| Literature DB >> 19523238 |
Hanne Christine Bertram1, Bent Ole Petersen, Jens Ø Duus, Mogens Larsen, Birgitte-Marie L Raun, Niels Bastian Kristensen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown which metabolites are responsible for propylene glycol (PG)-induced toxicosis, and a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms explaining incidences of abnormal behaviour of dairy cows fed PG is therefore needed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19523238 PMCID: PMC2711073 DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
Composition of pelleted concentrate1
| WeiPass2 | 49 |
| Soya meal | 15 |
| Grass meal | 10 |
| Sugar beet pulp | 10 |
| Molasses, beet | 7 |
| Leci-E3 | 3 |
| Propylene glycol | 2.5 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 1.5 |
| Mineral mix | 1.1 |
| Calcium carbonate | 0.5 |
| MetaSmart4 | 0.4 |
| Monocalcium phosphate | 0.3 |
1 The dry matter content was 96.6% and the concentrate contained (% of dry matter): crude protein (N × 6.25), 26; neutral detergent fiber, 19; ash, 8; ether extract 5. The in vitro digestibility of the concentrate was 96.2%.
2 Ruminal protected wheat (Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft Nord AG, Kiel, Germany)
3 Vegetable fat (Leci-E; Evilec, Kolding, Denmark) with 50% rape seed and soybean lecithin and natural α-tocopherol containing (per kg DM): 950 g crude fat, 836 g fatty acids and 2000 mg RRR-α-tocopherol.
4 Isopropyl ester of methionine hydroxyanalog (Adisseo, Antony, France).
Figure 1Oxygen saturation (sO.
Figure 2Oxygen pressure (pO.
Figure 3Carbon dioxide pressure (pCO.
Figure 4Principal component analysis score plot showing the two first principal components (PCs) for (A) arterial, and (B) portal plasma samples. Labels on axes show how much of the variation in the data that is explained by the PCs. Sample id: The two normal cows are represented by 'O', while the cow responding abnormally to PG is represented by 'X'. Subscript in sample id shows sampling time in hours after feeding, "pre" representing samples obtained before feeding.
Figure 5. The arrows indicate the signals that are lower in intensity in the cow responding abnormally to PG supplementation compared with the two control cows: 1: isopropanol/isobutyrate, 2: β-hydroxybutyrate, 3:acetate, 4: acetoacetate, and 5: acetone.
Figure 6Principal component analysis score plot showing the two first principal components for ruminal fluid samples. Labels on axes show how much of the variation in the data that is explained by the PCs. Sample id: The two normal cows are represented by 'O', while the cow responding abnormally to propylene glycol is represented by 'X'. Subscript in sample id shows sampling time in hours after feeding, "pre" representing samples obtained before feeding.
Figure 7. The arrows indicate the signals that are lower in intensity in the cow responding abnormally to PG supplementation compared with the two control cows: 1: isopropanol/isobutyrate, 2: lactate, 3: acetate, 4: acetone, 5: citrate, 6: methyl acetate, 7: various smaller esters and alcohols.
Figure 8. The arrows show signals that have been assigned to propanol. The signals from propanol are considerably higher in intensity in the cow responding abnormally to PG compared with the two control cows.