Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T13:29:53.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour of solute and particle markers in the stomach of sheep given a concentrate diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. J. Faichney  and
D. A. Griffiths
G. J. Faichney
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Animal Production, Ian Clunies Ross Animal Research Laboratory, Prospect, P.O. Box 239, Blacktown, NSW 2148, Australia
D. A. Griffiths
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Newtown, NSW 2024, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Fistulated sheep given a concentrate diet were used to study the behaviour of solute ([51Cr]EDTA) and particle ([103Ru]phenanthroline) markers in the stomach under conditions of continuous feeding.

2. An injection of a mixed dose of [51Cr]EDTA and [103Ru]phenanthroline was given into the rumen and the time course of marker concentrations in the rumen and the abomasum was recorded. The curves were analysed on the assumption that the stomach of the sheep could be represented as two mixing compartments (reticulo-rumen and abomasum) and a time delay (omasum). This model provided a very good description of the data.

3. [103Ru]phenanthroline associated with small particles was retained in the rumen much longer than [51Cr]EDTA. Although exchange of [103Ru]phenanthroline occurred between large and small particle fractions, the results suggested that small particles may have been retained somewhat longer in the rumen than solutes. However, it was clear from the results that the mean retention times for particulate matter in the rumen could not be simply obtained using adsorbable markers.

4. Cyclical fluctuations in the concentration of [51Cr]EDTA in the rumen indicated that there were daily variations in net water flux in the rumen.

5. The presence of protozoa was associated with much shorter retention times of both solutes and particles in the rumen. Protozoa were also associated with reduced rumen volumes.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , July 1978 , pp. 71 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Blaxter, K. L., Graham, M. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, E. A. (1950). Aust. J. scient. Res. B3, 178.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. & Van Nevel, C. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 366 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, NSW, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M., Hyldgaard-Jensen, J., Mann, S. O., Reid, R. S. & Whitelaw, F. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R., Walker, D. J., Nader, C. J. & Storer, G. (1975). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, W. C., Goodell, R. G. & Matis, J. H. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 264.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, W. v. (1974). In Tracer Techniques in Tropical Animal Production, p. III. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 a). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 227 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, NSW Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 b). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973 a). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973 b). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Osbourn, D. F. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Osbourn, D. F. (1976). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 27, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ishaque, M., Thomas, P. C. & Rook, J. A. F. (1971). Nature, New Biol. 231, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P., Rook, J. A. F. & Towers, K. G. (1971). J. Dairy Res. 38, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, M. J. & Sharpe, M. E. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 113 A.Google Scholar
Matis, J. H. & Hartley, H. O. (1971). Biometrics 27, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotopes 22, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Mundell, D. C., Elderfield, M. L. & Harrison, D. G. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 111 A.Google Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Pilgrim, A. F. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1967). Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Eadie, J. M., Mann, S. O. & Reid, R. S. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar