Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-z8dxg Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-09-24T16:40:28.943Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Associations of rumen parameters with feed efficiency and sampling routine in beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

S. Lam
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G2W1
J. C. Munro
Affiliation:
Beef Improvement Opportunities, Elora, ON, Canada N0B 1S0
M. Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G2P5
L. L. Guan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G2P5
F. S. Schenkel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G2W1
M. A. Steele
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G2P5
S. P. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G2W1 Angus Genetics Inc., Saint Joseph, MO 64506, USA
Y. R. Montanholi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Aquaculture, Dalhousie University, Truro, NS, Canada B2N5E3
Get access

Abstract

Characterizing ruminal parameters in the context of sampling routine and feed efficiency is fundamental to understand the efficiency of feed utilization in the bovine. Therefore, we evaluated microbial and volatile fatty acid (VFA) profiles, rumen papillae epithelial and stratum corneum thickness and rumen pH (RpH) and temperature (RT) in feedlot cattle. In all, 48 cattle (32 steers plus 16 bulls), fed a high moisture corn and haylage-based ration, underwent a productive performance test to determine residual feed intake (RFI) using feed intake, growth, BW and composition traits. Rumen fluid was collected, then RpH and RT logger were inserted 5.5±1 days before slaughter. At slaughter, the logger was recovered and rumen fluid and rumen tissue were sampled. The relative daily time spent in specific RpH and RT ranges were determined. Polynomial regression analysis was used to characterize RpH and RT circadian patterns. Animals were divided into efficient and inefficient groups based on RFI to compare productive performance and ruminal parameters. Efficient animals consumed 1.8 kg/day less dry matter than inefficient cattle (P⩽0.05) while achieving the same productive performance (P⩾0.10). Ruminal bacteria population was higher (P⩽0.05) (7.6×1011 v. 4.3×1011 copy number of 16S rRNA gene/ml rumen fluid) and methanogen population was lower (P⩽0.05) (2.3×109 v. 4.9×109 copy number of 16S rRNA gene/ml rumen fluid) in efficient compared with inefficient cattle at slaughter with no differences (P⩾0.10) between samples collected on-farm. No differences (P⩾0.10) in rumen fluid VFA were also observed between feed efficiency groups either on-farm or at slaughter. However, increased (P⩽0.05) acetate, and decreased (P⩽0.05) propionate, butyrate, valerate and caproate concentrations were observed at slaughter compared with on-farm. Efficient had increased (P⩽0.05) rumen epithelium thickness (136 v. 126 µm) compared with inefficient cattle. Efficient animals also spent 318% and 93.2% more time (P⩽0.05) in acidotic (4.14% v. 1.30%) (pH⩽5.6) and optimal (5.6<pH<6.0) (8.53% v. 4.42%) RpH range compared with inefficient cattle. The circadian patterns revealed lower (P⩽0.05) RpH and no differences (P⩾0.10) in RT pre-, during, and post-prandial periods in efficient compared with inefficient cattle. In essence, superior feed efficiency in cattle seems linked to rumen features consistent with improved efficiency of feed utilization. Microbial abundance, rumen epithelial histomorphology, and RpH, may serve as indicators for feed efficiency in cattle. The divergences of assessments made on-farm and at slaughter should be considered in the development of proxies for feed efficiency.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Aschenbach, JR, Bilk, S, Tadesse, G, Stumpff, F and Gäbel, G 2009. Bicarbonate-dependent and bicarbonate-independent mechanisms contribute to nondiffusive uptake of acetate in the ruminal epithelium of sheep. American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 296, 10981107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, EN 1990. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract of various species. Physiological Reviews 70, 567590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgon, SL, Diel de Amorim, M, Miller, SP and Montanholi, YR 2017. Associations of blood parameters with age, feed efficiency and sampling routine in young beef bulls. Livestock Science 195, 2737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carberry, CA, Kenny, DA, McCabe, MS and Waters, SM 2010. Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and diet type on ruminal microbial population in beef heifers. Advances in Animal Biosciences 1, 2929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimons, C, Kenny, DA, Deighton, MH, Fahey, AG and McGee, M 2013. Methane emissions, body composition, and rumen fermentation traits of beef heifers differing in residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 91, 57895800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzsimons, A, Kenny, DA, Fahey, AG and McGee, M 2014. Feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation, and performance of pregnant beef cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake offered grass silage. Journal of Animal Science 92, 21702181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Freetly, HC and Brown-Brandl, TM 2013. Enteric methane production from beef cattle that vary in feed efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 91, 48264831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gäbel, G, Aschendbach, JR and Müller, F 2002. Transfer of energy substrates across the ruminal epithelium: implications and limitations. Animal Health Research Reviews 3, 1530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galyean, ML, Lee, RW and Hubbert, MW 1981. Influence of fasting and transit on rumen and blood metabolites in beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 53, 718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guan, LL, Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA and Moore, SS 2008. Linkage of microbial ecology to phenotype: correlation of rumen microbial ecology to cattle’s feed efficiency. Federation of European Microbiological Societies: Microbiology Letters 288, 8591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandez-Sanabria, E, Goonewardene, LA, Wang, Z, Durunna, ON, Moore, SS and Guan, LL 2012. Impact of feed efficiency and diet on adaptive variations in the bacterial community in the rumen fluid of cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78, 12031214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, JP, Petherick, JC and Phillips, CJC 2007. The physiological and metabolic impacts on sheep and cattle of feed and water deprivation before and during transport. Nutrition Research Reviews 20, 1728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kern, RJ, Lindholm-Perry, AK, Freetly, HC, Kuehn, LA, Rule, DC and Ludden, PA 2016. Rumen papillae morphology of beef steers relative to gain and feed intake and the association of volatile fatty acids with Kallikren gene expression. Livestock Science 187, 2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, A, Sato, S, Kato, T, Ikuta, K, Yamagishi, N, Okada, K, Mizuguchi, H and Ito, K 2012. Relationship between pH and temperature in the ruminal fluid of cows, based on a radio-transmission pH measurement system. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 74, 10231028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, RF, Resende-Junior, JC, Costa, SF, Daniel, JLP, Teófile, TS and Cardoso, MG 2015. Morphological response of the ruminal and omasal mucosae to the variation in diet energy. Science and Agrotechnology 39, 574582.Google Scholar
McDonnell, RP, Hart, KJ, Boland, TM, Kelly, AK, McGee, M and Kenny, DA 2016. Effect of divergence in phenotypic residual feed intake on methane emissions, ruminal fermentation, and apparent whole-tract digestibility of beef heifers across three contrasting diets. Journal of Animal Science 94, 11791193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montanholi, YR, Fontoura, A, Swanson, KC, Coomber, BL, Yamashiro, S and Miller, SP 2013. Small intestine histomorphometry of beef cattle with divergent feed efficiency. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 55, 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montanholi, YR, Haas, LS, Swanson, KC, Coomber, BL, Yamashiro, S and Miller, SP 2017. Liver morphometrics and metabolic blood profile across divergent phenotypes for feed efficiency in the bovine. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 59, 24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montanholi, YR, Swanson, KC, Schenkel, FS, McBride, BW, Caldwell, TR and Miller, SP 2009. On determination of residual feed intake and associations of infrared thermography with efficiency and ultrasound traits in beef bulls. Livestock Science 125, 2230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, JC, Schenkel, FS, Physick-Sheard, PW, Fontoura, ABP, Miller, SP, Tenessen, T and Montanoli, YR 2017. Associations of acute stress and overnight heart rate with feed efficiency in beef heifers. Animal 11, 452460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myer, PR, Smith, TPL, Wells, JE, Kuehn, LA and Freetly, HC 2015. Rumen microbiome from steers differing in feed efficiency. PLoS ONE 10, 117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagaraja, TG and Lechtenberg, KF 2007. Acidosis in feedlot cattle. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice 23, 333350.Google ScholarPubMed
Popova, M, Morgavi, DP and Martin, C 2013. Methanogens and methanogenesis in the rumens and ceca of lambs fed two different high-grain-content diets. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79, 17771786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajima, K, Aminov, RI, Nagamine, T, Matsui, H, Nakamura, M and Benno, Y 2001. Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, 27662774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamate, H and Fell, BF 1977. Cell deletion as a factor in the regulation of rumen epithelial populations. Veterinary Science. Communications 1, 359364.Google Scholar
Tamate, H, Kikuchi, T and Sakata, T 1975. Ultrastructural changes in the ruminal epithelium after fasting and subsequent refeeding in the sheep. Tohoku Journal of Agricultural research 25, 142155.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Walker, DJ and Forrest, WW 1964. The application of calorimetry to the study of ruminal fermentation in vitro . Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 15, 299315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y and McAllister, TA 2002. Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion – a review. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 15, 16591676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, ACI 1966. Periodic changes in the concentrations of micro-organisms in the rumen of a sheep fed a limited ration every three hours. Journal of General Microbiology 45, 237241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, L, Wang, L, Cong, H, Zhou, Y, We, S and Deng, L 2014. Establishment of a real-time PCR for monitoring on the 3 bacterial population in the rumen of beef cattle with transport stress. Chinese. Journal of Veterinary Science 34, 18341838.Google Scholar
Zhang, S, Albornoz, RI, Aschenback, JR, Barreda, DR and Penner, GB 2013. Short-term feed restriction impairs the absorptive function of the reticulo-rumen and total tract barrier function in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 16851695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, M, Hernandez-Sanabria, E and Guan, LL 2009. Assessment of the microbial ecology of ruminal methanogens in cattle with different feed efficiencies. Applied Environmental Microbiology 75, 65246533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Associations of rumen parameters with feed efficiency and sampling routine in beef cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Associations of rumen parameters with feed efficiency and sampling routine in beef cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Associations of rumen parameters with feed efficiency and sampling routine in beef cattle
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *