Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:53:12.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating digestibility and faecal output in lambs using internal and external markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

L. J. Krysl ,
M. L. Galyean ,
R. E. Estell  and
B. F. Sowell
L. J. Krysl
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, U. S. A.
M. L. Galyean
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, U. S. A.
R. E. Estell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, U. S. A.
B. F. Sowell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, U. S. A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Twenty fine-wool, ruminally cannulated lambs (average weight 45–9 kg) were used in a completely random design to evaluate the ability of three internal markers to predict dry matter digestibility and two external markers to estimate faecal output. Lambs were allotted randomly to one of four diets: 100% prairie hay (PH), 100% lucerne hay (LH), 50% prairie hay:50% sorghum grain (PS) and 50% lucerne hay: 50% sorghum grain (LS). The trial consisted of a 14-day adaptation period followed by a 7-day total faecal collection period. Feed and faecal samples were subjected to 96 h ruminal fluid and 48 h acid-pepsin digestions, followed by extraction with acid detergent (IVADF) or neutral detergent (IVNDF) solution. Dry matter digestibility (DMD) calculated from feed:faeces ratios of IVADF, IVNDF and acid detergent lignin (ADL) was compared with in vivoapparent digestibility. Ytterbium-labelled forage (YLF) and dysprosium-labelled faeces (DLF) were pulse-dosed via ruminal cannulae, and faecal Yb and Dy excretion curves were fitted to a one-compartment, agedependent model for estimation of faecal output, paniculate passage rate (PPR) and mean gastrointestinal retention time. In vivoDMD in lambs fed PH was greater (P <005) than DMD calculated from IVNDF, IVADF and ADL. In lambs fed LH and LS, in vivoDMD did not differ (P >005) from marker estimates. In vivoDMD for lambs fed PS did not differ from IVNDF or IVADF estimates but was greater than (P <005) the ADL estimate. No differences (P> 005) were observed in recovery among the three internal markers for any of the diets. Faecal output for lambs fed PH did not differ {P >005) from marker estimates but was overestimated by 15 to 20% by YLF and DLF. Faecal output for lambs fed LH was similar to the estimate from YLF, but less than (P <0–05) the estimate with DLF. For lambs fed PS, faecal output did not differ from marker estimates, but YLF and DLF values were 16% lower and 17% higher, respectively. No significant differences were observed in actual and estimated faecal output for lambs fed the LS diet. Estimates of PPR with DLF were numerically greater than YLF estimates for all diets except LS. Correspondingly, mean gastrointestinal retention time was less (P <005) for DLF compared with YLF for all diets except LS.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (1984). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th edn. Washington, D. C.: A. O. A. C.Google Scholar
Berger, L., Klopfenstein, T. & Britton, R. (1979). Effect of sodium hydroxide on efficiency of rumen digestion. Journal of Animal Science 49, 1317–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisson, G. J. (1960). Indicator methods for estimating amount of forage consumed by grazing animals. Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress 8, 435–437.Google Scholar
Cochran, R. C., Adams, D. C., Wallace, J. D. & Galyean, M. L. (1986). Predicting digestibility of different diets with internal markers: evaluation of four potential markers. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1476–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1960). Faecal-index techniques for estimating herbage consumption by grazing animals. Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress 8, 438–442.Google Scholar
Cordova, F. J., Wallace, J. D. & Pieper, R. D. (1978). Forage intake by grazing livestock: a review. Journal of Range Management 31, 430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Bailey, E. M. & Taylor, C. A. (1984). A silicone esophageal cannula; its surgical installation and use in research with grazing cattle, sheep or goats. Journal of Animal Science 59, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Lascano, C., Teeter, R. & Owens, F. N. (1982). Solute and particulate flow markers. In Protein Requirements for Cattle: Symposium ed. Owens, F. N.), pp. 37–55. Oklahoma Agriculture Experiment Station, MP 109.Google Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H. & Lascano, C. (1979). Quantitating ruminal turnover. Federation Proceedings 38, 2702–2706.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellis, W. C., Matis, J. H., Pond, K. R., Lascano, C. E. & Telford, J. P. (1984). Dietary influences on flow rate and digestive capacity. In Herbivore Nutrition in the Subtropics and Tropics (ed. Gilchrist, F. M. C. and Mackie, R. I.), pp. 269–293. Johannesburg, South Africa: The Science Press.Google Scholar
Erdman, R. A. & Smith, L. W. (1985). Ytterbium binding among particle size fractions of forage cell walls. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 3071–3075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, G. C. & Jung, H. G. (1983). Lignin as a marker in digestion studies: a review. Journal of Animal Science 57, 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analyses. USDA-ARS Agricultural Handbook, No. 379.Google Scholar
Goetsch, A. L. & Galyean, M. L. (1983). Ruthenium phenanthroline, dysprosium and ytterbium as particulate markers in beef steers fed an all alfalfa hay diet. Nutrition Reports International 27, 171–178.Google Scholar
Handl, W. P. & Rittenhouse, L. R. (1972). Herbage yield and intake of grazing steers. Proceedings, Western Section American Society of Animal Science 23, 197—200.Google Scholar
Henning, P. A., Van Der Linden, Y., Matteyse, M. E., Nauhaus, W. K., Schwartz, H. M. & Gilchrist, F. M. C. (1980). Factors affecting the intake and digestion of roughage by sheep fed maize straw supplemented with maize grain. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. W., Paterson, J. A., Miller, S. J. & Williams, J. E. (1984). Comparison of several internal and external markers for estimating digestibility and fecal output by steers. Journal of Animal Science 59 (Supplement 1), 427.Google Scholar
Krysl, L. J., McCollum, F. T. & Galyean, M. L. (1985). Estimation of fecal output and particulate passage rate with a pulse dose of ytterbium-labeled forage. Journal of Range Management 38, 180–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippke, H., Ellis, W. C. & Jacobs, B. F. (1986). Recovery of indigestible fiber from feces of sheep and cattle on forage diets. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matis, J. H. (1984). A generalized approach to compartmental modeling based on retention time distributions. In Modeling Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism – Proceedings of the Second International Workshop (ed. Baldwin, R. L. and Bywater, A. C.), pp. 10–15. University of California, Davis, California: Department of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Matis, J. H. (1987). The case for stochastic models of digesta flow. Journal of Theoretical Biology 124, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCollum, F. T. & Galyean, M. L. (1985). Influence of cottonseed meal supplementation on voluntary intake rumen fermentation and rate of passage of prairie hay in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 60, 570–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z., El-Shinnawy, M. M., El-Ashry, M. A. & Ead, H. M. E. (1983). Assessment of the associative effect of roughages and concentrates. Journal of Animal Science 57(Supplement 1), 452.Google Scholar
Muntifering, R. B. (1982). Evaluation of various lignin assays for determining ruminal digestion of roughages by lambs. Journal of Animal Science 55, 432–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penning, P. D. & Johnson, R. H. (1983). The use of internal markers to estimate herbage digestibility and intake. I. Potentially indigestible cellulose and acid insoluble ash. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigge, E. C., Varga, G. A., Vicini, J. L. & Reid, R. L. (1981). Comparison of ytterbium chloride and chromium sesquioxide as fecal indicators. Journal of Animal Science 53, 1629–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raleigh, R. J., Kartchner, R. J. & Rittenhouse, L. R. (1980). Chromic oxide in range nutrition studies. Oregon State University, Corvallis: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 641.Google Scholar
Sas (1984). SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical Methods, 7th edn. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Streeter, C. L. (1969). A review of techniques used to estimate the in vivo digestibility of grazed forage. Journal of Animal Science 29, 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teeter, R. G., Owens, F. N. & Mader, T. L. (1984). Ytterbium chloride as a marker for particulate matter in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 58, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., John, A., Reid, C. S. W. & Waghorn, G. C. (1986). Contribution of chewing during eating and rumination to the clearance of digesta from the reticulorumen. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (ed. Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. and Dobson, A.), pp. 498–515. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, pp. 89, 132. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Waller, J., Merchen, N., Hanson, T. & Klopfenstein, T. (1980). Effect of sampling intervals and digesta markers on abomasal flow determinations. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed