Abomasal emptying rate of diarrhoeic and healthy suckling calves fed with oral rehydration solutions

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the abomasal emptying rate (AER) of calves suffering from naturally occurring diarrhoea compared with that of healthy calves. Furthermore, the effects of an oral rehydration solution (ORS) mixed into milk replacer on the AER were determined. Acetaminophen absorption test (APAT) was performed to estimate the AER. Sixty Holstein–Frisian calves (age < 14 days) were included in the study and divided into groups as follows: healthy calves (H; n = 16), healthy calves fed with ORS (HORS; n = 14), diarrhoeic calves (D; n = 15) and diarrhoeic calves fed with ORS (DORS; n = 15). For the APAT, the calves were fed 2 L of milk replacer containing 50 mg acetaminophen (AP)/kg body weight. Venous blood samples were collected before and after milk replacer and AP intake in 30–60 min intervals for 12 hr. During the APAT, no significant differences in median maximum acetaminophen concentration (Cmax) were observed among all groups. Time to reach maximum acetaminophen concentration (Tmax) in DORS (median 390 min, 25/75 quartiles: 300/480 min) was significantly higher compared with that in H (median: 270 min 25/75 quartiles: 210/315 min) and HORS (median: 300 min (25/75 quartiles: 240/360 min). Non‐linear regression revealed that the calculated abomasal half‐life (AP t1/2) tended to be delayed in DORS (median: 652 min, 25/75 quartiles: 445/795 min, p = .10). The area under the AP curve values (AUC) from 0 to 120 min and 0 to 240 min of the observation period were significantly higher in H than D and DORS. In conclusion, significant differences in the AER indices reflected delayed abomasal emptying in diarrhoeic calves. Furthermore, the hypertonic ORS tended to have an additive delaying impact on the AER, which needs attention for the feeding management of diarrhoeic calves.

Tonicity of oral rehydration solutions affects water, mineral and acid–base balance in calves with naturally occurring diarrhoea

“…The excess of solutes present in hypertonic solutions may also worsen the diarrhoea severity by further stimulating water efflux to the lumen of the gut (Lifshitz & Wapnir, 1985). Furthermore, ORS with high osmolality (>650 mOsm/kg) have been shown to significantly impair abomasal emptying rates (Hildebrandt et al., 2020; Sen, Constable, & Marshall, 2006), potentially increasing the incidence of abomasal bloat in calves (Burgstaller, Wittek, & Smith, 2017). Low tonicity ORS may therefore be safer and more effective in diarrhoeic calves continuing to receive whole milk or milk replacer (MR).…”

Feeding an acetate-based oral electrolyte reduces the ex vivo Escherichia coli growth potential in the abomasum of calves fed oral electrolytes alone or 30 minutes following a milk feeding compared with feeding a bicarbonate-based oral electrolyte

“…Median time to maximal acetaminophen concentration was 300 min in healthy calves fed MR and OES compared with 390 min for calves with diarrhea. Blending MR and OES together appeared to have an additive effect on delaying AER, which is likely associated with the increased osmolality (Hildebrandt et al, 2020). Apparently healthy calves appear to have a greater physiologic capability to handle the increased volume associated with feeding MR and OES meals within a shortened time interval compared with those with concurrent gastrointestinal disease.…”

Evaluation of the optimal strong ion difference concentration of an oral electrolyte and buffering solution for the treatment of neonatal calf diarrhea

“…High osmolarity in an ORBS is reported to have negative effects in terms of decreasing abomasal emptying and delaying plasma expansion [ 12 , 18 , 22 ]. In these studies the high osmolarity was mainly driven by the high glucose concentration, while the ORBS used in the current study all had a high osmolarity (and would be considered hypertonic), the hyperosmolarity was driven mainly by the high sodium content, particularly in the case of treatments SID 170 and SID 230 , with the glucose concentration remaining the same across all treatment groups.…”