Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:42:37.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The development of an intraruminal nylon bag technique using non-fistulated animals to assess the rumen degradability of dietary plant materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2017

J. H. Pagella
Affiliation:
Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, L6300 Santa Rosa, La Pampa, Argentina
R. W. Mayes
Affiliation:
James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK
F. J. Pérez-Barbería*
Affiliation:
Animal Science Techniques Applied to Wildlife Management Research Group, Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos of CSIC-UCLM-JCCM, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario sn, 02071, Albacete, Spain Sección de Recursos Cinegéticos y Ganaderos, Instituto de Desarrollo Regional of Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario sn, 02071, Albacete, Spain Ungulate Research Unit, CRCP, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain Institute of Natural Resources and Territorial Planning INDUROT, Universidad de Oviedo, Campus de Mieres, Research building, 33600 Mieres, Asturias, Spain
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Although the conventional in situ ruminal degradability method is a relevant tool to describe the nutritional value of ruminant feeds, its need for rumen-fistulated animals may impose a restriction on its use when considering animal welfare issues and cost. The aim of the present work was to develop a ruminal degradability technique which avoids using surgically prepared animals. The concept was to orally dose a series of porous bags containing the test feeds at different times before slaughter, when the bags would be removed from the rumen for degradation measurement. Bags, smaller than those used in the conventional nylon bag technique, were made from woven nylon fabric, following two shape designs (rectangular flat shape, tetrahedral shape) and were fitted with one of three types of device for preventing their regurgitation. These bags were used in two experiments with individually housed non-pregnant, non-lactating sheep, as host animals for the in situ ruminal incubation of forage substrates. The bags were closed at the top edge by machine stitching and wrapped in tissue paper before oral dosing. Standard times for ruminal incubation of substrates in all of the tests were 4, 8, 16, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h before slaughter. The purpose of the first experiment was to compare the effectiveness of the three anti-regurgitation device designs, constructed from nylon cable ties (‘Z-shaped’, ARD1; ‘double Z-shaped’, ARD2; ‘umbrella-shaped’, ARD3), and to observe whether viable degradation curves could be generated using grass hay as the substrate. In the second experiment, three other substrates (perennial ryegrass, red clover and barley straw) were compared using flat and tetrahedral bags fitted with type ARD1 anti-regurgitation devices. Non-linear mixed-effect regression models were used to fit asymptotic exponential curves of the percentage dry matter loss of the four substrates against time of incubation in the reticulorumen, and the effect of type of anti-regurgitation device and the shape of nylon bag. All three devices were highly successful at preventing regurgitation with 93% to 100% of dosed bags being recovered in the reticulorumen at slaughter. Ruminal degradation data obtained for tested forages were in accordance with those expected from the conventional degradability technique using fistulated animals, with no significant differences in the asymptotic values of degradation curves between bag shape or anti-regurgitation device. The results of this research demonstrate the potential for using a small bag technique with intact sheep to characterise the in situ ruminal degradability of roughages.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Adesogan, AT 2002. What are feeds worth? A critical evaluation of selected nutritive value methods. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, Gainsville, Florida. January 10–11, 2002, pp. 33–47.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Graviou, D and Demarquilly, C 2002. Protein degradation in the rumen of red clover forage at various stages of growth and conserved as silage or wrapped big bales. Reproduction Nutrition Development 42, 559572.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Graviou, D and Demarquilly, C 2003. Ruminal degradation of protein of cocksfoot and perennial ryegrass as affected by various stages of growth and conservation methods. Animal Research 52, 245261.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA and Cochran, RC 1999. In vitro and in situ methods for estimating digestibility with reference to protein degradability. In Feeding systems and feed evaluation models (ed. MK Theodorou and J France), pp. 5385. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Dove, H, Scharch, C, Olivan, M and Mayes, RW 2002. Using n-alkanes and known supplement intake to estimate roughage intake in sheep. Animal Production Australia 24, 5760.Google Scholar
Hawley, AWL 1981. Effect of bag location along a suspension line on nylon bag digestibility estimates in bison and cattle. Journal of Range Management 34, 265266.Google Scholar
Hirayama, T and Katoh, K 2005. Effects of fistula size on rumen internal pressure and passage rate of feed in goats. Small Ruminant Research 56, 277280.Google Scholar
Hungate, RE 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA and London, UK.Google Scholar
Huntington, JA and Givens, DI 1995. The in situ technique for studying the rumen degradation of feeds: a review of the procedure. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding 65, 6393.Google Scholar
Iggo, A and Leek, BF 1970. Sensory receptors in the ruminant stomach and their reflex effects. In Physiology of digestion and metabolism in the ruminant (ed. AT Phillipson), pp. 2334. Oriel Press, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Google Scholar
International Feed Resources Unit 2004. Procedure for nylon bag technique. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK, 34p.Google Scholar
Laby, RH, Graham, CA, Edwards, SR and Kautzner, B 1984. A controlled release intraruminal device for the administration of fecal dry-matter markers to the grazing ruminant. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 337338.Google Scholar
López, S 2005. In vitro and in situ techniques for estimating digestibility. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. J Dijkstra, JM Forbes and J France), pp. 87121. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Mehrez, AZ and Ørskov, ER 1977. The use of a Dacron bag technique to determine rate of degradation of protein and energy in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science 88, 645650.Google Scholar
Mohamed, R and Chaudhry, AS 2008. Methods to study degradation of ruminant feeds. Nutrition Research Reviews 21, 6881.Google Scholar
Mould, FL 2002. 21st century feeds – 19th century techniques. In Responding to the increasing global demand for animal products. Proceeding of an International Conference (ed. T Smith and V Mlambo), pp. 3437. British Society of Animal Science, American Society of Animal Science, Mexican Society of Animal Production, Merida, Mexico.Google Scholar
Murtaugh, PA 2014. In defense of P values. Ecology. 95, 611617.Google Scholar
Nocek, JE 1988. In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility – a review. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 20512069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER 2000. The in situ technique for the estimation of forage degradability in ruminants. In Forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition (ed. DI Givens, E Owen, RFE Axford and HM Omed), pp. 175188. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Hovell, FD and Mould, F 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5, 195213.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Reid, G and Kay, M 1988. Prediction of intake by cattle from degradation characteristics of roughages. Animal Science 46, 2934.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER and Shand, WJ 1997. Use of nylon bag technique for protein and energy evaluation and for rumen environment studies in ruminants. Livestock Research and Rural Development 9, 1923.Google Scholar
Pella, E and Colombo, B 1973. Study of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen by combustion gas-chromatography. Microchimica Acta 61, 697719.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, Debroy, S and Sarkar, D, R Core Team 2014. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-118.Google Scholar
Preston, T 1995. Tropical animal feeding. A manual for research workers, 2nd edition. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Quin, JI, Van Der Wath, JG and Myburgh, S 1938. Studies on the alimentary tract of Merino sheep in South Africa. IV. Description of experimental technique. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Industry 11, 341360.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Stritzler, NP, Hvelplund, T and Wolstrup, J 1990. The influence of the position in the rumen on dry-matter disappearance from nylon bags. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 40, 363366.Google Scholar
Trabalza-Marinucci, M, Dehority, B and Loerch, S 1992. In vitro and in vivo studies of factors affecting digestion of feeds in synthetic fiber bags. Journal of Animal Science 70, 296307.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ and Wine, RH 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 5055.Google Scholar
Vanzant, ES, Cochran, RC and Titgemeyer, EC 1998. Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 76, 27172729.Google Scholar
Weakley, DC, Stern, MD and Satter, LD 1983. Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 56, 493507.Google Scholar
Wood, CD and Badve, VC 2001. Recent developments in laboratory methods for the assessment of ruminant feeds, science booklet. BAIF Development Research Foundation and Natural Resources Institute UK, Pune, India. 14pp.Google Scholar
Yates, NG 1984. Intraruminal variation in cellulose digestion in the bovine in relation to microbial colonization and activity. In Ruminant physiology: concepts and consequences (ed. SK Baker, JM Gawthorne, JB Mackintosh and DB Purser), pp. 139148. University of Western Australia, , Crawley, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar