Vet Med - Czech, 2008, 53(10):525-532 | DOI: 10.17221/1968-VETMED

Morphology of small intestinal mucosa and intestinal weight change with metabolic type of cattle

R. Zitnan1,3, J. Voigt1, S. Kuhla1, J. Wegner2, A. Chudy1, U. Schoenhusen1, M. Brna3, M. Zupcanova3, H. Hagemeister1
1 Research Unit Nutritional Physiology "Oskar Kellner",
2 Research Unit Muscle Biology & Growth, Research Institute for the Biology of Farm Animals, Dummerstorf, Germany
3 Slovak Agricultural Research Centre, Research Institute of Animal Production, Department of Animal Nutrition, Nitra, Slovak Republic

The objective of this study was to investigate rumen fermentation, apparent digestibility of nutrients, and morphology of ruminal und intestinal mucosa in two cattle breeds of different metabolic type. From each breed six purebred German Holstein (H) bulls representing the secretion type and six Charolais (CH) bulls representing the accretion type were raised and fattened under identical conditions with semi ad libitum feeding of a high energy diet. The animals were used for a digestion trial started at nine months of age and animals were slaughtered at 18 months of age. Body weight (668 vs. 764 kg, P = 0.011), body weight gain (1 223 vs. 1 385 g/day, P = 0.043), and body protein gain (93 vs. 128 g/day, P = 0.001) were lower in H compared to CH bulls. Protein expense per kg protein accretion was higher in H bulls (13.8 vs. 10.2, P = 0.001). No significant differences were found in concentration and pattern of ruminal short chain fatty acid and in apparent digestibility of organic matter, crude fibre, and N-free extracts. There were no significant differencs in all morphometric traits of rumen mucosa between both cattle breeds. Compared to H, the villi of CH bulls were higher in duodenum (586 vs. 495 μm, P = 0.001) and proximal jejunum (598 vs. 518μm, P < 0.001), the crypt were deeper in duodenum (295 vs. 358, P< 0.001) and proximal jejunum (292 vs. 344 μm, P = 0.020). In contrast, the villi in ileum were higher in H (522 vs. 471 μm, P = 0.006). The weight of total small intestine, as percentage of total body weight, was 1.1 in H and 0.8 in CH (P = 0.002). The utilization of food crude protein was positively related to the duodenal (P = 0.001) and proximal jejunal villus height (P = 0.003) and to the duodenal crypt depth (P < 0.001) and negatively related to weight of small intestine (P = 0.004). It is concluded, that the higher growth potential and feed efficiency in CH bulls compared to H bulls is not caused by differences in digestion processes, but in size of small intestine, and morphology of small intestinal mucosa. Obviously the duodenum and proximal jejunum of CH bulls adapt to increase the absorptive surface due to the increase in nutrient demand.

Keywords: cattle; German Holstein; Charolais; rumen fermentation; nutrient digestibility; ruminal and intestinal mucosa morphology

Published: October 31, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Zitnan R, Voigt J, Kuhla S, Wegner J, Chudy A, Schoenhusen U, et al.. Morphology of small intestinal mucosa and intestinal weight change with metabolic type of cattle. Vet Med - Czech. 2008;53(10):525-532. doi: 10.17221/1968-VETMED.
Download citation

References

  1. Bellmann O., Wegner J., Rehfeldt C., Teuscher F., Schneider F., Voigt J., Derno M., Sauerwein H., Weingartner J., Ender K. (2004): Beef versus dairy cattle: a comparison of metabolically relevant hormones, enzymes, and metabolites. Livestock Production Sciences, 89, 41-54. Go to original source...
  2. Cant J.P., McBride B.W., Croom W.J. (1996): The regulation of intestinal metabolism and its impact on whole animal energetics. Journal of Animal Science, 74, 2541-2553. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Chudy A. (2001): Energy and protein metabolism under thermoneutral, energy deficient and protein surplus conditions in genetically different growing bulls (Charolais and German Holstein (Friesian)). In: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Energy Metabolism in Animals; Chwalibog A., Jakobsen K. (eds.): EAAP Publication, 103, Wageningen, 365-368.
  4. Drackley J.K., Donkin S.S., Reynolds C.K. (2006): Major advances in fundamental dairy cattle nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 1324-1336. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. GfE (1995): Recommendations for the Supply of Energy and Nutrients to Fattening Cattle (in German). DLGVerlag, Frankfurt am Main. 85 pp.
  6. Hofmann R.R., Schnorr B. (1982): The Functional Morphology of the Ruminant Stomach (in German). Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart. 170 pp.
  7. Jentsch W., Chudy A., Beyer M. (2000): The Rostock Research for energetic feed evaluation and energy requirement of farm animals. 1. Historical retrospect and the experiments on energetic feed evaluation in Rostock. Ubersichten Tierernahrung, 28, 133-182.
  8. Kuhla S., Baumung A., Weissbach F. (1983): On the determination of crude fat in feedstuffs and feces after the treatment with hydrochloric acid (in German). Archives of Animal Nutrition, 33, 719-730. Go to original source...
  9. Kuhn C., Bellmann O., Voigt J., Wegner J., Guiard V., Ender K. (2002): An experimental approach for studying the genetic and physiological background of nutrient transformation in cattle with respect to secretion and accretion type. Archives of Animal Breeding, 45, 317-330. Go to original source...
  10. Mir P.S., Bailey D.R.C., Mir Z., Morgan Jones S.D., Douwes H., McAllister T.A., Weselake R.J., Lozeman F.J. (1997): Activity of intestinal mucosal membrane carbohydrases in cattle of different breeds. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 77, 441-446. Go to original source...
  11. Naumann C., Bassler R. (1993): Chemical analysis of feedstoffs (in German). VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.
  12. Pfuhl R., Bellmann O., Kuhn C., Teuscher F., Ender K., Wegner J. (2007): Beef versďus dairy cattle: a comparison of feed conversion, carcass composition, and meat quality. Archives of Animal Breeding, 50, 59-70. Go to original source...
  13. Reeds P.J., Burrin D.G., Stoll B., Goudeoever van J.B. (1999): Consequences and regulation of gut metabolism. In: Lobley G.E., White A., McRae J.C. (eds.): Protein Metabolism and Nutrition. EAAP Publ. No. 96, Wageningen Press, Aberdeen, UK. p. 127.
  14. Ren M.Q., Wegner J., Bellmann O., Brockmann G.A., Schneider F., Teuscher F., Ender K. (2002): Comparing mRNS levels of genes encoding leptin, lepton receptor, and lipoprotein lipase between dairy and beef cattle. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, 23, 371-381. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Schaeffer A.N., Caton J.S., Bauer M.L., Redmer D.A., Reynolds L.P. (2003): The effect of pregnancy on visceral growth and energy use in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 81, 1853-1861. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Voigt J., Steger H. (1967): About the determination of ammonia, urea, and ketone bodies in biological material using a modified type of micro diffusion vessel (in German). Archives of Animal Nutrition, 17, 289-293. Go to original source...
  17. Voigt J., Jentsch W., Kuhla S., Matthes H.D., Derno M. (2000): Rumen fermentation and retention time of the digest in growing cattle of the breeds Black-White Dairy Cattle, Galloway, and Highland. Archives of Animal Breeding, 43, 609-620. Go to original source...
  18. Zitnan R., Kuhla S., Nurnberg K., Schoenhusen U., Ceresnakova Z., Sommer A., Baran M., Greserova G., Voigt J. (2003): Influence of the diet on the morphology of ruminal and intestinal mucosa and on intestinal carbohydrase levels in cattle. Veterinarni Medicina, 48, 177-182. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.