Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T23:46:50.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between ytterbium acetate, ruthenium phenanthroline and indigestible acid detergent fibre in a double-marker system for intestinal flow measurements in steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. Ortigues ,
J. D. Oldham ,
T. Smith ,
M. B. de Courtenay  and
J. W. Siviter
I. Ortigues
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AQ, UK
J. D. Oldham
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AQ, UK
T. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AQ, UK
M. B. de Courtenay
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AQ, UK
J. W. Siviter
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AQ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three double-marker systems were used in cannulated steers offered straw-based diets supplemented with barley, fishmeal or a combination of both, in an attempt to reduce the risks of misinterpreting biological results based on calculations of digesta flows using markers. Ruthenium phenanthroline (Ru-phe), ytterbium acetate (Yb-ac) and the indigestible acid detergent fibre fraction (IADF) were used as markers of the particulate phase of digesta in conjunction with Cr-EDTA as a liquid-phase marker to estimate duodenal and ileal digesta flows. The present paper presents the difficulties met in the application of marker techniques.

The particulate marker used in a double-marker system for calculation of nutrient flow modified the degree of statistical significance observed for dietary treatment effects on digesta flow parameters.

The data suggest that the type of diet used affects the behaviour of individual markers in different ways and could incur some bias in the results. It is hypothesized that the physical and chemical characteristics of digesta, in different dietary conditions, can be responsible for differential attachment of markers to particles of the solid phase. In such cases, the distinction made in the double-marker technique between particulate and liquid phases may not be sufficient to correct for lack of representativeness of digesta contents sampled from T-shaped cannulae.

For the diets studied it was concluded that the interpretation of digestion parameters should be based on both Ru-phe and Yb-ac results.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 69 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1984). Report of the Protein Group of the Agricultural Research Council Working Parly on the Nutrient Requirements of Ruminants. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Al, Abd A. (1986). Comparaison des méthodes de mesure, du flux des contenus digestifs chez le ruminant; application à l'étude de la digestion de trois types de ration. Thesis, Université de Clermont II. No. 35.Google Scholar
Armentano, L. E. & Russell, R. W. (1985). Method for calculating digesta flow and apparent absorption of nutrients from non-representative samples of digesta. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 3067–3070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. H., Kellaway, R. C., Thomson, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). A comparison of two non-radioactive digesta marker systems for the measurement of nutrient flow at the proximal duodenum of calves. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digesta experiments. Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Buttle, H. L., Clapham, C. & Oldham, J. D. (1982). A design for flexible intestinal cannulas. Laboratory Animals 16, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downes, A. M. & MacDonald, I. W. (1964). The chromium-51 complex of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid as a soluble marker. British Journal of Nutrition 18, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1974). Protein–energy relationships in the digestion products of sheep fed on herbage diets differing in digestibility and nitrogen concentration. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 613–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, J. K. & Doyle, P. T. (1984). A comparison of particulate markers for the estimation of digesta flow from the abomasum of sheep offered chopped oaten hay. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, J. K., Pearce, G. R., Doyle, P. T. & Thomas, R. (1983). Measurement of the quantity and composition of digesta in the reticulo-rumen of sheep fed on a roughage diet. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 307–315.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. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Eds MacDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & Griffiths, D. A. (1978). Behaviour of solute and particle markers in the stomach of sheep given a concentrate diet. British Journal of Nutrition 40, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). ARS Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 379. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kotb, A. R. & Luckey, T. D. (1972). Markers in Nutrition. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 42, 813–845.Google ScholarPubMed
Lippke, H., Ellis, W. C. & Jacobs, B. F. (1986). Recovery of indigestible fibre from faeces of sheep and cattle on forage diets. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Carbohydrate metabolism in the ruminant. Bacterial carbohydrates formed in the rumen and their contribution to digesta entering the duodenum. British Journal of Nutrition 31, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacRae, J. C. (1975). The use of re-entrant cannulae to partition digestive function within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, (Eds. McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 261–276. Armidale: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Evans, C. C. (1974). The use of inert ruthenium-phenanthroline as a digesta paniculate marker in sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 10A–11A.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Lobley, G. E. (1986). Interactions between energy and protein. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, (Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dodson, A.), pp. 367–385. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mugdall, V. D., Dixon, R. M., Kennedy, P. M. & Milligan, L. P. (1982). Effect of two intake levels on retention times of liquid, particle and microbial markers in the rumen of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1051–1055.Google Scholar
Ortigues, I., Smith, T., Oldham, J. D., McAllan, A. B. & Siviter, J. W. (in press). Nutrient supply and growth of cattle offered straw-based diets. British Journal of Nutrition.Google Scholar
Penning, P. D. & Johnson, R. H. (1983). The use of internal markers to estimate herbage digestibility and intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, L. D., Combs, D. K., Lopez-Guisa, J. M. & Nelson, W. F. (1986). Use of markers for measurement of feed digestibility in ruminants. In Nuclear and Related Techniques in Animal Production and Health, pp. 469–484. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Paradine, J., Beever, D. E. & Cornell, P. R. (1985). Ytterbium acetate as a particulate-phase digesta-flow marker. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sissons, J. W. (1981). Digestive enzymes of cattle. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, J. D. (1985). Digestion and absorption of energy substrates in the lactating cow. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 3376–3393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D. & Oldham, J. D. (1977). Feed evaluation by measurement of sites of digestion in cannulated ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 203–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, T. N., 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 Radiations and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teeter, R. G., Owens, F. N. & Mader, T. L. (1984). Ytterbium chloride as a marker for paniculate matter in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 58, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books Inc.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & John, A. (1986). Feed comminution, particle composition and distribution between the four compartments of the stomach in sheep fed chaffed lucerne hay at two feeding frequencies and intake levels. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar