EFFICACY OF RUMIPRO IN EXPERIMENTAL ACID INDIGESTION IN

CALVES

Abstract

The therapeutic efficacy of RUMIPRO, an herbal formulation, was studied in acid

indigestion in calves. Acidosis was induced by oral feeding of wheat flour @
30g/kg body weight. Group A consisting of five calves was treated with
RUMIPRO only and Group B, also consisting of five calves was given Sodium
bicarbonate along with RUMIPRO. Group C with two calves served as control.
The efficacy of RUMIPRO was assessed based on the improvement in physical,
biochemical and microbial population of rumen liquor, restoration of rumen and
reticular movements and regain of normal health. RUMIPRO hastened the
restoration of normal rumen liquor profile and brought the calves back to normal
clinically. Addition of sodium bicarbonate with RUMIPRO had only marginal
additive effect.

Introduction

Indigestion is very common in ruminants. Sudden access to large quantities of

readily fermentable carbohydrates or indiscriminate feeding of fermentable
carbohydrate-rich diets led to ruminal acid indigestion (Hungate, 1966 and Blood
and Radostits, 1989). Farmers often suffer heavy economic losses from reduced
production and mortality of animals. A number of chemotherapeutics have been
attempted to treat this condition with variable results (Prasad and Rekib, 1975;
Anstel, 1983 and Tripathy and Mishra, 1992). The present study was undertaken
to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of RUMIPRO, a new herbal product
(containing herbal extract, pro and prebiotics) in experimental acid indigestion in
calves.

Materials and Methods

Twelve healthy Jersey crossbred male calves, 10 to 15 months old, weighing

between 57 to 66 kg, were procured for the present experiment. Faecal samples
of all the calves were screened for the presence of endoparasitism and the
calves were dewormed with fenbendazole @ 5 mg/kg body weight, orally. They
were maintained on green and dry roughages ad libitum and 500 g concentrate
ration per animal per day. The calves were allowed to adjust to new surroundings
and feeding habits for a month before the experiment commenced.

The animals were divided into two groups A and B, comprised of five calves
each, while Group C had two calves. Acid indigestion was induced in all the
twelve calves by oral dosing with wheat flour @ 30 gm/kg body weight.

Twelve hours after induction of acid indigestion, the following treatments were
adopted:

a. Calves of Group A received RUMIPRO @ one bolus twice daily for three
days.
b. The calves of Group B were given sodium bicarbonate @ 100 mg/kg body
weight for two days along with RUMIPRO as above.
c. The calves of Group C served as untreated control.
About 100 ml rumen liquor was collected from each calf before induction of acid
indigestion and after that at different intervals. The strained rumen liquor was
subjected to physical, biochemical and microbial analysis. The physical
characteristics like colour, odour and consistency were studied using the method
described by Misra and Tripathy (1963). Motility of rumen liquor was graded
according to Misra et al. (1972), as vigorous (+++), moderate (++) and mild (+).

The pH of fresh rumen liquor was recorded using Elico-pH were estimated
according to the method described by Barnet and Reid (1961). The value was
expressed as mEq/L. For total protozoal count, the method described 4 by Moir
(1951) was followed and this was expressed as x10 4 /ml. The sedimentation
activity time (SAT) and glucose fermentation time (GFT) were determined
according to the procedure described by Chakrabarti (1989).

The ruminal and reticular contractions were recorded using both the fist and
stethoscope. In addition, frequency of urination and defecation and consistency
of faeces were noted. The appetite and general health of the calves were also
observed periodically.

Results and Discussion

Results of physical, biochemical and microbial analysis are presented in Tables 1

and 2. Animals of Group A treated with RUMIPRO (TABLE 1) showed rise in
rumen pH at a faster rate as compared to untreated controls. Combination of
sodium bicarbonate with RUMIPRO, had a slight additive effect in the
restoration of pH (Table 2). This could be due to neutralization of acidity of
rumen as suggested by Gnanaprakasam (1970), and Prasad and Rekib (1975).

Restoration of total protozoal count and also their motility indicated the
beneficial effectes of RUMIPRO on rumen protozoa. Significant increase in SAT
and reduction in GFT by 12 hrs of induction of acidic indigestion could be
ascribed to destruction and gross inactivity of normal microflora of rumen as
reported by Nicholas and Pen (1958), Rosenberger (1979), and Blood and
Radostits (1989). Complete restoration of GFT to normal by 36 hrs indicated
revival of microfloral activity of RUMIPRO therapy. However the SAT though
improved, did not reach normal even by 72 hrs. Rise in TVFA after administration
of RUMIPRO indicated the restoration of rumen microbial carbohydrate
fermentation.

Untreated control animals did not show any improvement in TVFA concentration.
Protozoal and bacterial activity of rumen returned to normal following therapy
with sodium bicarbonate and rumen cud transplant (Prasad and Rekib, 1975).

Significant improvement in rumenoreticular movements was recorded after 60

hrs due to RUMIPRO. Also the faeces which was loose and sheatish in colour
regained its normal consistency and colour. The appetite and rumination were
also restored by RUMIPRO therapy. Both frequency of micturition and amount of
urine also returned to normal.

In untreated calves (Tables 1 and 2), the protozoal motility and total count were
much less than that in the RUMIPRO – trated groups. Some improvement in SAT
and GFT values were noted at much slower rate as compared to animals treated
with RUMIPRO. Rumeno-reticular movements and other clinical signs showed
improvement at slower rate. Combination of sodium bicarbonate with RUMIPRO
was helpful in restoring rumen pH only. The overall improvement remained as in
Group A, treated with RUMIPRO only.
 Table 1
Microbial and Biochemical Observations in Rumen Acid Indigestion with RUMIPRO Treatment (Group - A)

Protoz Total
Rumen Reticular
Hr( oal protozoal SAT GFT TVFA(mEg/l Colou
pH contraction contraction Odour
s) motilit count (Min.) (ml/hr) ) rs
(Per 2 min.) (Per 2 min.)
y (x104 / ml)
7.38 ± 0.06 +3.4 (++ 1.82 ± 0.07 72.7 ± 9.59
0
(7.25) +)
6.34 ± 1.16 (6.5) 13.2 (12.5)
(2.25) (74.5)
3.33 (3.0) 3.66 (4.0) YG-B AR

5.42 ± 0.53 1.56 ± 0.16 44.6 ± 15.55 Souris

12 +2.0 (+2) 2.79 ± 0.05 (3.3) 37.5 (42.0) 2.5 (3.0) 25. (3.0) YB
(6.25) (1.15) (57.5) h
5.55 ± 0.29 2.72 ± 0.47 1.56 ± 0.09 Souris
24 +2.4 (+2) 21.0 (40.0) NR (49.5) 2.5 (3.0) 2.5 (3.5) YB
(6.48) (2.80) (1.15) h
6.57 ± 0.31 1.06 ± 0.08
36
(6.00)
+2.6 (+2) 4.20 ± 0.86 (2.6) NR (46.5)
(1.32)
56.62 (44.0) NR (3.0) NR (3.0) YB AR

6.67 ± 0.16 1.98 ± 0.15

48
(6.50)
+2.5 (+2) NR (2.2) 23.6 (42.5)
(1.45
80.25 (53.5) 3.33 (3.0) 2.66 (3.0) YG-G AR

7.10 ± 0.28 1.95 ± 0.17 74.37 ± 14.37

72
(7.01
+2.6 (+2) 7.20 ± 1.49 (2.9) 25.2 (38.2)
(1.38) (54.5)
3.50 (3.0) 2.75 (3.0) YG-G AR

Table 2
 Microbial and Biochemical Observations in Rumen Acid Indigestion with RUMIPRO and Sodium Bicarbonate Treatment (Group
B).

Total protozoal Rumen Reticular

Hr( Protozoal SAT GFT TVFA(mEg/l Odou
pH count (x104 / contraction contraction (per Colors
s) motility (Min.) (ml/hr) ) r
ml) (per 2 min.) 2 min.)
6.92 ± 1.80 ±
28.4 ± 3.6 ± 5.25 3.4 ± 0.24
0 0.08 +3.4 (+3) 4.71 ± 1.79 (4.5) 0.35 3.4 ± 0.24 (4.0) G-LG AR
8.5 (12.5) (74.5) (4.0)
(7.25) (2.25)
6.20 ± 41.8 ± 1.50 ±
80.5 ± 4.97 Wheatis Souris
12 0.32 2.2 (+2) 2.21 ± 0.74 (4.3) 7.92 0.13 2.0 (3.0) 2.50 (3.0)
(67.5) h h
(6.25) (42.0) (1.15)
6.68 ± 1.75 ±
66.7 ± 14.78 Wheatis
24 0.40 +2.0 (+2) 2.83 ± 0.90 (2.8) NR (40.0) 0.34 2.0(3.0) 2.5 (3.0) AR
(49.5) h
(6.48) (1.40)
7.32 ± 57.66 ± 1.92 ±
62.9 ± 6.37
36 0.08 +1.6 (+2) 2.67 ± 1.01 (1.6) 3.28 0.19 NR (3.0) NR (3.0) G-YG AR
(44.0)
(7.10) (46.5) (1.32)
7.32 ± 1.99 ±
56.2 ± 7.10
48 0.10 +1.8 (+2) 3.08 ± 0.92 (2.2) 60 (41.5) 0.18 3.0 (3.5) 3.0 (3.5) YG AR
(53.5)
(7.10) (1.45)
7.12 ± 37.0 ± 1.82 ±
72.5 ± 6.05 4.2 ± 0.37
72 0.04 +3.2 (+3) 3.66 ± 1.07 (2.9) 6.65 0.19 4.0 ± 0.31 (3.0) YG AR
(54.5) (3.5)
(7.15) (38.5) (1.38)