Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Caecectomy on Body Weight Gain, Intestinal Characteristics and Enteric Gas Production in Goslings

  • Chen, Yieng-How (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Tunghai University) ;
  • Wang, Shu-Yin (Department of Animal Science, Chinese Culture University) ;
  • Hsu, Jenn-Chung (Department of Animal Science, National Chung-Hsing University)
  • Received : 2002.11.18
  • Accepted : 2003.04.16
  • Published : 2003.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Two experiments of four-week duration were conducted to investigate the effect of caecectomy on the intestinal characteristics, body weight gain and gas production in the caeca of White Roman goslings. In experiment I, forty eight 2-wk-old female goslings with similar body weight were randomly divided into four treatments: sham (SHAM), left side caecum removed (LSCR), right side caecum removed (RSCR) and both caeca removed (CAECECTOMY). Smimilarly, experiment II was conducted with twelve 5-wkold male goslings in two treatments: SHAM and CAECECTOMY. Free choice water with ad libitum feed was provided during experiment. At the end of experiment I, goslings were sacrificed and gut length and weight were determined. At 7 and 9 wks of age, birds in experiment II were subjected to respiration calorimetry studies. In both experiments, final body weights were not affected by caecectomy. Results of experiment I indicated that caecectomy did not significantly affect the relative weight (g/100 g BW) of gizzard, small intestine, rectum and colon (p>0.05); however, the relative length of colon and rectum did increase (p<0.05). The remaining caecum did not show compensatory growth in both LSCR and RSCR treatments. In experiment II, results indicated that the average enteric methane production from the caecetomised goslings was significantly lower than that from the bird in SHAM goslings (p<0.05). In comparison with SHAM goslings, calorific loss from entric methane in caecetomised birds was lower (p<0.05). There was no effect of age on methane production. The enteric nitrous oxide production in caeca of goslings was very low with no significantly different between two treatments.

Keywords

References

  1. Annison, E. F., K. J. Kill and R. Kenworthy. 1968. Volatile fatty acids in the digestive tract of the fowl. Br. J. Nutr. 22:207-216. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19680026
  2. Bjornhang, G. and I. Seperber. 1977. Transport of various food components through the digestive tract of turkey, geese, and guinea fowl. Swedish J. Agric. Res. 7:57-66.
  3. Chang, D. C. 1998. Effect of $\beta$-glucanase supplementation of corn diet replaced by barley on growth performance of broiler. Master thesis, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  4. Chen, Y. H., J. C. Hsu and B. Yu. 1992. Effects of dietary fiber levels on growth performance, intestinal fermentation and cellulase activity of goslings. J. Chin. Soc. Anim. Sci. 21(2):15-28. (in Chinese)
  5. Chen, Y. H., H. K. Hsu and J. C. Hsu. 2002a. Studies on the fine structure of caeca in domestic geese. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 15(7):1018-1021. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1018
  6. Chen, Y. H., F. M. Pan and J. C. Hsu. 2002b. The Caecectomy of Geese. Taiwan Vet. J. 28(1):74-79. (in Chinses)
  7. Clemens, E. T., C. E. Stevenes and M. Southworth. 1975. Site of organic acid production and pattern of digesta movement in gastrointestinal tract of geese. J. Nutr. 105:1341-1350.
  8. Czerkawski, J. W. 1986. An introduction to rumen studies, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 219.
  9. Gasaway W. C. 1976a. Seasonal variation in diet, volatile fatty acids production and size of the caecum of rock ptarmigan. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 53A:109-114.
  10. Gasaway, W. C. 1976b. Methane production in rock ptarmigan (lagopus mutus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 54A:183-185.
  11. Huang, D. J. and S. Y. Wang. 2000. Estimation of greenhouse gas emission from white broiler industry in Taiwan. J. Chin. Soc. Anim. Sci. 29(1):65-75. (in Chinese)
  12. Hungate, R. W. 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New York. p.272.
  13. Mattocks, J. G. 1971. Goose feeding and cellulose digestion. Wildlfowl 22:107-113.
  14. Maynard, L. A., J. K. Loosli, H. F. Hintz and R. G. Warner. 1979. Animal Nutrition, Seven Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, USA. pp. 88-101.
  15. McBee, R. H. 1969. Cecal fermentation in the willow ptarmigan. Conder 71:54-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366048
  16. SAS, 1996. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Fourth Ed. Vol. 2, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. USA.
  17. Smith, C. J. and M. P. Bryant. 1979. Introduction to metabolic activities of intestinal bacteria. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:149-157.
  18. Tsukahara, T. and K. Ushida. 2000. Effects of animal or plant protein diets on cecal fermentation in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus), rats (Rattus norvegicus) and chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 127A:139-146.

Cited by

  1. Avian Physiology: Are Birds Simply Feathered Mammals? vol.11, pp.None, 2003, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.542466
  2. Review: Methanogens and methane production in the digestive systems of nonruminant farm animals vol.15, pp.1, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100060