Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T13:20:19.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A relationship between the molar proportion of propionic acid and the clearance rate of the liquid phase in the rumen of the sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

J. C. Hodgson  and
P. C. Thomas
J. C. Hodgson
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
P. C. Thomas
Affiliation:
The Hannah Research Institute, Ayr KA6 5HL
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. Four rumen-cannulated sheep were given a forage mixture (F) of chopped hay–ground, pelleted, dried grass (92:8, w/w) and two concentrate mixtures (C and S) of ground barley–ground hay–flaked maize (46:24:30 and 56:24:20, by wt respectively) in twenty-four hourly meals each day. Each of the diets was offered in successive periods of 16 d to give a feeding sequence F–S–C–S for one pair of sheep and C–S–F–S for the other pair.

2. The average composition (mol/100 mol) of the mixture of short-chain fatty acids, acetic, propionic and butyric, in the rumen was respectively 70·1, 18·5 and 7·5 with diet F, and 55·8, 24·8 and 13·6 with diet C. With diet S, the pattern of fermentation varied both between animals and in the same animal for different periods having either ‘high’(28–39 mol/100 mol) or ‘low’(16–21 mol/100 mol) proportions of propionic acid. On average when diet S followed diet F there was less propionic acid in the fermentation mixture than when diet S followed diet C (59·3 acetic, 22·2 propionic and 14·I butyric as compared with 52·7, 29·4 and 13·I respectively) but this trend was not significant and there was evidence of interactions between the feeding sequences and the individual sheep.

3. The mean concentrations of ammonia, sodium, potassium and chloride were similar for all diets but the pH and concentrations of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus tended to be higher and the buffering capacity lower for diet F than for diets C or S. In animals receiving diet S there was no relationship between the concentrations of minerals, the pH or buffering capacity and the pattern of fermentation except for ammonia, the concentration of which was high when the molar proportion of propionic acid was low.

4. Rumen volume, outflow rate and clearance rate, determined using polyethylene glycol, were higher for diet F than for diets C and S but within each diet, particularly for diet S, values varied considerably between sheep and between periods.

5. There was evidence of an interrelationship between the molar proportion of propionic acid in the fermentation products and the clearance rate, which indicated that the clearance rate may be an important factor influencing the pattern of fermentation in the rumen.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 447 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Annison, E. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonting, S. L., Simon, K. A. & Hawkins, N. M. (1960). Archs Biochem. Biophys. 95, 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C. & Freer, M. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, W. C., Woods, W. & Burroughs, W. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error. London: Crosby, Lockwood & Sons.Google Scholar
Davies, W. L. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmanuel, B., Lawlor, M. J. & McAleese, D. M. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. (1965). J. gen. Microbiol. 38, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. C. & Thomas, P. C. (1972). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 31, 57A.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ishaque, M., Thomas, P. C. & Rook, J. A. F. (1971). Nature New Biol. 231, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meers, J. L. (1971). J. gen. Microbiol. 67, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Cowper, J. L. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, E. O. (1958). J. gen. Microbiol. 18, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1959).J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Millard, D. (1965). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 16, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, A. D., Sirny, R. J. & MacVicar, R. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1966). J. gen. Microbiol. 45, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1967). Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssef, F. G. & Allen, D. M. (1966). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 17, 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar