Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:29:41.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ruminant digestion and metabolism on phenolic monomers of forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Hans-Joachim G. Jung ,
George C. Fahey Jr  and
Neal R. Merchen
Hans-Joachim G. Jung
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
George C. Fahey Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Neal R. Merchen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Immature and mature lucerne (Medicago sativa) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) hays were analysed for their lignin and phenolic monomer (hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives) contents. These hays were given to four sheep with rumen, duodenal and ileal cannulas, and to a steer with rumen and abomasal cannulas, to investigate the extent and sites of digestion of lignin and phenolic monomers.

2. The hays and digesta samples were analysed for alkali and nitrobenzene-extractablephenolic monomers. Lanthanum oxide was used as an external marker in the digestion studies. Urine was also collected for estimates of total phenolic balance.

3. Grass hays contained greater concentrations of alkali-labile phenolic monomers than did legume hays, whereas legume hays had higher levels of nitrobenzene oxidation products. Mature tall fescue hay had greater concentrations of phenolic monomers than did immature tall fescue hay, but corresponding differences with maturity were not observed with lucerne hays.

4. There were quantitative differences between diets in the digestibilities and in the sites of digestion of phenolic monomers. Digestibilities ranged from 0·191 to 1·004 for alkali-labile compounds and from −1·137 to 0·868 for nitrobenzene oxidation products. Composition of lignin was altered during its passage through the digestive tract. The proportion of phenolic monomers not recovered in urine and faeces varied from −1·014 to 0·871 for individual compounds and differed between diets. Soluble phenolic monomers decreased in concentration as digesta passed from the rumen to the abomasum and duodenum, but increased again in the ileum; levels varied with diet. Phenolics were rapidly solubilized in the rumen after feeding.

5. Results indicate that forages differ in their phenolic monomer content and in the digestibility of these compounds. Therefore, lignin is not an inert compound in the digestive tract of ruminants as has been previously reported.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 1983 , pp. 637 - 651
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Akin, D. E. (1980). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 40, 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akin, D. E. (1982). Agronomy Journal 74, 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allinson, D. W. & Osbourn, D. F. (1970). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. H. A. & Buckerfield, J. C. (1979). Soil Biology and Biochemistry 11, 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, A., Stewart, C. S. & Wallace, R. J. (1982). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 44, 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). Journal of Nutrition 15, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cymbaluk, N. F., Gordon, A. J. & Neudoerffer, T. S. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 29, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, G. C. Jr, Al-Haydari, S. Y., Hinds, F. C. & Short, D. E. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 50, 1165–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, G. C. Jr, McLaren, G. A. & Williams, J. E. (1979). Journal of Animal Science 48, 941–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, E. B., Elliot, R. F., Swift, R. W., James, W. H. & Smith, V. F. (1946). Journal of Animal Science 5, 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, B. D. E. & Richards, G. N. (1975). Carbohydrate Research 42, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, M. S., Nelson, O. E. & Kuc, J. (1968). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 123, 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, Z. (1981). Journal of Nutrition 111, 1910–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). USDA Agricultural Handbook 379. Washington, DC:USDA.Google Scholar
Gray, D. H. & Vogt, J. R. (1974). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 22, 144–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, R. D. (1971). Journal of Chromatography 54, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, R. D. & Buchan, H. (1979). Journal of Chromatography 180, 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, R. D. & Jones, E. C. (1977). Phytochemistry 16, 1531–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, R. D., Jones, E. C. & Wood, T. M. (1976). Phytochemistry 15, 305–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnell, G. F. & Satter, L. D. (1979). Journal of Animal Science 48, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joslyn, M. A. & Glick, Z. (1969). Journal of Nutrition 98, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. G. & Fahey, G. C. Jr (1983 a). Journal of Animal Science 57, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. G. & Fahey, G. C. Jr (1983 b). Journal of Dairy Science 66, 1265–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. G. & Fahey, G. C. Jr (1983 c). Journal of Nutrition 113, 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. G., Fahey, G. C. Jr & Garst, J. E. (1983). Journal of Animal Science (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1950). Journal of Nutrition 41, 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. K. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muntifering, R. B., DeGregorio, R. M. & Deetz, L. E. (1981). Nutrition Reports International 24, 543–549.Google Scholar
Neilson, M. J. & Richards, G. N. (1978). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodwell, V. W. (1979). In Review of Physiological Chemistry, pp. 406–429 [Harper, H. A., Rodwell, V. W. and Mayes, P. A., editors]. Los Altos, California: Lange Medical Publications.Google Scholar
Scheline, R. R. (1978). Mammalian Metabolism of Plant Xenobiotics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Theander, O., Uden, P. & Aman, P. (1981). Agriculture and Environment 6, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar