Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:33:54.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of two non-radioactive digesta marker systems for the measurement of nutrient flow at the proximal duodenum of calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. E. Beever ,
R. C. Kellaway ,
D. J. Thomson ,
J. C. MacRae ,
C. C. Evans  and
Annie S. Wallace
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
R. C. Kellaway
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
D. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
J. C. MacRae
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
C. C. Evans
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Annie S. Wallace
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The use of non-radioactive ruthenium phenanthroline (Ru-P) and chromium EDTA (Cr-EDTA) as dual phase markers of digesta flow was examined and compared with chromium sesquioxide (Cr2O3) in conjunction with spot samples of digesta collected from T-shaped cannulae situated in the proximal duodenum of weaned calves.

In vitro estimates of organic matter digestibility indicated that on a cubed barley diet, Ru-P exhibited toxic effects at concentrations on 2·2 × 10–5 M and above. No such effects were noted with Cr-EDTA. Subsequently satisfactory infusion rates of 12 mg Ru and 280 mg Cr/kg dry-matter intake were established.

Daily flows of organic matter, starch, nitrogen, fibre, sodium and potassium at the proximal duodenum were calculated by the dual phase marker system and by Cr2O3, and regression equations relating these two for each dietary component were calculated. Examination of the intercepts revealed that they all differed significantly from zero (P < 0·05) whilst all the regression coefficients were significantly different from unity (P < 0·05), thus indicating that Cr2O3 underestimated nutrient flows at low flow rates and overestimated them at high flow rates relative to the corresponding estimates based on Ru-P plus Cr-EDTA.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , February 1978 , pp. 157 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

REFERENCES

Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. The Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. VI. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A 36, 328–30.Google Scholar
Clancey, M. J. & Wilson, R. K. (1966). Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. In Proceedings of 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, 1966, pp. 445–53.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., McDonald, I. & Florence, E. (1960). Excretion of chromium sesquioxide administered as a component of paper to sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 14, 289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corse, D. A. & Sutton, J. D. (1971). Methods of measuring flow of duodenal digesta in sheep. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 30, 18 A.Google ScholarPubMed
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). The chromium-51 complex of ethylenediamine tetracetic acid as a soluble rumen marker. British Journal of Nutrition 18, 153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. C., MacRae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). Determination of ruthenium and chromium by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and the use of inert ruthenium (II) phenanthroline as a solid phase marker in sheep digestion studies. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1972). An assessment of chromic oxide as an indigestible marker for digestion studies in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79, 493–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–91. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Weston, R. H. (1971). Digestion by ruminant lambs of a diet containing formaldehydetreated casein. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 461–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1971). The utilization of alkali-treated straw by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 951–62.Google Scholar
Jarrett, I. G. (1948). The production of rumen and abomasal fistulae in sheep. Journal of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Australia 21, 311–15.Google Scholar
Kellaway, R. C., Grant, T. & Hargreave, G. I. (1976). Effects of buffer salts on feed intake, growth rate, rumen pH and acid-base balance in calves. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 11, 273–6.Google Scholar
Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. & Osbourn, D. F. (1977). Effects of NaCl and NaHCO3 on food intake, growth rate and acid-base balance in calves. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesler, E. M., Ronning, M. & Knodt, C. B. (1951). Some physical characteristics of the tissue and contents of the rumen, abomasum and intestines in male Holstein calves of various ages. Journal of Animal Science 10, 969–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotb, A. R. & Luckey, T. D. (1972). Markers in nutrition, Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 42, 813–45.Google ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C. (1974). The use of intestinal markers to measure digestive function in ruminants. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 33, 147–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C. (1975). The use of re-entrant cannulae to partition digestive function within the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 261–76. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1968). Enzymic method for the determination of a-linked glucose polymers in biological material. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19, 578–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969) Studies on intestinal absorption in the sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 23, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Evans, C. C. (1974). The use of inert ruthenium-phenanthroline as a digesta particulate marker in sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 10A.Google ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1972). Comparison of spot and continuous sampling for estimating duodenal digesta flow in sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). The effects of various forms of gastro-intestinal cannulation on digestive parameters in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 38, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, N. H., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Use of 103Ru-labelled (tris, 1, 10-phenanthroline) ruthenium (II) chloride as a marker in digestion studies with sheep. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar