European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 437–442 | Cite as

Digesta retention time in roe deer Capreolus capreolus, as measured with cerium-, lanthanum- and chromium-mordanted fibre

  • Angela SchwarmEmail author
  • Sylvia Albrecht
  • Sylvia Ortmann
  • Christian Wolf
  • Marcus Clauss
Original Paper


Studies on particle retention time in ruminants are commonly conducted utilizing chromium (Cr) and/or a lanthanide bound to feeds. Both types of markers have different chemical properties which potentially bias estimates of digesta retention—their combined use is therefore a topic of ongoing discussion. In order to evaluate the suitability of two lanthanides for studies assessing the passage kinetics of different-sized particles, we measured the mean retention time in roe deer with cerium (Ce) and lanthanum (La) labelled to the same particle length and compared it to Cr-mordanted fibre of the same size. We expected a simultaneous excretion of Ce- and La-labelled fibre, but a delayed excretion of Cr-mordanted fibre compared to the other markers. In this study, the mean retention times of Ce- and La-labelled fibre did not differ significantly, and Cr-mordanted fibre was retained on average 5 h longer than Ce and La. Despite the limitation of the small sample size, Ce and La showed the same excretion pattern and can therefore be recommended as mordants in studies assessing passage kinetics of different particle sizes.


Ruminant Browser Mean retention time Passage rate Marker 



This study was supported by grants from the Freie Universität Berlin (NaFöG) to AS and the German Science Foundation (DFG) to SO (OR 86/1-1). We thank A. Brandenburger, H. Barleben, J. Mahr, B. Baumann and U. Baum for their engaged support.


  1. Ahvenjärvi S, Vanhatalo A, Hristov A, Huhtanen P (2004) Passage kinetics of internal and external markers in lactating dairy cows. J Anim Feed Sci 13(Suppl):19–22Google Scholar
  2. Beauchemin K, Buchanan-Smith J (1989) Evaluation of markers, sampling sites and models for estimating rates of passage of silage or hay in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 27:59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrend A (1999) Kinetik des Ingestaflusses bei Rehen (Capreolus capreolus) und Mufflons (Ovis ammon musimon) im saisonalen Verlauf. Dissertation, Humboldt Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrend A, Lechner-Doll M, Streich W, Clauss M (2004) Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon Ovis ammon musimon, and a comparison with roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Acta Theriol 49:503–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard L, Doreau M (2000) Use of rare earth elements as external markers for mean retention time measurements in ruminants. Reprod Nutr Dev 40:89–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Combs D, Shaver R, Satter L (1992) Retention of rare earths by hay particles following incubation in fresh or autoclaved rumen fluid. J Dairy Sci 75:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gidenne T, Lapanouse A (1997) Rate of passage in the rabbit digestive tract: influence of marker dosing time, ileal cannulation and marker type. World Rabbit Sci 5:27–32Google Scholar
  8. Goetsch AL, Galyean ML (1983) Ruthenium phenantrholine, dysprosium and ytterbium as particulate markers in beef steers fed an all-alfalfa hay diet. Nutr Rep Int 27:171–178Google Scholar
  9. Heller R, Cercasov V, von Engelhardt W (1986) Retention of fluid and particles in the digestive tract of the Llama (Lama guanacoe f. glama). Comp Biochem Physiol A 83:687–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holand O (1994) Seasonal dynamics of digestion in relation to diet quality and intake in European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Oecologia 98:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huhtanen P, Kukkonen U (1995) Comparison of methods, markers, sampling sites and models for estimating digesta passage kinetics in cattle fed at two levels of intake. Anim Feed Sci Technol 52:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lechner I, Barboza P, Collins W, Fritz J, Günther D, Hattendorf B, Hummel J, Südekum KH, Clauss M (2010) Differential passage of fluids and different-sized particles in fistulated oxen (Bos primigenius f. taurus), muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and moose (Alces alces): rumen particle size discrimination. Comp Biochem Physiol A 155:211–222Google Scholar
  13. Lechner-Doll M, Rutagwenda T, Schwartz H, Schultka W, von Engelhardt W (1990) Seasonal changes of ingesta mean retention time and forestomach fluid volume in indigenous camels, cattle, sheep and goats grazing a thornbush savannah pasture in Kenya. J Agric Sci 115:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mader T, Teeter R, Horn G (1984) Comparison of forage labeling techniques for conducting passage rate studies. J Anim Sci 58:208–212Google Scholar
  15. Murphy M, Kennedy P, Welch J (1989) Passage and rumination of inert particles varying in size and specific gravity as determined from analysis of faecal appearance using multicompartment models. Brit J Nutr 62:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pond KR, Ellis WC, Matis JH, Deswysen AG (1989) Passage of chromium-mordanted and rare earth-labeled fiber: time of dosing kinetics. J Anim Sci 67:1020–1028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Wolf C, Streich WJ, Clauss M (2008) Excretion patterns of fluid and different sized particle passage markers in banteng (Bos javanicus) and pygmy hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis): two functionally different foregut fermenters. Comp Biochem Physiol A 150:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwarm A, Ortmann S, Wolf C, Clauss M (2009) No distinct difference in the excretion of large particles of varying size in a wild ruminant, the banteng (Bos javanicus). Eur J Wildlife Res 55:531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thielemans M, Francois E, Bodart C, Thewis A (1978) Mesure du transit gastrointestinal chez le porc a l’aide des radiolanthanides. Comparaison avec le mouton. Ann Biol Anim Bioch Biophys 18:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Udén P, Colucci PE, Van Soest PJ (1980) Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta rate of passage studies. J Sci Food Agric 31:625–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Wieren SE (1996) Digestive strategies of ruminants and nonruminants. Dissertation, University of WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Schwarm
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sylvia Albrecht
    • 1
  • Sylvia Ortmann
    • 1
  • Christian Wolf
    • 4
  • Marcus Clauss
    • 5
  1. 1.Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin (IZW)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal BiologyDummerstorfGermany
  3. 3.Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Helmholtz Centre Berlin for Materials and EnergyBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse FacultyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations