Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:16:14.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polyethylene glycol compared with ytterbium oxide as a total faecal output marker to predict organic matter intake of dairy ewes fed indoors or at pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

P. Hassoun ,
D. Bastianelli ,
P. Autran  and
F. Bocquier
P. Hassoun*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 112 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France
D. Bastianelli
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 112 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France
P. Autran
Affiliation:
INRA, UE0321 Domaine de La Fage, 12250 Saint Jean et Saint Paul, France
F. Bocquier
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France Montpellier SupAgro, UMR 868 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UMR 112 SELMET, 34000 Montpellier, France
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Several external markers can be used for estimating total faecal output in view of assessing ruminant intake at pasture. Among them, ytterbium (Yb) has been used for many years in various conditions. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a promising external marker because it can be rapidly determined using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). The study consisted of 24 adult lactating dairy ewes over three periods (P1, P2 and P3), fed with three different diets: P1, total mixed ration (TMR); P2, Italian ryegrass (IRG); and P3, pasture. After an adaptation period, the ewes were administered a daily dose of ytterbium oxide (0.35 g/day) and PEG (20 g/day) for 2 weeks. During the last week, the daily organic matter intake (OMIOBS) was measured. Faecal samples were collected at milking time (0800 and 1600 h) to determine marker content, using only samples collected in the morning (PEGm) or by averaging samples (Yb, PEGma). Faecal marker content made it possible to assess total faecal output, either using the two recovery rates for PEG (0.98 or 0.87) or not. The OMIOBS was assessed on the basis of total faeces estimated with Yb (OMIYb) or PEG (OMIPEG), and the digestibility was calculated on the basis of feed analysis. With total TMR (P1), the OMIPEG, corrected with recovery rate (OMIPEGm98) or not corrected (OMIPEGm) was 2.40 kg/day and 2.50 kg/day, respectively, and was not different (P>0.05) from OMIOBS (2.51 kg/day), whereas OMIYb was lower (2.14 kg/day) (P<0.001). With IRG (P2), OMIPEGm98 (1.67 kg/day), OMIPEGm87 (1.51 kg/day) and OMIYb (1.59 kg/day) were not different (P>0.05) from OMIOBS (1.57 kg/day). With pasture (P3), the OMIPEGm (1.54 kg/day) and OMIPEGm98 (1.48 kg/day) were not different (P>0.05) from the OMI assessed from the biomass measurement (1.52 kg/day). The OMIYb (1.36 kg/day) was lower (P<0.05) but not different from OMIPEGm98 and OMIPEGm87. Spearman’s rank correlation between OMIOBS and other OMIs (predicted with Yb or PEG P1 and P2) showed that it is possible to rank animals using PEG when there is a sufficiently wide range of OMIOBS (1.65 to 2.8 kg/day in P1) but not within a narrower range (1.47 to 1.72 kg/day in P2). In conclusion, the present study confirms that PEG is a valuable external faecal marker, easy to prepare (solution), administer and determine (NIRS). It can be used to assess intake with numerous animals at pasture, but only for groups, and not to quantitatively estimate individual OMI.

Keywords

faecal outputintakepolyethylene glycolytterbiumsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 9 , September 2014 , pp. 1420 - 1426
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Andueza, D, Picard, F, Aufrère, J, Jamot, J, Béchet, G and Baumont, R 2013. Polyethylene glycol determined by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy to estimate faecal output in sheep fed fresh permanent grassland forage. Livestock Production Science 155, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andueza, D, Picard, F, Pradel, P, Egal, D, Hassoun, P, Peccatte, JR and 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
Aufrère, J, Baumont, R, Delaby, L, Peccatte, JR, Andrieu, J, Andrieu, J-P and Dulphy, JP 2007. Prévision de la digestibilité des fourrages par la méthode pepsine-cellulase. Le point sur les équations proposées. INRA Productions Animales 20, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandyberry, SD, Cochran, RC, Vanzant, ES and Harmon, DL 1991. Technical note: effectiveness of different methods of continuous marker administration for estimating fecal output. Journal of Animal Science 69, 4611–4616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caja, G, Ralha, VM and 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 (ed. Associación Interprofesional para el Desarrollo Agrario), pp. 358–360, Zaragosa, Spain.Google Scholar
Chandler, PT, Kesler, EM and Jones, GM 1966. Excretion of polyethylene by dairy calves. Journal of Animal Science 25, 64–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombe, JB and Kay, RNB 1965. Passage of digesta through the intestines of the sheep. Retention times in the small and large intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, JL, Greenhalgh, JFD, Gwynn, PE and Walker, D 1958. Excretion of chromium sesquioxide and polyethylene glycol by dairy cows. British Journal of Nutrition 12, 276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, M 1997. Toxicity and carcinogenicity of Cr(VI) in animal models and humans. Critical Reviews of Toxicology 27, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daget, P and Poissonet, J 1971. Une méthode d’analyse phytologique des prairies. Annales Agronomiques 22, 5–41.Google Scholar
Delagarde, R, Perez-Ramirez, E and Peyraud, JL 2010. Ytterbium oxide has the same accuracy as chromic oxide for estimating variations of faecal dry matter output in dairy cows fed a total mixed ration at two feeding levels. Animal Feed Science and Technology 161, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S, Aufrere, J, Sauvant, D, Demarquilly, C, Vermorel, M and Pochet, S 1990. Prévision de la valeur énergétique des aliments composés pour les ruminants. INRA Productions Animales 3, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK and Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications), (ed. Agricultural Research Services), pp. 379–398. Washington, DC USA.Google Scholar
Grovum, WL and 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
Hassoun, P, Viudes, G, Autran, P, Bastianelli, D and Bocquier, F 2013. A method for estimating dry forage intake by sheep using polyethylene glycol as a faecal marker measured with NIRS. Animal 7, 1280–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hassoun, P, Autran, P, Aurel, MR, Jamot, J, Baumont, R and Bocquier, F 2007. Effect of pasture as sole feed and herbage allowances on voluntary intake of dairy ewes. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes Série A 74, 359–363.Google Scholar
Hatfield, PG, Clanton, DC, Sanson, DW and Eskridge, KM 1990. Methods of administering ytterbium for estimation of fecal output. Journal of Range Management 43, 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysl, LJ, Galyean, ML, Estell, RE and Sowell, BF 1988. Estimating digestibility and faecal output in lambs using internal and external markers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, S, Friedman, S, Devash, L and 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR and Hvelplund, T 2006. Passage kinetics of fibre in dairy cows obtained from duodenal and faecal ytterbium excretion. Effect of forage type. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mambrini, M and Peyraud, JL 1994. Mean retention time in digestive tract and digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass by lactating dairy cows: influence of grass maturity and comparison with a maize silage diet. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 34, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, JY and Welcher, GG 1970. Interelement interferences in atomic absorption analyses with the nitrous oxide-acetylene flame. Analytical Chemistry 42, 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzucotelli, A, Galli, M and Frache, R 1982. Interactions of major, minor and trace elements on the carbon rod atomic-absorption spectrophotometric determination of micro-amounts of ytterbium, holmium, dysprosium and thulium. Analyst 107, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musimba, NKR, Galyean, ML, Holecheck, JL and Pieper, RD 1987. Ytterbium-labeled forage as a marker for estimation of cattle fecal output. Journal of Range Management 40, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orskov, E, Ojwang, I and Reid, GW 1988. A study on consistency of differences between cows in rumen outflow rate of fibrous particles and other substrates and consequences for digestibility and intake of roughages. Animal Production 47, 45–51.Google Scholar
Perez-Ramirez, E, Peyraud, JL and Delagarde, R 2012. N-alkanes v. ytterbium/faecal index as two methods for estimating herbage intake of dairy cows fed on diets differing in the herbage: maize silage ratio and feeding level. Animal 6, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peyraud, JL 1997. Techniques for measuring herbage intake of grazing ruminants: a review. In Managing high yielding dairy cows at pasture, Proceedings of a one-day Seminar (ed. E Spörndly, E Burstedt and M Murphy), pp. 3–23. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Prigge, EC, Varga, GA, Vicini, JL and Reid, RL 1981. Comparison of ytterbium chloride and chromium sesquioxide as fecal indicators. Journal of Animal Science 53, 1629–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlecht, E, Richter, H, Fernandez-Rivera, S and Becker, K 2007. Gastrointestinal passage of Sahelian roughages in cattle, sheep and goats, and implications for livestock-mediated nutrient transfers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 137, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D 2009. Méthodes statistiques à l’usage des médecins et des biologistes. Médecine-Sciences Flamarion, 4th edition Lavoisier, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Sedman, RM, Beaumont, J, McDonald, TA, Reynolds, S, Krowech, G and Howd, R 2006. Review of the evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium in drinking water. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part C-Environnemental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews 24, 155–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprent, P 1992. Pratique des statistiques non paramétriques. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Vicente, F, Sarraseca, A, De Vega, A and Guada, JA 2004. Performance of several Cr and Yb analytical techniques applied to samples of different biological origin (digesta or faeces). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84, 2035–2040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar