Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:59:01.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of reticulo-rumen and whole-stomach digestion in lactating cows by omasal canal or duodenal sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Seppo Ahvenjärvi ,
Aila Vanhatalo ,
Pekka Huhtanen  and
Tuomo Varvikko
Seppo Ahvenjärvi*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre of Finland (MTT), Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
Aila Vanhatalo
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre of Finland (MTT), Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
Pekka Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre of Finland (MTT), Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
Tuomo Varvikko
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre of Finland (MTT), Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
*
*Corresponding author: Seppo Ahvenjärvi, fax +358 3 4188 3661, email [email protected]
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.

Four ruminally and duodenally cannulated multiparous Finnish Ayrshire cows were fed on diets consisting of grass silage (0·6 kg/kg DM) and one of four concentrates: barley, barley + urea, barley + rapeseed meal and barley + rapeseed cake. The objective of the present study was to compare omasal canal and duodenal digesta flows. Values for digesta flow into the omasal canal and duodenum were determined using a triple-marker method based on Co-EDTA, Yb-acetate and indigestible neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) markers. Microbial non-NH3 N (NAN) flow was assessed by purine flow. Microbial samples to determine the bacterial purine: N ratio were harvested from the rumen, omasum and duodenum. Organic matter flow was significantly lower into the omasum than the duodenum, indicating an endogenous organic matter secretion into the abomasum. In contrast, NDF and acid-detergent fibre flows were significantly higher into the omasum indicating digestion of fibre in the omasum. Microbial NAN flows were significantly different (P < 0·001) when estimates were based on bacterial samples harvested from different sites. Differences in total NAN, microbial NAN and dietary NAN flows entering the omasal canal and duodenum were non-significant. The results indicated that the omasal sampling technique provides a promising alternative to the duodenal sampling technique to investigate forestomach digestion in dairy cows and offers an alternative means to study rumen N metabolism.

Keywords

RuminantDigestibilityMarkersOmasum
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 67 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2000

References

Ahvenjärvi, S, Vanhatalo, A, Huhtanen, P & Varvikko, T (1999) Effects of supplementation of a grass silage and barley diet with urea, rapeseed meal and heat-moisture treated rapeseed cake on omasal digesta flow and milk production in lactating dairy cows. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 49, 179–189.Google Scholar
Barker, SB & Summerson, WH (1941) The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. Journal of Biological Chemistry 138, 535–554.Google Scholar
Cecava, MJ, Merchen, NR, Gay, LC & Berger, LL (1990) Composition of ruminal bacteria harvested from steers as influenced by dietary energy level, feeding frequency, and isolation technique. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2480–2488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, WM, Broderick, GA & Ricker, DB (1987) Quantitation of microorganisms associated with the particulate phase of ruminal ingesta. Journal of Nutrition 117, 56–62.Google Scholar
Dobson, DE, Prager, EM & Wilson, AC (1984) Stomach lysozymes of ruminants. I. Distribution and catalytic properties. Journal of Biological Chemistry 259, 11607–11616.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, WV & Hauffe, R (1975) Role of the omasum in absorption and secretion of water and electrolytes in sheep and goats. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, pp. 217–230 [McDonald, IW, and Warner, ACI, editors]. Sydney: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ (1975 a) The effect of formaldehyde treatment of a concentrate diet on the passage of solute and particle markers through the gastrointestinal tract of sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 319–327.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ (1975 b) The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, IW, and Warner, ACI, editors]. Sydney: The University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ (1993) Digesta flow. In Quantitative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism, pp. 53–85 [Forbes, JM, and France, J, editors]. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ, Poncet, C, Lassalas, B, Jouany, JP, Millet, L, Doré, J & Brownlee, AG (1997) Effect of concentrates in a hay diet on the contribution of anaerobic fungi, protozoa and bacteria to nitrogen in rumen and duodenal digesta in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64, 193–213.Google Scholar
Firkins, JL, Berger, LL, Merchen, NR, Fahey, GC Jr & Mulvaney, RL (1987) Ruminal nitrogen metabolism in steers as affected by feed intake and dietary urea concentration. Journal of Dairy Science 70, 2302–2311.Google Scholar
France, J & Siddons, RC (1986) Determination of digesta flow by continuous marker infusion. Journal of Theoretical Biology 121, 105–119.Google Scholar
Harmon, DL & Richards, CJ (1997) Considerations for gastrointestinal cannulations in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2248–2255.Google Scholar
Hart, FJ & Leibholz, J (1990) A note on the flow of endogenous protein to the omasum and abomasum of steers. Animal Production 51, 217–219.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, PJ, Blauwiekel, R & Saastamoinen, I (1998) Effects of intraruminal infusions of propionate and butyrate with two different protein supplements on milk production and blood metabolites in dairy cows receiving grass silage-based diet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 77, 213–222.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Brotz, PG & Satter, LD (1997) Omasal sampling technique for assessing fermentative digestion in the forestomach of dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1380–1392.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P & Jaakkola, S (1993) The effects of the forage preservation method and the proportion of concentrate on digestion of cell wall carbohydrates and rumen digesta pool size in cattle. Grass and Forage Science 48, 155–165.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P & Kukkonen, U (1995) Comparison of methods, markers, sampling sites and models for estimating digesta passage kinetics in cattle fed at two levels of intake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 52, 141–158.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P & Vanhatalo, A (1997) Ruminal and total plant cell-wall digestibility estimated by a combined in situ method utilizing mathematical models. British Journal of Nutrition 78, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huida, L, Väätäinen, H & Lampila, M (1986) Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silages as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analysis. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25, 215–230.Google Scholar
Kaske, M & Midasch, A (1997) Effects of experimentally-impaired reticular contractions on digesta passage in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 78, 97–110.Google Scholar
Khalili, H & Huhtanen, P (1991) Sucrose supplements in cattle given grass silage-based diet. 2. Digestion of cell wall carbohydrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 33, 263–273.Google Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M, Kaske, M & Engelhardt, WV (1991) Factors affecting the mean retention time of particles in the forestomach of ruminants and camelids. In Physiological Aspects of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, pp. 455–482 [Tsuda, T, Sasaki, Y and Kawashima, R, editors]. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM & Van Soest, PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, AB & Smith, RH (1973) Degradation of nucleic acids in the rumen. British Journal of Nutrition 29, 331–345.Google Scholar
McCullough H (1967) The determination of ammonia in whole blood by direct colorimetric method. Clinica Chimica Acta 17, 297–304.Google Scholar
Mäkelä A (1956) Studies on the question of bulk in the nutrition of farm animals with special to cattle. Acta Agralia Fennica 85, 1–130.Google Scholar
Matthews, JC, Wong, EA, Bender, PK, Bloomquist, JR & Webb, KE Jr (1996) Demonstration and characterization of dipeptide transport system activity in sheep omasal epithelium by expression of mRNA in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1720–1727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, ER, Macleod, NA & Kyle, DJ (1986) Flow of nitrogen from the rumen and abomasum in cattle and sheep given protein-free nutrients by intragastric infusion. British Journal of Nutrition 56, 241–248.Google Scholar
Perez, JF, Balcells, J, Guada, JA & Castrillo, C (1996 a) Determination of rumen microbial-nitrogen production in sheep: a comparison of urinary purine excretion with methods using 15N and purine bases as markers of microbial-nitrogen entering the duodenum. British Journal of Nutrition 75, 699–709.Google Scholar
Perez, JF, Balcells, J, Guada, JA & Castrillo, C (1997) Rumen microbial production estimated either from urinary purine derivative excretion or from direct measurements of 15N and purine bases as microbial markers: effect of protein source and rumen bacteria isolates. Animal Science 65, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, JF, Rodriguez, CA, Gonzalez, J, Balcells, J & Guada, JA (1996 b) Contribution of dietary purine bases to duodenal digesta in sheep. In situ studies of purine degradability corrected for microbial contamination. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, MH, Moore, JA, Eck, TP & Swingle, RS (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
Punia, BS & Leibholz, J (1994) Effect of level of intake of kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) grass hay on the flow of protozoal nitrogen to the omasum of cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 47, 77–87.Google Scholar
Punia, BS, Leibholz, J & Faichney, GJ (1988) Effects of level of intake and urea supplementation of alkali-treated straw on protozoal and bacterial nitrogen synthesis in the rumen and partition of digestion in cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39, 1181–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, JB & Van Soest, PJ (1981) The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Food, pp. 123–158 [James, WPT, and Theander, O, editors]. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Siddons, RC, Beever, DE & Nolan, JV (1982) A comparison of methods for the estimation of microbial nitrogen in duodenal digesta of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddons, RC, Paradine, J, Beever, DE & Cornell, PR (1985) Ytterbium acetate as a particulate-phase digesta-flow marker. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 509–519.Google Scholar
Smith, RH (1984) Microbial activity in the omasum. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 63–68.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M (1945) A new reagent for the determination of sugars Journal of Biological Chemistry 160, 61–68.Google Scholar
Steinhour, WH, Stokes, MR, Clark, JH, Rogers, JA, Davis, CL & Nelson, DR (1982) Estimation of the proportion of non-ammonia-nitrogen reaching the lower gut of the ruminant derived from bacterial and protozoal nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 417–431.Google Scholar
Sutherland, TM (1988) Particle separation in the forestomachs of sheep. In Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants, pp. 43–73 [Dobson, A, and Dobson, MJ, editors]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Tesfa, AT (1993) Effects of rape-seed oil supplementation on digestion, microbial protein synthesis and duodenal microbial amino acid composition in ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 41, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titgemeyer, EC (1997) Design and interpretation of nutrient digestion studies. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2235–2247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udén, P, Colucci, PE & Van Soest, PJ (1980) Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, A, Dakowski, P & Huhtanen, P (1996) Effects of stage of growth and duration of rumen incubation time on intestinal digestibility of rumen-undegradable nitrogen of grass by mobile-bag method in cows. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 46, 1–10.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, A, Varvikko, T & Aronen, I (1992) The effect of type of additive on rumen fermentation and digestion of grass silage in cattle. Agricultural Science in Finland 1, 163–175.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB & Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, CH, David, D & Riismaa, O (1962) The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinn, RA & Owens, FN (1986) A rapid procedure for purine measurement and its use for estimating net ruminal protein synthesis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 66, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar