Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T02:27:12.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of markers to measure digesta flow from the stomach of sheep fed once daily

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. J. Faichney
G. J. Faichney
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Production, C.S.I.R.O., Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 239, Blacktown, N.S.W., 2148, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two methods for calculating the flow of digesta and its constituents from the concentrations of two markers, 51Cr-labelled chromium EDTA (51Cr-EDTA) and 103Ru-labelled ruthenium phenanthroline (103Ru-P), and digesta composition were compared in fistulated sheep fed once daily and in other fistulated sheep fed continuously. One method uses the marker concentrations to calculate the flow of whole digesta directly (double-marker) whereas the other uses the markers to calculate separately the flow of fluid and non-filtrable particles, the sum of which is digesta flow (two-marker).

When feed was given continuously, flow values calculated using the double-marker method and the two-marker method, which requires a correction to be made for nonideal behaviour of 51Cr-EDTA, did not differ. When feed was given once daily, the double-marker method consistently overestimated flow relative to the corrected twomarker method but the differences were extremely small (less than 0-8% for digesta flow and 0-5% for nitrogen flow). 51Cr-EDTA as a single marker slightly overestimated digesta flow (up to 2·3%) but grossly overestimated nitrogen flow (up to 22·5%); 103Ru-P as a single marker grossly underestimated both digesta flow (up to 30·5 %) and nitrogen flow (up to 23·1%).

It was concluded that the double-marker method is to be preferred when the diet is given continuously or frequently at fixed intervals. When the diet is given once daily, the two- and double-marker methods can be expected to give similar values. Single markers should not be used for estimating the flow of digesta and its constituents when samples are taken from a simple cannula.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 313 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Beever, D. E., Kellaway, E. C., Thompson, 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
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). The chromium-51 complex of ethylene-diamine tetra-acetic acid as a soluble rumen marker. British Journal of Nutrition 18, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, M. J., Holmes, J. H. G. & Garrett, W. N. (1970). A comparison of markers for estimating the magnitude of rumen digestion. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 961–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, W. v. (1974). Radioactive reference substances in gastro-intestinal studies. In Tracer Techniques in Tropical Animal Production, pp. 111–124. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1972 a) Digestion by sheep of concentrate diets containing formaldehyde-treated peanut meal. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1972 b). An assessment of chromic oxide as an indigestible marker for digestion studies in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. Armidale, N. S. W.: University of New England.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. & White, G. A. (1977). Formaldehyde treatment of concentrate diets for sheep. 1. Partition of the digestion of organic matter and nitrogen between the stomach and intestines. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 1055–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1973). Intestinal digestion of subterranean clover by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1967). The digestion of chopped and ground roughages by sheep. II. The digestion of nitrogen and some carbohydrate fractions in the stomach and intestines. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotb, A. R. & Luckey, T. D. (1972). Markers in nutrition. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 42, 813–845.Google ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th edn.Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Use of 102Ru-labelled tris (1, 10-phenanthroline) Ruthenium II chloride as a marker in digestion studies with sheep. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, A. C. I. (1969). Binding of the 51Cr complex of ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid to particulate matter in the rumen. Veterinary Record 84, 441–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1967). The digestion of chopped and ground roughages by sheep. I. The movement of digesta through the stomach. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 789–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar