Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:20:15.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compartment models for estimating attributes of digesta flow in cattle*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. R. Pond ,
W. C. Ellis ,
J. H. Matis ,
H. M. Ferreiro  and
J. D. Sutton
K. R. Pond
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
W. C. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
J. H. Matis
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
H. M. Ferreiro
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 SLR
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The basic assumptions involved in one- and two-compartment models with age-independent distributed residence times (exponential, G1) for describing digesta flow are reviewed as the bases for describing families of one- and two-compartment models which assume age-dependent distributions (Gn) of residence times.

2. The two-compartment, age-independent model with exponentially distributed residence times (GIGI) yielded estimates of essentially equal rate parameters when fitted to faecal values for all four cows receiving a diet of 500 g coarsely chopped, sodium hydroxide-treated straw /kg and one of four cows receiving the same diet but with ground and pelleted straw. The incorporation of progressively higher orders of age dependency (G2-G6, Gn) into the faster turnover compartment of two-compartment models (GnG1) resulted in a resolution of equal rate parameters estimated by the G1G1 model and a reduction in standard errors for the rate and the initial concentration parameters.

3. The occurrence of equal rate parameters in two-compartment models indicated an age-dependent process; a process which could equally well be described by a one-compartment, age-dependent compartment having an order of age dependency equal to the sum of these orders in the two-compartment model with equal rate parameters.

4. The age-independent models overestimated time of first appearance in the faeces of a meal's particles. The association of age dependency with the faster turnover compartment resulted in earlier estimates for first appearance of the marked particles; estimates which were more consistent with observed first appearance.

5. The faecal excretion pattern from cows fed on the ground and pelleted straw diet exhibited an age-independent distribution of longer residence times which dominated approximately 80% of the later residence times. Age-dependent, one-compartment models gave a poor fit to such data from these cows fed on ground and pelleted straw. In contrast, age-dependent, one-compartment models provided an excellent fit to data from cows fed on chopped straw; data which indicated that age-independent distributions of residence times were much delayed in appearing or were totally absent.

6. The mean residence time for the slower turnover, age-independent compartment estimated from faecal excretional of stained particles from either diet was similar to that estimated from duodenal concentrations of the stained particles. This suggests that the slower turnover model compartment was confined to preduodenal sites.

7. The mean residence time for the faster turnover, age-dependent compartment estimated from duodenal data was 58–62 % that estimated from faecal data and suggests that the site of this model compartment was both pre- and post-duodenal.

8. It is emphasized that the slow and imperfect mixing of particulate matter that occurs in reticulo-rumen digesta is inconsistent with the assumptions of instantaneous and homogeneous mixing made by models having age-independent distributions of residence times. The use of age-dependent distributed residence times can accommodate such imperfect mixing and is consistent with the existence of age-discriminating processes involved in particle flow from the reticulo-rumen. Age dependency also offers improved precision in estimating parameters of digesta flow via processes having inherent uncertainty in their mixing and age-discriminating mechanisms.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 1988 , pp. 571 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Austen, P., Buttle, H. L., Course, D. A., Cowie, A. T., Johnson, V. W., Oldham, J. D., Sutton, J. D. & Watson, S. C. (1977) Zeitschrift fur Tierphysiologie, Tierenahrung and Futtermittelkunde 39, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1950) British Journal of Nutrition 4, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. Mc & Wainman, F. W. (1956) British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, C. S. & Thacker, E. J. (1985) Journal of Animal Science 17, 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broderick, G. A. (1978) Journal of Nutrition 108, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956) British Journal of Nutrition 10, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deswysen, A. G. (1981) British Journal of Nutrition 46, 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C., France, J. & Gale, D. L. (1985) British Journal of Nutrition 53, 663–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Lascano, C. E. & Matis, J. H. (1979) Annales de Recherche Veterinaire 10, 166–167.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Pond, K. R., Lascano, C. E. & Telford, J. P. (1984). In Herbivore Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics, pp. 269–293 [Gilchrist, F. M. C., Machie, R. I., editors]. Johannesburg: The Science Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Rector, B. & Rittenhouse, L. (1980) Journal of Animal Science 51, Suppl. 1, 235.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1984). In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 173–195. [Milligan, L.P., Grovum, W. L., Dobson, A., editors]. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Boston, R. C. (1983) Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreiro, H. M., Boodoo, A. A., Sutton, J. D. & Bishop, C. (1980). National Institute for Research in Dairying Report, p. 46. Shinfield, Reading: NIRD.Google Scholar
France, J., Thornley, J. H. M., Dhanoa, M. S. & Siddons, R. C. (1985) Journal of Theoretical Biology 113, 743–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973) British Journal of Nutrition 30, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. W., Paterson, J. A., Miller, S. J. & Williams, J. E. (1984) Journal of Animal Science 59, Suppl. 1, 427.Google Scholar
Jacquez, J. A. (1985). Compartmental Analysis in Biology and Medicine, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krysl, L. J., Glayean, M. L., Estel, R. E. & Sowell, B. F. (1988) Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landaw, E. M. (1985). In Variability in Drug Therapy, pp. 187–200. [Rowland, M., Sheiner, L. B., and Steimer, J. L., eds]. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Luckey, T. C., Hartman, R., Know, T., Palmer, S., Kay, M. & Terry, B. (1979) Nutrition Reports International 19, 561–571.Google Scholar
Luckey, T. C., Venugopal, B., Gray, D. & Hutchinson, D. (1977) Nutrition Reports International 16, 339–347.Google Scholar
Marcus, C. S. & Lengemann, F. W. (1962) Journal of Nutrition 76, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, J. H. (1972) Biometrics 28, 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, J. H. (1987) Journal of Theoretical Biology 124, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, J. H. & Tolley, D. (1980) Federation Proceedings 39, 104–109.Google Scholar
Matis, J. H. & Wehrly, T. E. (1979) Biometrics 35, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. & Wilson, S. (1978) British Journal of Nutrition 40, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979) Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PCNONLIN (1985). PCNONLIN Users' Guide. Lexington, Ky: Statistical Consultants Inc.Google Scholar
Pond, K. R., Matis, J. H., Ellis, W. C. & Satter, L. D. (1982) Federation Proceedings 41, 342.Google Scholar
Pond, K. R., Tolley, E. A., Ellis, W. C. & Matis, J. H. (1984). In Techniques in Particle Size Analysis of Feed and Digesta in Ruminants, pp. 123–133. [Kennedy, P. M., editor]. Edmonton: Canadian Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., John, A., Ulyatt, M. J., Waghorn, G. C. & Milligan, L. P. (1979) Annales de Recherche Veterinaire 10, 205–207.Google Scholar
Roux, C. Z. & Pienaar, J. P. (1984). In Techniques in Particle Size Analysis of Feed and Digesta in Ruminants, p. 176 [Kennedy, P. M., editor]. Edmonton: Canadian Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
SAS (1979). SAS Users' Guide. Cary, North Carolina: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sutherland, J. M. (1988). In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants, pp. 43–73 [Dobson, A., Dobson, M.H., editors]. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W. & Cox, E. L. (1972) Journal of Dairy Science 55, 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1981) Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews. Ser. B 51, 789–820.Google Scholar