4.4 Article

Using hooves for high-resolution isotopic reconstruction of bovine dietary history

期刊

RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 479-486

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.2861

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to ascertain whether sequential sampling and isotopic analysis of bovine hooves could be used to reconstruct the dietary history of cattle. A controlled, on-farm experiment was conducted in which cattle were switched from a barley-based diet to an isotopically different diet incorporating maize, urea and seaweed (the isotopic spacing between diets was 13.6 parts per thousand for delta C-13 and 8.0 parts per thousand for delta N-15) and maintained on that diet for 168 days. Postmortem sampling of the cleaned anterior wall of the lateral, left front claw was carried out on five individuals using a micro-drilling technique. From the first 60 mm of each claw, up to 41 samples with a spacing between them of less than 1 mm were collected. Bands were less than 1 mm deep and had a mean width of 1.2 mm. The hoof keratin showed a rapid increase followed by a slower increase in its 313 C and delta N-15 values following the diet switch, suggesting that C and N in hoof keratin originate from more than one pool. However, the response of the N isotope composition of the hoof was somewhat delayed compared with that of C. Estimated mean hoof growth rates for these cattle were 10.5 +/- 2.3 mm per month and 6.7 +/- 1.0 mm per month (+/- SD, n = 5) when receiving the barley-based transition diet and the maize-based experimental diet, respectively. These values are considerably higher than previous estimates obtained by visual methods and they suggest that diet may have a greater influence on hoof growth rates than seasonality. These results demonstrate that hooves are a suitable incremental tissue for high-resolution isotopic reconstruction of the dietary history of bovine animals. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据