Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:48:29.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of rumen ciliate protozoa in cattle given restricted amounts of a barley diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

F. G. Whitelaw ,
J. Margaret Eadie ,
S. O. Mann  and
R. S. Reid
F. G. Whitelaw
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. Margaret Eadie
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
S. O. Mann
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. S. Reid
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Two pairs of Friesian steers were changed from ad lib. to restricted intake of a pelleted barley diet and were maintained on this latter intake for periods of 18 or 25 weeks. The restricted level of intake was 70 g/kg0.73 and was adjusted weekly according to individual live weights. The daily allowance was given in three equal feeds during day-time.

2. After an initial period of 9 weeks on the restricted diet, during which all four animals were kept free of rumen ciliate protozoa, one member of each pair was given an inoculum of rumen ciliates. Eight weeks later, the ciliate-free member of the younger pair of steers was similarly inoculated. Observations were made on the rumen bacterial and protozoal populations and on changes in rumen pH and volatile fatty acids (VFA) throughout each treatment period. The concentrations of urea and haemoglobin in blood and of glucose and amino acids in plasma were examined on one occasion in each animal.

3. In the absence of ciliates, restriction of intake resulted in rumen pH values and molar proportions of VFA similar to those normally encountered on an ad lib. intake of a barley diet. A decrease in bacterial numbers and certain minor changes in bacterial types were observed on changing from ad lib. to restricted intake but the resultant population under ciliate-free conditions was basically the same as that found later in the faunated animals. In culture, organisms of the genus Bacteroides were predominant.

4. Large populations of rumen ciliates were established in each animal inoculated. Relative to the ciliate-free periods, the presence of ciliates resulted in an increase in rumen pH, a reduction in total VFA concentration and a decrease in the ratio of propionic to butyric acid in rumen fluid. It is concluded that these changes are a direct effect of ciliate activity.

5. Conditions within the rumen remained more stable from day to day when large ciliate populations were present than when ciliates were absent. In one animal, spontaneous fluctuations in ciliate number were accompanied by corresponding changes in rumen pH and VFA proportions.

6. Significant differences were observed between faunated and ciliate-free animals in the concentration urea in blood and of glucose in plasma; only minor differences were noted in blood haemoglobin and plasma amino acid concentrations.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 425 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Abou Akkada, A. R. & El-Shady, K. (1964). Appl. Microbiol. 12, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou Akkada, A. R. & El-Shady, K. (1965). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 64, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, W. C., Kawashima, R. & Burroughs, W. (1965). J. Anim. Sci. 24, 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. (1962). J. gen. Microbiol. 29, 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. & Gill, J. C. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. & Mann, S. O. (1967). Anim. Prod. 9, 247.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. M. &, Hyldgaard-Jenscn, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, I. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, J. K. &Scott, J. E. (1960). J. clin. Path. 13, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F.Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G.&Boyne, R. (1968). Res. net. Sci. 9, 458.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. N. &Mann, S. O. (1970). In Automation Mechanization. and Data Handling in Microbiology p.91 [Baillie, A. and Gilbert, R. J., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huggett, A. St G. &Nixon, D. A. (1957). Lancet ii, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishaque, M., Thomas, P. C. &Rook, J. A. F. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, IA.Google Scholar
Kay, M., Macdearmid, A. &MacLeod, N. A. (1970). Anim. Prod. 12, 261.Google Scholar
Klopfenstein, T. J., Purser, D. B. &Tyznilr, W. J. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. &Mann, S. O. (1968). J. gen. Microbiol. 51, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1957). J. agric. Sci., 48, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luther, R., Trenkle, A. &Burroughs, W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. &Miller, H. (1965). Clin. Chem. 11, 624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mechanic, G., Efron, M. L. &Shih, V. E. (1966). Analyt. Biochem. 16, 420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford, A. E. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, D. B., Klopfenstein, T. J. &Cline, J. H.(1966). J. Nutr. 89, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, D. B. &Moir, R. J. (1959). Aust. J. agri Res. 10, 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Reid, R. S. &Kay, M. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, I. D. P. (1964). Micro-analysis in Medical Biochemistry 4th ed. p.119. London: J. and A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar