Small intestine histomorphometry of beef cattle with divergent feed efficiency

Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica

Yuri Montanholi²  Ananda Fontoura¹  Kendall Swanson⁵  Brenda Coomber³  Shigeto Yamashiro³  Stephen Miller⁴ 

[1] Universidade Federal do Pará, Avenida Universitária s/n, 68745-000, Castanhal, Pará, Brasil

[2] Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, 70-50 Stone Road East, Guelph, N1G 2W1, ON, Canada

[3] Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Guelph, 3-50 Stone Road East, Guelph, N1G 2W1, ON, Canada

[4] Livestock Gentec, 1400 College Plaza 8215-112 Street, Edmonton, T6G 2C8, AB, Canada

[5] Department of Animal Sciences, North Dakota State University, PO box 6050, Fargo, 58108-6050, ND, USA

关键词: Residual feed intake;    Intestinal crypts;    Intestinal epithelium;    Ileum;    Functional workload;    Duodenum;    Bovine;   

Others  :  789414
DOI  :  10.1186/1751-0147-55-9

 received in 2012-11-06, accepted in 2013-02-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The provision of feed is a major cost in beef production. Therefore, the improvement of feed efficiency is warranted. The direct assessment of feed efficiency has limitations and alternatives are needed. Small intestine micro-architecture is associated with function and may be related to feed efficiency. The objective was to verify the potential histomorphological differences in the small intestine of animals with divergent feed efficiency.

Methods

From a population of 45 feedlot steers, 12 were selected with low-RFI (superior feed efficiency) and 12 with high-RFI (inferior feed efficiency) at the end of the finishing period. The animals were processed at 13.79 ± 1.21 months of age. Within 1.5 h of slaughter the gastrointestinal tract was collected and segments from duodenum and ileum were harvested. Tissue fragments were processed, sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Photomicroscopy images were taken under 1000x magnification. For each animal 100 intestinal crypts were imaged, in a cross section view, from each of the two intestinal segments. Images were analyzed using the software ImageJ®. The measurements taken were: crypt area, crypt perimeter, crypt lumen area, nuclei number and the cell size was indirectly calculated. Data were analyzed using general linear model and correlation procedures of SAS®.

Results

Efficient beef steers (low-RFI) have a greater cellularity (indicated by nuclei number) in the small intestinal crypts, both in duodenum and ileum, than less efficient beef steers (high-RFI) (P < 0.05). The mean values for the nuclei number of the low-RFI and high-RFI groups were 33.16 and 30.30 in the duodenum and 37.21 and 33.65 in the ileum, respectively. The average size of the cells did not differ between feed efficiency groups in both segments (P ≥ 0.10). A trend was observed (P ≤ 0.10) for greater crypt area and crypt perimeter in the ileum for cattle with improved feed efficiency.

Conclusion

Improved feed efficiency is associated with greater cellularity and no differences on average cell size in the crypts of the small intestine in the bovine. These observations are likely to lead to an increase in the energy demand by the small intestine regardless of the more desirable feed efficiency.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Montanholi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Herd RM, Archer JA, Arthur PF: Reducing the cost of beef production through genetic improvement in residual feed intake: opportunity and challenges to application. J Anim Sci 2003, 81(Suppl. 1):E9-E17.
• [2]Maddock TD, Lamb GC: The Economic Impact of Feed Efficiency in Beef Cattle. [http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an217 webcite]
• [3]Nkrumah JD, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Schmid K, Li C, Basarab JA, Price MA, Wang Z, Moore SS: Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2006, 84:145-153.
• [4]Hegarty SR, Goopy JP, Herd RM, McCorkell B: Cattle selected for lower residual feed intake have reduced daily methane production. J Anim Sci 2007, 85:1479-1486.
• [5]Arthur PF, Archer JA, Herd RM: Feed intake and efficiency in beef cattle: overview of recent Australian research and challenges for the future. Aust J Exp Agr 2004, 44:361-369.
• [6]Herd RM, Oddy VH, Richardson EC: Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Aust J Exp Agr 2004, 44:423-430.
• [7]Richardson EC, Herd RM, Archer JA, Arthur PF: Metabolic differences in angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Aust J Exp Agr 2004, 44:441-452.
• [8]Montanholi YR, Swanson KC, Palme R, Schenkel FS, McBride BW, Lu D, Miller SP: Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior, infrared thermography and glucocorticoids. Animal 2010, 4:692-701.
• [9]Schenkel FS, Miller SP, Wilton JW: Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency, growth, and body composition traits of young beef bulls. Can J Anim Sci 2004, 84:177-185.
• [10]Chen Y, Gondro C, Quinn K, Herd RM, Parnell PF, Vanselow B: Global gene expression profiling reveals genes expressed differentially in cattle with high and low residual feed intake. Anim Genet 2010, 42:475-490.
• [11]Mujibi FDN, Nkrumah JD, Durunna ON, Grant JR, Mah J, Wang Z, Basarab J, Plastow G, Crews DH Jr, Moore SS: Associations of marker panel scores with feed intake and efficiency traits in beef cattle using preselected single nucleotide polymorphisms. J Anim Sci 2011, 89:3362-3371.
• [12]Bingham GM, Friend TH, Lancaster PA, Carstens GE: Relationship between feeding behavior and residual feed intake in growing Brangus heifers. J Anim Sci 2009, 87:2685-2689.
• [13]Koch RM, Swiger LA, Chambers D, Gregory KE: Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 1963, 22:486-494.
• [14]Archer JA, Arthur PF, Herd RM, Parnell PF, Pitchford WS: Optimum postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in British breed cattle. J Anim Sci 1997, 75:2024-2032.
• [15]Herd RM, Bishop SC: Genetic variation in residual feed intake and its association with other production traits in British Hereford cattle. Livest Prod Sci 2000, 63:111-119.
• [16]Herd RM, Arthur PF: Physiological basis for residual feed intake. J Anim Sci 2009, 87:E64-E71.
• [17]Wang Z, Colazo MG, Basarab JA, Goonewardene LA, Ambrose DJ, Marques E, Plastow G, Miller SP, Moore SS: Impact of selection for residual feed intake on breeding soundness and reproductive performance of bulls on pastured-based multi-sire mating. J Anim Sci 2012, 90:2963-2969.
• [18]Lindholm-Perry AK, Kuehn LA, Snelling WM, Smith TPL, Ferrell CL, Jenkings TG, Andy King D, Schakelford SD, Wheeler TL, Freetly CH: Genetic markers on BTA14 predictive for residual feed intake in beef steers and their effects on carcass and meat quality traits. Anim Genet 2012, 43:599-603.
• [19]Kolath WH, Kerley MS, Golden JW, Shahid SA, Johnson GS: The relationships among mitochondrial uncoupling protein 2 and 3 expression, mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid single nucleotide polymorphisms, and residual feed intake in Angus steers. J Anim Sci 2006, 84:1761-1766.
• [20]Britton R, Krehbiel C: Nutrient metabolism by gut tissues. J Dairy Sci 1993, 76:2125-2131.
• [21]Baldwin RL: Modeling ruminant digestion and metabolism. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995.
• [22]Johnson DE, Johnson KA, Baldwin RL: Changes in liver and gastrointestinal tract energy demands in response to physiological workload in ruminants. J Nutr 1990, 90:0022-3166.
• [23]Piersma T, Lindström A: Rapid reversible changes in organ size as a component of adaptive behaviour. Trends Ecol Evol 1997, 12:134-138.
• [24]Zitnan R, Voigt J, Kuhla S, Wegner J, Chudy A, Schoenhusen U, Brna M, Zupcanova M, Hagemeister H: Morphology of small intestinal mucosa and intestinal weight change with metabolic type of cattle. Vet Med-Czech 2003, 53:525-532.
• [25]Chappel VL, Thompson MD, Jeschke MG, Chung DH, Thompson JC, Wolf SE: Effects of incremental starvation on gut mucosa. Digest Dis Sci 2003, 48:765-769.
• [26]Dunel-Erb S, Chevalier C, Laurent P, Bach A, Decrock F, Le Maho Y: Restoration of the jejunal mucosa in rats refed after prolonged fasting. Comp Biochem Phys A 2001, 129:9330-9947.
• [27]Starck JM, Beese K: Structural flexibility of the intestine of Burmese phyton in response to feeding. J Exp Biol 2001, 204:325-335.
• [28]Baker SD, Szasz JI, Klein TA, Kuber PS, Hunt CW, Glaze JB Jr, Falk D, Richard R, Miller JC, Battaglia RA, Hill RA: Residual feed intake of purebred Angus steers: effects on meat quality and palatability. J Anim Sci 2006, 84:938-945.
• [29]Mader CJ, Montanholi YR, Wang YJ, Miller SP, Mandell IB, McBride BW, Swanson KC: Relationships among measures of growth performance and efficiency with carcass traits, visceral organ mass, and pancreatic digestive enzymes in feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 2008, 87:1548-1557.
• [30]Montanholi YR, Swanson KC, Schenkel FS, McBride BW, Caldwell TR, Miller SP: On determination of residual feed intake and associations of infrared thermography with efficiency and ultrasound traits in beef bulls. Livest Sci 2009, 125:22-30.
• [31]Getty R: Sisson and Grossman’s the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. Oxford: W.B. Saunders; 1975.
• [32]Carson FL: Histotechnology: A self-Instructional Text. Hong Kong: American Society of Clinical Pathologists; 1997.
• [33]Webster AJF: Energy cost of digestion and metabolism in the gut. In Proceedings of the 5thInternational Symposium on ruminant Physiology: 3–7 September 1979; Clermont. Edited by Ruckebusch Y, Thivend P. Lancaster: MTP Press; 1980:469-484.
• [34]McBride BW, Kelly JM: Energy cost of absorption and metabolism in the ruminant gastrointestinal tract and liver: a review. J Anim Sci 1990, 68:2997-3010.
• [35]Cheng H, Leblond CP: Origin, differentiation and renewal of the four main epithelial cell types in the mouse small intestine 1. Columnar cell. Am J Anat 1974, 141:461-480.
• [36]Hall PA, Coates PJ, Ansari B, Hopwood D: Regulation of cell number in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract: the importance of apoptosis. J Cell Sci 1994, 107:3569-3577.
• [37]Crosnier C, Stamataki D, Lewis J: Organizing cell renewal in the intestine: stem cells, signals and combinatorial control. Nature 2006, 7:349-359.
• [38]Cant JP, McBride BW, Croom WJ Jr: The regulation of intestinal metabolism and its impacts on whole animal energetics. J Anim Sci 1996, 74:2541-2553.
• [39]McBride BW, Milligan LP: The effect of lactation on ouabain-sensitive respiration of duodenal mucosa of cows. Can J Anim Sci 1984, 64:817-824.
• [40]Burrin DG, Ferrel CL, Britton RA, Bauer M: Level of nutrition and visceral organ size and metabolic activity in sheep. Brit J Nutr 1990, 64:439-448.
• [41]Lignot JH, Helmstetter C, Secor MS: Postprandial morphological response of the intestinal epithelium of the Burmese python (Python molurus). Comp Biochem Phys A 2005, 141:280-291.
• [42]Owens FN, Zinn RA, Kim YK: Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. J Anim Sci 1986, 63:1634-1648.
• [43]Bühler C, Hammon H, Rossi GL, Blum JW: Small intestinal morphology in eight-day-old calves fed colostrum for different durations or only milk replacer and treated with long-R3-insulin-like growth factor 1 and growth hormone. J Anim Sci 1998, 76:758-765.
• [44]Blätter U, Hammon HM, Morel C, Philipona C, Pauprich A, Romé V, Le Huërou-Luron I, Guilloteau P, Blum JW: Feeding colostrum, its composition and feeding duration variably modify enzyme activities of neonatal calves. J Nutr 2001, 131:1256-1263.
• [45]Starck JM: Phenotypic plasticity, cellular dynamics, and epithelial turnover of the intestine of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). J Zool 1996, 238:53-79.
• [46]Huntington GB: Starch utilization by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. J Anim Sci 1997, 75:852-867.
• [47]Burrin DG, Britton RA, Ferrel CL, Bauer ML: Level of nutrition and visceral organ protein synthetic capacity and nucleic acid content in sheep. J Anim Sci 1992, 70:1137-1145.
• [48]Wang YJ, Holligan S, Salim H, Fan MZ, McBride BW, Swanson KC: Effect of dietary crude protein level on visceral organ mass, cellularity, and the protein expression of ATP synthase, Na+/K+-ATPase, proliferating cell nuclear antigen and ubiquitin in feedlot steers. Can J Anim Sci 2009, 89:493-501.
• [49]Wright NA, Carter J, Irwin M: The measurements of villus cell population size in the mouse small intestine in normal and abnormal states: a comparison of absolute measurements with morphometric estimators in sectioned immersion-fixed material. Cell Tissue Kinet 1989, 22:425-450.
• [50]Iji PA, Saki A, Tivey DR: Body and intestinal growth of broiler chicks on a commercial starter diet. 1. Intestinal weight and mucosal development. Brit Poultry Sci 2001, 42:505-513.
• [51]McBride BW, Milligan LP: Influence of feed intake and starvation on the magnitude of Na,KATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) dependent respiration in duodenal mucosa of sheep. Brit J Nutr 1985, 53:605-614.
• [52]Lobley GE: Protein turnover—what does it mean for animal production? Can J Anim Sci 2001, 83:327-340.
• [53]Kelly JM, Mutsvangwa T, Milligan LP, Waldo DR, McBride BW: Quantification of energy expenditures of gastrointestinal tract of steers fed three diets at two levels of intake. Can J Anim Sci 2001, 81:533-540.