Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:35:29.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method for estimating dry forage intake by sheep using polyethylene glycol as a faecal marker measured with NIRS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2013

P. Hassoun ,
G. Viudes ,
P. Autran ,
D. Bastianelli  and
F. Bocquier
P. Hassoun*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France
G. Viudes
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France
P. Autran
Affiliation:
INRA, UE0321 Domaine de La Fage, F-12250 Saint Jean et Saint Paul, France
D. Bastianelli
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France
F. Bocquier
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 868 SELMET, F-34000 Montpellier, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In experiments based on ruminants’ individual dry matter intake (DMI) assessment, several external markers can be used to estimate faecal output when total faeces collection is not possible. However, preparation of the markers to be administered and analytical procedures used for marker content determination are time-consuming thus strongly limiting the number of animals involved in the experiments. In this paper, polyethylene glycol (PEG, molecular weight 6000 da) was tested as a faecal marker. Four trials were conducted on dry, non-lactating ewes kept in digestibility crates that allowed individual measurements. The overall experiment was designed to assess the major factors that could lessen the effectiveness of this method, assuming that the use of grab samples of faeces is sufficient. Trial 1 was designed to test two levels of PEG (20 and 40 g/day) administered in two equal amounts. Trial 2 was designed to test the effect of either a single morning (0800 h) dose (20 g/day) or a twice daily administration (0800 and 1600 h) of the same fractionated dose. Trial 3 was designed to test a 20 g/day dose of PEG administered once daily to ewes fed with hays of different qualities: medium (MH) and low (LH). In trial 4, a lower dose of PEG (10 g/day) was administered once a day to ewes fed with fresh oat–vetch forage. It was demonstrated that PEG could be precisely estimated (average prediction error = 3.47 g/kg) with near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS). On the basis of the four trials, it has been proved that PEG administration (20 and 40 g/day) did not significantly affect the DMI of ewes fed dry diets (trials 1, 2 and 3), whereas there was an unexpected increase of DMI for ewes fed exclusively with green feed (trial 4) without DM digestibility modification. Providing PEG as a single dose (0800 h) or split into two equal parts (0800 and 1600 h) did not alter the estimated DMI. Considering the interest of grab sampling, there were clear variations of PEG in faeces with higher concentrations observed at 0800 and 1600 h and lower concentrations at 1400 h. Consequently, with PEG (measured with NIRS) administered once and using the grab sampling procedure (morning collection), it is possible to estimate the DMI of dry feeds with good accuracy. For green feeds, more research is needed as the estimated results are still highly variable.

Keywords

polyethylene glycol, near-infrared spectroscopy, faecal marker, intake, sheep
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 8 , August 2013 , pp. 1280 - 1288
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Aharoni, Y, Brosh, A, Holzer, Z 1999. Comparison of models estimating digesta kinetics and fecal output in cattle from fecal concentrations of single-dosed markers of particles and solutes. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2291–2304.Google Scholar
Alexander, CL, Meyer, RM, Bartley, EE 1969. Effect of quantity of rumen dry matter and other factors on determinations of rumen fluid volume with polyethylene glycol. Journal of Animal Science 29, 69–74.Google Scholar
Andueza, D, Picard, F, Pradel, P, Egal, D, Hassoun, P, Peccatte, JR, Baumont, R 2011. Reproducibility and repeatability of forage in vivo digestibility and voluntary intake of permanent grassland forages in sheep. Livestock Science 140, 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, DE, Davis, CL, Frobish, RA, Sachan, DS 1971. Evaluation of polyethylene glycol method in determining rumen fluid volume in dairy cows fed different diets. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 928–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhatta, R, Shinde, AK, Verma, DL, Sankhyan, SK, Vaithiyanathan, S 2004. Effect of supplementation containing polyethylene glycol (PEG)-6000 on intake, rumen fermentation pattern and growth in kids fed foliage of Prosopis cineraria. Small Ruminant Research 52, 45–52.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KM, Graham, MM, Wainman, FW 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, RE 1971. Methods for estimation of tannin in grain sorghum. Agronomy Journal 63, 511–512.Google Scholar
Caja, G, Ralha, VM, Albanell, E 2009. Evaluacion del polietilenglicol (PEG6000) como marcador indigestible para ovejas lecheras en estabulacion o pastoreo. In XXXIX Jornadas de Estudio, XIII Jornadas sobre Produccion Animal, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 358−360.Google Scholar
Clark, JL, Hembry, FG, Thompson, GB, Preston, RL 1972. Ration effect on polyethylene glycol as a rumen marker. Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1160–1164.Google Scholar
Corbett, JL, Greenhalgh, JFD, Florence, E 1959. Distribution of chromium sesquioxide and polyethyleneglycol in the reticulo-rumen of cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 13, 337–345.Google Scholar
Corbett, JL, Greenhalgh, JFD, Gwynn, PE, Walker, D 1958. Excretion of chromium sesquioxide and polyethylene glycol by dairy cows. British Journal of Nutrition 12, 266–276.Google Scholar
Davis, GR, Santa Ana, CA, Morawski, SG, Fordtran, JS 1980. Inhibition of water and electrolyte absorption by polyethylene glycol (PEG). Gastroenterology 79, 35–39.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J 1971. Influence du poids vif et du niveau d'ingestion sur le comportement alimentaire et mérycique du mouton. Annales de Zootechnie 20, 477–486.Google Scholar
Frutos, P, Hervas, G, Giraldez, FJ, Mantecon, AR 2004. Review. Tannins and ruminant nutrition. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analysis. In Agricultural handbook No. 379. (ed. Agricultural Research Services, Washington, DC)Google Scholar
Grovum, WL, Hecker, JF 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 2. The effect of level of food intake on digesta retention times and on water and electrolyte absorption in the large intestine. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, WL, Williams, VJ 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 1. The effect of level of food intake on marker retention times along the small intestine and on apparent water absorption in the mall and large intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 29, 13–21.Google Scholar
Hassoun, P, Bastianelli, D, Bonnal, L 2007b. Determination of polyethylene glycol (PEG) concentration in sheep faeces with near infrared spectroscopy. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference − Near Infrared Spectroscopy. Auckland, New Zealand, 9−15 April 2005 (ed. GR Burling-Claridge, SE Holroyd, RMW Sumner), pp. 34−36. NZ NIRS Soc. Inc., Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hassoun, P, Fabre, D, Bastianelli, D, Bonnal, L, Bocquier, F 2007a. Utilization of poly ethylene glycol 6000 (PEG) as a faecal marker measured with near infra red spectrometry (NIRS) in sheep. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes Série A 74, 269–272.Google Scholar
Hecker, JF, Grovum, WL 1971. Absorption of water and electrolytes from the large intestine of sheep. Australian Journal of Biological Science 24, 365–372.Google Scholar
Hopson, DE, McCroskey, JE 1972. Influence of dose level and method of administration on the use of polyethylene glycol for determining fecal output of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 35, 1054–1057.Google Scholar
Jones, RJ, Palmer, B 2000. In vitro digestion studies using 14C-labelled polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4000: comparison of six tanniniferous shrub legumes and the grass Panicum maximum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, S, Friedman, S, Devash, L, Mabjeesh, S 2002. Polyethylene glycol, determined by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy, as a marker of fecal output in goats. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50, 1374–1378.Google Scholar
Langlands, JP, Corbett, JL, McDonald, I, Reid, GW 1963. Estimation of the faeces output of grazing animals from the concentration of chromium sesquioxide in a sample of faeces. 1. Comparison of estimates from samples taken at fixed times of day with faeces outputs measured directly. British Journal of Nutrition 17, 211–218.Google Scholar
Lord, RCC 1999. Osmosis, osmometry, and osmoregulation. Postgraduate Medical Journal 75, 67–73.Google Scholar
Prigge, EC, Varga, GA, Vicini, JL, Reid, RL 1981. Comparison of ytterbium chloride and chromium sesquioxide as fecal indicators. Journal of Animal Science 53, 1629–1633.Google Scholar
Schiller, LR, Emmett, M, Santa Ana, CA, Fordtran, JS 1988. Osmotic effects of polyethylene glycol. Gastroenterology 94, 933–941.Google Scholar
Schiller, LR, Santa Ana, CA, Porter, J, Fordtran, JS 1997. Validation of polyethylene glycol 3350 as a poorly absorbable marker for intestinal perfusion studies. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 42, 1–5.Google Scholar
Shenk, JS, Westerhaus, MO 1991. Population definition, sample selection, and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Science 31, 469–474.Google Scholar
Siegel, S, Castellan, JN 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd revised edition. International editions, McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N, Gilboa, N, Nitsan, Z 2001. Effect of polyethylene glycol on rumen volume and retention time of liquid and particulate matter along the digestive tract in goats fed tannin-rich carob leaves (Ceratonia siliqua). Small Ruminant Research 40, 95–99.Google Scholar
Sinha, KN, Martz, FA, Johnson, HD, LeRoy Hahn, G 1970. Use of polyethylene glycol in estimating volume and weight of rumen contents, and digestion in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 30, 467–471.Google Scholar
Sprent, P 1992. Pratique des statistiques non paramétriques. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Teeter, RG, Owens, FN 1981. The potential use of five water soluble markers for measuring rumen liquid volume and dilution rate. Journal of Animal Science 53, 436.Google Scholar
Teeter, RG, Owens, FN 1983. Characteristics of water soluble markers for measuring rumen liquid volume and dilution rate. Journal of Animal Science 56, 717–728.Google Scholar
Williams, PC, Sobering, DC 1993. Comparison of commercial near infrared transmittance and reflectance instruments for analysis of whole grains and seeds. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 1, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar