Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T10:11:59.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

δ13C as a marker to study digesta passage kinetics in ruminants: a combined in vivo and in vitro study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

W. F. Pellikaan ,
M. W. A. Verstegen ,
S. Tamminga ,
J. Dijkstra  and
W. H. Hendriks
W. F. Pellikaan*
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
S. Tamminga
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
W. H. Hendriks
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: wilbert.pellikaan@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to explore the use of the tracer 13C as an internal marker to assess feed fraction-specific digesta passage kinetics through the digestive tract of dairy cows. Knowledge on feed-specific fractional passage rates is essential to improve estimations on the extent of rumen degradation and microbial protein efficiency; however, this information is largely lacking. An in vivo and in vitro experiment was conducted with grass silages (Lolium perenne L.) that were enriched with 13C by growing the grass under elevated 13CO2 conditions. In a crossover design, two dairy cows received pulse doses of two 13C-enriched grass silages and chromium-mordanted neutral detergent fibre (Cr-NDF) into the rumen. The two 13C-enriched grass silages used differed in digestibility and were grown under identical field conditions as the bulk silages fed to the animals. Faecal excretion patterns of 13C-enriched dry matter (13C-DM), neutral detergent fibre (13C-NDF) and Cr-NDF were established, and a nonlinear multicompartmental model was used to determine their rumen passage kinetics. In addition, the 13C-enriched silages were incubated in rumen liquid in an in vitro batch culture system at different time intervals to determine the effect of fermentation on 13C-enrichment in the residue. The in vitro study showed that the 13C : 12C ratios in DM and NDF residues remained stable from 24 h of incubation onwards. In addition, in vitro fractional degradation rates for 12C in the DM and NDF did not differ from those of 13C, indicating that fermentative degradation does not affect the 13C : 12C ratio in the DM nor in the NDF fraction of the residue. Model fits to the faecal excretion curves showed a significant difference in fractional rumen passage rates between Cr-NDF, 13C-DM and 13C-NDF (P ⩽ 0.025). Silage type had no clear effect on rumen passage kinetics (P ⩾ 0.081). Moreover, it showed that peak enrichments for 13C-DM and 13C-NDF in faeces were reached at 30.7 and 41.7 h post dosing, respectively. This is well after the time (24 h) when the 13C : 12C ratios of the in vitro unfermented residues have reached stable enrichment level. Fractional rate constants for particle passage from the rumen are estimated from the descending slope of faecal excretion curves. The present study shows that the decline in 13C : 12C ratio after peak enrichment is not affected by fermentative degradation and therefore can be used to assess feed component-specific fractional passage rates.

Keywords

13C-isotopemarker passagegrass silagedairy cow
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , May 2013 , pp. 754 - 767
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
AFRC 1998. Responses in the yield of milk constituents to the intake of nutrients by dairy cows. AFRC technical committee on responses to nutrients. Report no. 11. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 68, 937–989.Google Scholar
Alexander, CL, Bartley, EE, Meyer, RM 1969. Incorporation of 14C from labeled alfalfa into rumen bacterial and volatile fatty acid carbon and rumen removal rate of fiber, and soluble fractions. Journal of Animal Science 29, 948–958.Google Scholar
Balch, CC 1971. Proposal to use time spent chewing as an index of the extent to which diets for ruminants possess the physical property of fibrousness characteristics of roughages. British Journal of Nutrition 26, 383–391.Google Scholar
Bayat, AR, Rinne, M, Kuoppala, K, Ahvenjärvi, S, Huhtanen, P 2011. Ruminal large and small particle kinetics in dairy cows fed primary growth and regrowth grass silages harvested at two stages of growth. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 51–60.Google Scholar
Bibby, J, Toutenburg, H 1977. Prediction and improved estimation in linear models. John Wiley and Sons, London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Graham, NM, Wainman, FW 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, MW, Bruining, M 1995. Passage rate and total clearance rate from the rumen of cows fed on grass silages differing in cell-wall content. British Journal of Nutrition 73, 41–49.Google Scholar
Bosch, MW, Lammers-Wienhoven, SCW, Bangma, GA, Boer, H, van Adrichem, PWM 1992. Influence of stage of maturity of grass silages on digestion processes in dairy cows. 2. Rumen contents, passage rates, distribution of rumen and faecal particle and mastication activity. Livestock Production Science 32, 265–281.Google Scholar
Boutton, TW 1991. Stable carbon isotope ratios of natural materials: I. Sample preparation and mass spectrometic analysis. In Carbon isotope techniques (ed. B Fry and DC Coleman), pp. 155–172. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruining, M, Bosch, MW 1992. Ruminal passage rate as affected by CrNDF particle size. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, DB, van der Weide, APA, Kerr, JD 1991. Changes in faecal δ13C in response to changing proportions of legume (C3) and grass (C4) in the diet of sheep and cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 116, 287–295.Google Scholar
Colucci, PE, MacLeod, GK, Grovum, WL, McMillan, I, Barney, DJ 1990. Digesta kinetics in sheep and cattle fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios at high and low intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2143–2156.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, MS, Siddons, RC, France, J, Gale, DL 1985. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53, 663–671.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, France, J, Neal, HDSC, Assis, AG, Aroeira, LJM, de Campos, OF 1996. Simulation of digestion in cattle fed sugarcane: model development. Journal of Agricultural Science 127, 231–246.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, Kebreab, E, Mills, JAN, Pellikaan, WF, Lopez, S, Bannink, A, France, J 2007. Predicting the profile of nutrients available for absorption: from nutrient requirement to animal response and environmental impact. Animal 1, 99–111.Google Scholar
Ehle, FR, Stern, MD 1986. Influence of particle size and density on particulate passage through alimentary tract of Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 564–568.Google Scholar
Faichney, GJ 1975. The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. IW McDonald and ACI Warner), pp. 277–291. The University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale.Google Scholar
France, J, Dijkstra, J, Dhanoa, MS, Lopez, S, Bannink, A 2000. Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminant feeds from a description of their gas production profiles observed in vitro: derivation of models and other mathematical considerations. British Journal of Nutrition 83, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goelema, JO, Spreeuwenberg, MAM, Hof, G, Van Der Poel, AFB, Tamminga, S 1998. Effect of pressure toasting on the rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of whole and broken peas, lupins and faba beans and a mixture of these feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 76, 35–50.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Hristov, AN 2001. Estimating passage kinetics using fibre-bound N-15 as an internal marker. Animal Feed Science and Technology 94, 29–41.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Kaustell, K, Jaakkola, S 1994. The use of internal markers to predict total digestibility and duodenal flow of nutrients in cattle given six different diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 211–227.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Ahvenjärvi, S, Weisbjerg, MR, Nørgaard, P 2006. Digestion and passage of fibre in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp. 87–135. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Jones, RJ, Ludlow, MM, Troughton, JH, Blunt, CG 1979. Estimation of the proportion of C3 and C4 plant species in the diet of animals from the ratio of natural δ12C and δ13C isotopes in the faeces. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 91–100.Google Scholar
Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T 2006. Passage kinetics of fibre in dairy cows obtained from duodenal and faecal ytterbium excretion: effect of forage type. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 229–252.Google Scholar
MacRae, JC 1975. The use of re-entrant cannulae to partition digestive function within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. IW McDonald and ACI Warner), pp. 261–276. The University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Hanson, CF 1992. Symposium: external and internal markers. External and internal markers for appraising site and extent of digestion in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2605–2617.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P, Jaakkola, S 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 2. Cell wall digestibility, digestion and passage kinetics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 19–35.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH, Fadel, JG, Tamminga, S 1986. Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15, 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, PH, Tamminga, S, van Vuuren, AM 1987. Influence of declining level of feed intake and varying the proportion of starch in the concentrate on rumen ingesta quantity, composition and kinetics of ingesta turnover in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 17, 37–62.Google Scholar
Siciliano-Jones, J, Murphy, MR 1986. Passage of inert particles varying in length and specific gravity through the postruminal digestive tract of steers. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2304–2311.Google Scholar
Smith, LW 1989. A review of the use of intrinsically 14C and rare earth-labeled neutral detergent fiber to estimate particle digestion and passage. Journal of Animal Science 67, 2123–2128.Google Scholar
Smith, LW, Erdman, RA 1986. Production of alfalfa containing 14carbon. Journal of Animal Science 63, 316.Google Scholar
Sørensen, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Lund, P 2003. Dietary effects on the composition and plant utilization of nitrogen in dairy cattle manure. Journal of Agricultural Science 141, 79–91.Google Scholar
Sponheimer, M, Robinson, T, Roeder, B, Hammer, J, Ayliffe, L, Passey, B, Cerling, T, Dearing, D, Ehleringer, J 2003. Digestion and passage rates of grass hays by llamas, alpacas, goats, rabbits, and horses. Small Ruminant Research 48, 149–154.Google Scholar
Stefanon, B, Mills, CR, Piasentier, E 1992. Pattern of some internal and external markers along the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 143–159.Google Scholar
Südekum, KH, Ziggers, W, Roos, N, Sick, H, Tamminga, S, Stangassinger, M 1995. Estimating the passage of digesta in steers and wethers using the ratio of 13C to 12C and titanium(IV)-oxide. Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies 31, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svejcar, TJ, Boutton, TW, Trent, JD 1990. Assessment of carbon allocation with stable carbon isotope labeling. Agronomy Journal 82, 18–21.Google Scholar
Svejcar, TJ, Judkins, MB, Boutton, TW 1993. Technical note: labeling of forages with 13C for nutrition and metabolism studies. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1320–1325.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, Robinson, PH, Meijs, S, Boer, H 1989a. Feed components as internal markers in digestion studies with dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S, Robinson, PH, Vogt, M, Boer, H 1989b. Rumen ingesta kinetics of cell wall components in dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 25, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, S, van Straalen, WM, Subnel, APJ, Meijer, RGM, Steg, A, Wever, CJG, Blok, MC 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB-system. Livestock Production Science 40, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV, Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of the protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.Google Scholar
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
Udén, P, Rounsaville, TR, Wiggans, GR, van Soest, PJ 1982. The measurement of liquid and solid digesta retention in ruminants, equines and rabbits given timothy (Phleum pratense) hay. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 329–339.Google Scholar
Van Duinkerken, G, Blok, MC, Bannink, A, Cone, JW, Dijkstra, J, Van Vuuren, AM, Tamminga, S 2011. Update of the Dutch protein evaluation system for ruminants: the DVE/OEB2010 system. Journal of Agricultural Science 149, 351–367.Google Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1975. Feed evaluation for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 2, 95–107.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1973. Collaborative study of acid-detergent fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 56, 781–784.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.Google Scholar
Van Vliet, PCJ, Reijs, JW, Bloem, J, Dijkstra, J, De Goede, RGM 2007. Effects of cow diet on the microbial community and organic matter and nitrogen content of feces. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5146–5158.Google Scholar
Vérité, R, Journet, M, Jarrige, R 1979. A new system for the protein feeding of ruminants: the PDI system. Livestock Production Science 6, 349–367.Google Scholar
Welch, JG 1986. Physical parameters of fiber affecting passage from the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2750–2754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Boer, H, Verstegen, MWA, Tamminga, S 2005. An in vitro batch culture method to assess potential fermentability of feed ingredients for monogastric diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 445–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebeli, Q, Tafaj, M, Weber, I, Dijkstra, J, Steingass, H, Drochner, W 2007. Effects of varying dietary forage particle size in two concentrate levels on chewing activity, ruminal mat characteristics, and passage in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1929–1942.Google Scholar