Enteral hydration in cows: Comparison between continuous flow and bolus administration

BackgroundEnteral hydration in cattle is most commonly performed as a bolus (B) via the ororuminal route, although continuous flow (CF) administration via the nasoesophageal route represents a viable alternative. Currently, no study has compared the effectiveness of these two methods. This study aimed to compare the efficiency of enteral hydration using CF and B to correct water, electrolyte and acid-base imbalances in cows. MethodsProtocols for the induction of dehydration were applied twice to eight healthy cows, with an interval of 1 week. In a crossover design, two types of enteral hydration were performed using the same electrolyte solution and volume equal to 12% of bodyweight (BW): CF (10 mL/kg/h, between 0 and 12 hours) and B (6% BW, twice, at 0 and 6 hours). Clinical and blood variables were determined at -24, 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours and compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. ResultsInduced moderate dehydration and hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis were corrected after 12 hours using the two hydration methods, with no differences observed between the methods. LimitationsThe study was conducted with induced rather than natural imbalances, so the findings should be interpreted cautiously. ConclusionEnteral CF hydration is as effective as B hydration in reversing dehydration and correcting electrolyte and acid-base imbalances.

Automated summary

This study compared the efficiency of continuous flow (CF) and bolus (B) methods in correcting water, electrolyte, and acid-base imbalances in cows, and found that both methods were equally effective.