Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:59:32.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of free and protected oils on the digestion of dietary carbohydrates between the mouth and duodenum of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. B. McAllan ,
R. Knight  and
J. D. Sutton
A. B. McAllan
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berkshire
R. Knight
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berkshire
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berkshire
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. Sheep fitted with rumen and re-entrant duodenal cannulas were given diets of approximately 200 g hay and 400 g concentrate mixture alone, or supplemented daily with 40 g linseed or coconut oils free or protected with formaldehyde-casein in a 5 × 5 Latin-square arrangement. Chromic oxide paper was given as a marker at feeding time and passage to the duodenum of neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) and different sugars were estimated from the values for c0nstituent:marker at the duodenum. Contributions of microbial carbohydrates to these flows were estimated from amounts of RNA present.

2. The carbohydrate composition of mixed rumen bacteria from sheep rumen digesta were similar regardless of diet. Of the sugars entering the duodenum all the rhamnose and ribose and 0·51, 0·24 and 0·35 of the mannose, galactose and starch-glucose respectively, were contributed by the microbes. Virtually all the arabinose, xylose and cellulose-glucose were contributed by the diet.

3. For sheep receiving the basal ration, coefficients of digestibility between mouth and duodenum, corrected where necessary for microbial contribution, were 095,0·66,0·67,0·62,0·45 and 0·51 for starch-glucose, mannose, arabinose, galactose, xylose and cellulose-glucose respectively. Corresponding values when free-oil-supplemented diets were given were 0·95,035,0·38,0·55,0·01 and –0·02 respectively. Values for diets supplemented with linseed oil or coconut oil did not differ significantly. Addition of protected oils to the basal feed also resulted in depressed digestibilities of dietary structural sugars but to a far lesser extent than those observed with the free oils.

4. Apparent digestibility of NDF was altered in the same direction as those of the main structural sugars, averaging 0·50,0· 17 and 0·29 in animals receiving the basal, free-oil-supplemented or protected-oil-supplemented diets respectively. The reasons for the difference between NDF and discrete carbohydrate analytical totals are discussed.

Type
Paper on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 433 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Abou Akkada, A. R. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, p. 335 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Ames: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W., Clarke, R. T. J. & Wright, D. E. (1962). Biochem. J. 85, 57.Google Scholar
Bines, J. A., Brumby, P. E., Storry, J. E., Fulford, R. J. & Braithwaite, G. D. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 91, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonhomme-Florentin, A. (1975). J. Protozool. 22, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C. C., Garner, G. B., Gehrke, C. W., Muhrer, M. E. & Pfander, W. H. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, L. S. (1971). Proceedings Maryland Nutrition Feed Manufacturers Conference pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. T. J. (1977). In Microbial Ecology of the Gut, p. 251 [Clarke, R. T. J. and Bauchop, T., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. S., Laurie, J. I., Barley, J. E. & Holdgate, S. A. (1976). J. gen. Microbiol. 95, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. (1973). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W., Christie, W. W., Breckenridge, R. G. & Hunter, M. L. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfosse-Debusscher, J., Thines-Sempoux, D., Vanbelle, M. & Latteur, B. (1979). Ann. Rech. Vet. 10, 255.Google Scholar
Demeyer, D. I. (1981). Agric. Environ. 6, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devendra, C. & Lewis, D. (1974 a). Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 44, 917.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. & Lewis, D. (1974 b). Anim. Prod. 19, 67.Google Scholar
El-Hag, G. A. & Miller, T. B. (1972). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 23, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. (1973). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 81, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C., Stewart, C. S. & Hine, R. S. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 48A.Google Scholar
Ikwuegbu, O. A. & Sutton, J. D. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 48, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R. (1980). Rumen lipid synthesis. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Knight, R., Sutton, J. D. & Storry, J. E. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 69A.Google Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Takechi, T. & Shibata, F. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. & Kragelund, Z. (1980). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernahr. Futtermuttelkund 44, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hine, R. S. & Grubb, R. A. (1978). Anim. Prod. 27, 241.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H., McAllan, A. B., Hewitt, D. & Lewis, P. E. (1978). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & de Langen, H. (1960). N. Z. Jl. agric. Res. 3, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Knight, R., McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1983). Br. J. Nutr. 49, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theander, O. & Oman, P. (1977). Proc. Nordicke Jordbrugsforkeres Förening. Roughage Symposium, Uppsala, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). J. Ass. off. argric. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar
Ward, J. K., Tefft, C. W., Sirny, R. J., Edwards, H. N. & Tillman, A. D. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. W., Grainger, R. B., Bocker, F. W. & Stroud, J. W. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar