Literature DB >> 25331972

Randomised prospective study compares efficacy of five different stomach tubes for rumen fluid sampling in dairy cows.

S Steiner1, A Neidl1, N Linhart1, A Tichy2, J Gasteiner3, K Gallob3, W Baumgartner1, T Wittek1.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare the performance of five types of stomach tubes for rumen fluid sampling. Rumen fluid was sampled in rumen fistulated cows assigned to a 5×5 Latin square study design. The pH values of samples taken by stomach tubes and via fistulas were measured; the results were compared with indwelling sensor measurements. The practicability of the stomach tubes for regular use was tested in the field. Rumen fluid samples were obtained rapidly. Volumes for transfaunation could be obtained. The pH-values of samples taken with the four out of the five tubes (Dirksen, Geishauser, tube 4 and a simple water hose used with a gag) did not show significant differences to samples taken via rumen fistulas. Mean differences ranged between -0.02 and +0.09. Samples taken with tube 4 and the water hose showed also no significant differences to pH-sensor measurements. This study demonstrates that stomach tubes are suitable for rumen fluid sampling. Tube 4 seems to be the best probe for work in the field. It was well tolerated by the animals, saliva contamination is negligible. We, therefore, conclude that the evaluation of rumen acid base status in the field is possible. British Veterinary Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dairy cow; diagnosis; rumen fluid; subacute ruminal acidosis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25331972     DOI: 10.1136/vr.102399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Rec        ISSN: 0042-4900            Impact factor:   2.695


  5 in total

1.  Rumen Bacterial Community Composition in Holstein and Jersey Cows Is Different under Same Dietary Condition and Is Not Affected by Sampling Method.

Authors:  Henry A Paz; Christopher L Anderson; Makala J Muller; Paul J Kononoff; Samodha C Fernando
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 5.640

2.  Rumen Bacteria Communities and Performances of Fattening Lambs with a Lower or Greater Subacute Ruminal Acidosis Risk.

Authors:  Fei Li; Zhilan Wang; Chunxiao Dong; Fadi Li; Weimin Wang; Zehu Yuan; Futao Mo; Xiuxiu Weng
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  Rumen sampling methods bias bacterial communities observed.

Authors:  Jill V Hagey; Maia Laabs; Elizabeth A Maga; Edward J DePeters
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Effect of Feeding Improved Grass Hays and Eragrostis Tef Straw Silage on Milk Yield, Nitrogen Utilization, and Methane Emission of Lactating Fogera Dairy Cows in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Shigdaf Mekuriaw; Atsushi Tsunekawa; Toshiyoshi Ichinohe; Firew Tegegne; Nigussie Haregeweyn; Nobuyuki Kobayashi; Asaminew Tassew; Yeshambel Mekuriaw; Misganaw Walie; Mitsuru Tsubo; Toshiya Okuro; Derege Tsegaye Meshesha; Mulugeta Meseret; Laiju Sam; Veerle Fievez
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of rumen transfaunation.

Authors:  Simone Steiner; Nina Linhart; Anita Neidl; Walter Baumgartner; Alexander Tichy; Thomas Wittek
Journal:  J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl)       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 2.130

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.