Rotta P P, Valadares Filho S C, Detmann E, Costa e Silva L F, Paulino M F, Marcondes M I, Lobo A A G, Villadiego F A C
Federal University of Viçosa, Animal Science Department, 36571-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil Colorado State University, Animal Science Department, Fort Collins 80523
Federal University of Viçosa, Animal Science Department, 36571-000, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
J Anim Sci. 2014 Jul;92(7):2996-3006. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-7364. Epub 2014 Apr 28.
The objective of this experiment was to assess ruminal outflow and apparent total-tract digestibility using digesta samples from 3 sites (reticulum, omasum, and abomasum) and 3 marker methods (single marker: indigestible NDF [iNDF; sample without separation]; double marker: iNDF + Co-EDTA [filtered sample]; and triple marker: iNDF + ytterbium [Yb] acetate + Co-EDTA [filtered and centrifuged]) in bulls fed corn silage and sugarcane-based diets. Eight crossbred (Holstein × Zebu) bulls (353 ± 37 kg of BW; 24 ± 1 mo of age) with ruminal and abomasal cannulas were randomly distributed into two 4 × 4 Latin squares that were balanced for residual effects. The following experimental diets were used: 1) 60% corn silage + 40% concentrate, 2) 40% corn silage + 60% concentrate, 3) 60% fresh sugarcane + 40% concentrate, and 4) 40% fresh sugarcane + 60% concentrate. Reticular, omasal, and abomasal digesta samples were collected at 9-h intervals over 3 d. At the end of the experiment, a composite sample was prepared for each bull, and these samples were subsequently assigned to the 3 marker methods. The concentrations of CP, NDF, and iNDF of reticular digesta differed (P < 0.01) from those of the omasum and abomasum. Use of omasal and abomasal samples led to similar estimates of ruminal outflow and ruminal digestibility for DM (P = 0.65), OM (P = 0.68), CP (P = 0.85), and NDF (P = 0.57). In contrast, the ruminal outflow of digesta based on reticular sampling appeared to be underestimated. We recommend sampling from the omasum because sampling from this region is less invasive than sampling from the abomasum. Although we did not observe differences in ruminal NDF digestibility among the different marker methods, we did observe that ruminal digestibility of CP was greater for the single marker method than for the double and triple marker methods; we therefore recommend the use of the double or triple marker method.
本实验的目的是使用来自3个部位(瘤胃、瓣胃和皱胃)的消化物样本以及3种标记方法(单一标记:不可消化中性洗涤纤维[iNDF];样本未分离)、双重标记:iNDF + 钴乙二胺四乙酸[Co-EDTA](过滤后的样本)和三重标记:iNDF + 醋酸镱[Yb] + Co-EDTA(过滤并离心后的样本),评估以玉米青贮和甘蔗为基础日粮的公牛的瘤胃流出率和表观全消化道消化率。八头装有瘤胃和皱胃瘘管的杂交(荷斯坦×瘤牛)公牛(体重353±37千克;年龄24±1月龄)被随机分配到两个4×4拉丁方中,以平衡残留效应。使用了以下实验日粮:1)60%玉米青贮 + 40%精料,2)40%玉米青贮 + 60%精料,3)60%新鲜甘蔗 + 40%精料,4)40%新鲜甘蔗 + 60%精料。在3天内每隔9小时采集瘤胃、瓣胃和皱胃的消化物样本。在实验结束时,为每头公牛制备了一个混合样本,随后将这些样本分配到3种标记方法中。瘤胃消化物中粗蛋白(CP)、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和iNDF的浓度与瓣胃和皱胃的浓度不同(P < 0.01)。使用瓣胃和皱胃样本对干物质(DM)(P = 0.65)、有机物(OM)(P = 0.68)、CP(P = 0.85)和NDF(P = 0.57)的瘤胃流出率和瘤胃消化率的估计相似。相比之下,基于瘤胃采样的消化物瘤胃流出率似乎被低估了。我们建议从瓣胃采样,因为从该区域采样比从皱胃采样侵入性更小。尽管我们没有观察到不同标记方法之间瘤胃NDF消化率的差异,但我们确实观察到单一标记方法的瘤胃CP消化率高于双重和三重标记方法;因此,我们建议使用双重或三重标记方法。