Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:41:04.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of an in situ procedure to evaluate the reticulo-rumen morphology of sheep selected for divergent methane emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2018

S. J. Waite Open the ORCID record for S. J. Waite [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Zhang ,
J. E. Cater ,
G. C. Waghorn ,
W. E. Bain ,
J. C. McEwan  and
V. Suresh
S. J. Waite
Affiliation:
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
J. Zhang
Affiliation:
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
J. E. Cater
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand AgResearch Invermay, Mosgiel 9092, New Zealand
W. E. Bain
Affiliation:
AgResearch Invermay, Mosgiel 9092, New Zealand
J. C. McEwan
Affiliation:
AgResearch Invermay, Mosgiel 9092, New Zealand
V. Suresh*
Affiliation:
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand Department of Engineering Science, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: v.suresh@auckland.ac.nz
Get access

Abstract

Published studies have shown that methane yield (g CH4/kg dry matter) from sheep is positively correlated with the size (volume and surface area) of the reticulo-rumen (RR) and the weight of its contents. However, the relationship between CH4 yield and RR shape has not been investigated. In this work, shape analysis has been performed on a data set of computerised tomography (CT) scans of the RR from sheep having high and low CH4 yields (n=20 and n=17, respectively). The three-dimensional geometries of the RRs were reconstructed from segmented scan data and split into three anatomical regions. An iterative fitting technique combining radial basis functions and principal component (PC) fitting was used to create a set of consistent landmarks which were then used as variables in a PC analysis to identify shape variation within the data. Significant size differences were detected for regions corresponding to the dorsal and ventral compartments between sheep with high and low CH4 yields. When the analysis was repeated after scaling the geometries to remove the effect of size, there was no significant shape variation correlating with CH4 yield. The results have demonstrated the feasibility of CT-based computational shape determination for studying the morphological characteristics of the RR and indicate that size, but not shape correlates with CH4 yield in sheep.

Keywords

Reticulo-rumenshape analysismethane yieldstatistical shape modellingprincipal component analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 542 - 548
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: 6 Berkley Avenue, Hamilton 3216, New Zealand.

References

Bain, W, Pinares-Pantino, CS and McEwan, JC 2014. Rumen differences between sheep identified as being low or high methane emitters. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August 2014, Vancouver BC, Canada, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Bogdanowicz, W, Juste, J, Owen, RD and Sztencel, A 2005. Geometric morphometrics and cladistics: testing evolutionary relationships in mega- and microbast. Acta Chiropterologica 7, 39–49.Google Scholar
Bookstein, FL, Chernoff, B, Elder, R, Humphires, J, Smith, G and Strauss, R 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Cangelosi, R and Goriely, A 2007. Component retention in principal component analysis with application to cDNA microarray data. Biology Direct 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
Clauss, M, Hofmann, RR, Fickel, J, Streich, WJ and Hummel, J 2009. The intraruminal papillation gradient in wild ruminants of different feeding types: implications for rumen physiology. Journal of Morphology 270, 929–942.Google Scholar
Clauss, M, Hofmann, RR, Streich, WJ, Fickel, J and Hummel, J 2010a. Convergence in the macroscopic anatomy of the reticulum in wild ruminant species of different feeding types and a new resulting hypothesis on reticular function. Journal of Zoology 281, 26–38.Google Scholar
Clauss, M, Hume, ID and Hummel, J 2010b. Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Animal 4, 972–992.Google Scholar
Deng, Q, Zhou, M and Wu, Z 2010. An automatic non-rigid registration method for dense surface models. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Intelligent Systems, 29–31 October 2010, Xiamen, China, pp. 888–892.Google Scholar
Goopy, P, Donaldson, A, Hegarty, R, Vercoe, PE, Haynes, F, Barnett, M and Oddy, VH 2013. Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 111, 578–585.Google Scholar
Hammond, KJ, Pacheco, D, Burke, JL, Koolaard, JP, Muetzel, S and Waghorn, GC 2014. The effects of fresh forages and feed intake level on digesta kinetics and enteric methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 193, 32–43.Google Scholar
Heimann, T and Meinzer, HP 2009. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Medical Image Analysis 13, 543–563.Google Scholar
Hofmann, RR 1989. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457.Google Scholar
Jackson, DA 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74, 2204–2214.Google Scholar
Janssen, PH 2010. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kendall, D 1977. A survey of the statistical theory of shape. Statistical Science 4, 87–120.Google Scholar
Pacheco, D, Waghorn, G and Janssen, PH 2014. Decreasing methane emissions from ruminants grazing forages: a fit with productive and financial realities? Animal Production Science 54, 1141–1154.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Barry, TN and Holmes, CW 2003. Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 205–214.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Cárdenas, EA, Hegarty, RS, Koolaard, JP and Clark, H 2011a. Repeatability of methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166, 210–218.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Ebrahimi, SH, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG, Clack, H and Luo, D 2011b. Is rumen retention time implicated in sheep differences in methane emission? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 219–222.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS, Hickey, SM, Young, EA, Dodds, KG, MacLean, S, Molano, G, Sandoval, E, Kjestrup, H, Harland, R, Hunt, C, Pickering, NK and McEwan, JC 2013. Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7, 316–321.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, AL 2011. Evolutionary morphology, platyrrhine evolution, and systematics. Anatomical Record 294, 1955–1974.Google Scholar
Schneider, MTY, Zhang, J, Crisco, JJ, Weiss, APC, Ladd, AL and Nielsen, P 2015. Men and women have similarly shaped carpometacarpal joint bones. Journal of Biomechanics 48, 3420–3426.Google Scholar
Sellers, AF and Stevens, CE 1966. Motor functions of the ruminant forestomach. Physiological Reviews 46, 634–661.Google Scholar
Sutherland TM 1988. Particle separation in the forestomachs of sheep. In Aspects of digestive physiology in ruminants (ed. A Dobson), pp. 43–73. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. Google Scholar
Treece, GM, Prager, RW and Gee, AH 1999. Regularised marching tetrahedra: improved iso-surface extraction. Computers and Graphics 23, 583–598.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, and Reid, CSW 1977. Rumen motility in sheep and cattle as affected by feeds and feeding. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 37, 176–181.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC and Reid, CSW 1984. Bloat in cattle 43. Resting level and vertical displacement of the cranial pillar and other structures in the rumino reticulum of cattle of known bloat susceptibility. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 27, 481–490.Google Scholar
Webster, M and Sheets, HD 2010. A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Quantitative Methods in Paleobiology 16, 168–188.Google Scholar
Wiley, DF, Amenta, N, Alcantara, DA, Ghosh, D, Kil, YJ, Delson, E, Harcourt- Smith, E, Rohlf, FJ, St John, K and Hamann, D 2005. Evolutionary morphing. Paper presented at IEEE Visualization, 23–28 October 2005, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp. 431–438.Google Scholar
Wyburn RS 1980. The mixing and propulsion of the stomach contents of ruminants. In Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Y Ruckebusch and P Thivend), pp. 35–51. AVI Publishing Company, Westport, CT, USA. Google Scholar
Zelditch, ML, Donald, L, Swiderski, H, Sheets, D and Fink, WL 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic Press, Waltham, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Hislop-Jambrich, T and Besier, J 2016. Predictive statistical models of baseline variations in 3D femoral cortex morphology. Medical Engineering and Physics 38, 450–457.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Malcolm, D, Hislop-Jambrich, J, Thomas, CDL and Nielsen, P 2013. An anatomical region-based statistical shape model of the human femur. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization 2, 176–185.Google Scholar