Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:41:39.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of experimental variation in the quantity of pancreatic secretion on the digestion and utilization of milk-substitute diets by the calf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. H. Ternouth ,
J. H. B. Roy ,
I. J. F. Stobo ,
P. Ganderton ,
Catherine M. Gillies  and
Susan M. Shotton
J. H. Ternouth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
J. H. B. Roy
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
I. J. F. Stobo
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
P. Ganderton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Catherine M. Gillies
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Susan M. Shotton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. Apparent digestibility, apparent absorption and nutrient-balance studies were made with two Ayrshire and three Friesian calves given milk-substitute diets. Cannulas were inserted into the duodenum of the calves at about 21 d old, so that the quantity of pancreatic secretion entering the duodenum could be varied.

2. After cannulation, there was a significant reduction in the apparent digestibility of the dry matter, organic matter, crude protein and fat, and in the apparent absorption of calcium and phosphorus from a milk-substitute diet containing ‘mildly’ pre-heated, spray-dried skim-milk powder. The amounts of nitrogen and P retained by the calves were also significantly reduced.

3. Collection and removal of the pancreatic secretion for a period of 12 h/d resulted in a further significant reduction in the apparent digestibility of the dry matter, organic matter and crude protein of the milk-substitute diet.

4. At 77 d of age, there was no significant effect on the nutrient balance or on the digestibility of a diet containing a ‘severely’ pre-heated, spray-dried skim-milk powder when the normal secretion of the pancreas was supplemented for 12 h/d with additional pancreatic secretion collected from the same calf.

5. Friesian calves, in comparison with Ayrshires, tended to have a higher digestibility of dry matter, organic matter and fat, apparent absorption of Ca and P and retention of N, Ca and P. These differences were apparent both before and after the calves were cannulated.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , July 1974 , pp. 37 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. M. & Ash, R. W. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 34A.Google Scholar
Bath, I. H. & Hill, K. J. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B., Phillipson, A. T. & Vowles, L. E. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 46.Google Scholar
Carroll, K. K. & Richards, J. F. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, A. J. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. G. & MacDonald, F. J. (1953). Richmond's Dairy Chemistry 5th ed. London: Charles Griffin.Google Scholar
Desnuelle, P. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology Section 6. Alimentary Canal Vol. 5, p. 2629 [Code, C. F., editor’. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Fleischman, A. I., Yacowitz, H., Hayton, T. & Bierenbaum, M. L. (1966). J. Nutr. 88, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, M. H. (1917). J. biol. Chem. 31, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. M., Campbell, R. & Roy, A. D. (1969). Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 4, 217.Google Scholar
Harris, L. W. & Phillipson, A. T. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 97.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. A. & Leat, W. M. F. (1972). J. Physiol., Lond. 225, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvinen, E., Lin, T. M. & Ivy, A. C. (1957 a). Am. J. Physiol. 188, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvinen, E., Lin, T. M. & Ivy, A. C. (1957 b). Am. J. Physiol. 189, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khayat, M. H. & Christophe, J. (1969). Am. J. Physiol. 217, 923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leat, W. M. F. & Harrison, F. A. (1969). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 54, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Hays, V. W. & Thompson, A. M. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, A. M. (1970). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 21, 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, A. M. & Robinson, K. L. (1964 a). J. Soc. Dairy Technol. 17, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, A. M. & Robinson, K. L. (1964 b). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 15, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1967). Sb. vys. Šk zeměd. Brne 36, 325.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1970). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 21, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Shillam, K. W. G., Thompson, S. Y. & Dawson, D. A. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Stobo, I. J. F. & Gaston, H. J. (1968). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy. p. 66.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Stobo, I. J. F. & Gaston, H. J. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Stobo, I. J. F., Gaston, H. J. & Greatorex, J. C. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Stobo, I. J. F., Gaston, H. J., Shotton, S. M. & Ganderton, P. (1973). Anim. Prod. 17, 109.Google Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G. & Roy, J. H. B. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewert, K. L. & Otterby, D. E. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. B. (1962). Res. vet. Sci. 3, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. & Buttle, H. L. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Siddons, R. C. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toullec, R. (1967). Les Aliments D'Alliutement pour Veaux p. 59. Paris: National Renderers Association.Google Scholar
Toullec, R. & Mathieu, C. M. (1969). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 9, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugolev, A. M. (1965). Physiol. Rev. 45, 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1933). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 1, 129.Google Scholar