G. 1987. Metodi di analisi per la valutazione degli alimenti d'impiego zootecnico. Quaderni metodologici n. 8. CNR-IPRA, Roma.Google Scholar
Matis, J. H. 1972. Gamma time dependency in Blaxter's compartment model. Biometrics 28: 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. and Wilson, S. 1978. A comparison of the votuntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40: 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J. A., Pond, K. R., Poore, M. H. and Goodwin, T. G. 1992. Influence of model and marker on digesta kinetics estimates for sheep. Journal of Animal Science 70: 3528–3540.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
Pond, R. K. 1988. The use of rare earth-labelled and mordanted feeds to estimate particle flow. Journal of Animal Science 66: (suppl. 1) 478 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Pond, R. K., Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H. and Deswysen, A. G. 1989. Passage of chromium-mordanted and rare earth-labeled fiber: time of dosing kinetics. Journal of Animal Science 67:1020–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, R. K., Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Ferreiro, H. M. and Sutton, J. D. 1988. Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 60: 571–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poore, M. H., Moore, J. A., Eck, T. P. and Swingle, R. S. 1991. Influence of passage model, sampling site, and marker dosing time on passage of rare earth-labeled grain through holstein cows. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2646–2654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiroz, R. A., Pond, K. R., Tolley, E. A. and Johnson, W. L. 1988. Selection among nonlinear models for rate of passage studies in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2977–2986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1993. SAS user's guide, statistics. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Susmel, S., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Spanghero, M. 1990. Applicazione di modelli matematici diversi alle variazioni di concentrazione di un marker indigeribile nelle feci per la valutazione della velocità di transito ruminale dei foraggi. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animate 16: 207–218.Google Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uden, P., Rounsaville, T. R., Wiggans, G. R. and Van Soest, P. J. 1982. The measurement of liquid and solid digesta in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 329–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar