Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:15:54.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of heat treatment on the nutritive value of milk for the young calf

8.* The effect of the pre-heating treatment of spray-dried skim milk on the pH and the contents of total, protein and non-protein nitrogen of the pyloric outflow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

H. Tagari  and
J. H. B. Roy
H. Tagari
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, ShinJield, Reading
J. H. B. Roy
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, ShinJield, Reading
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. Four Ayrshire bull calves between 8 and 34 days of age and fitted with duodenal and ileal re-entrant cannulas were used to study the effect of heat treatment of the milk they received on the pH and nitrogen composition of the pyloric outflow and ileal contents.

2. Milk A contained a spray-dried skim-milk powder pre-heated during the drying process at 74° for 30 min and milk B a similar powder pre-heated at 77° for 15 sec. In milk A about 50% of the non-casein protein N had been denatured.

3. Milk B resulted in a lower pH than milk A in the pyloric outflow throughout the sampling period of 6.5 h after feeding. It resulted also in an increased volume of outflow during the 1st h after feeding, a reduced output of undigested protein, an increased output of non-protein nitrogen (NPN) and a different pattern of flow of NPN during the first 4 h after feeding.

4. These differences between milk A and milk B were associated largely with different clotting characteristics, which were demonstrated in vitro at two levels of addition of rennet with or without the addition of calcium. The buffering capacity of the two milks was similar.

5. Variation between calves in their response to these two milks was attributed to the age of the calves and to differences in inherent clotting or proteolytic activity.

6. In the ileal outflow, bacterial activity, as measured by dehydrogenase activity, was positively related to N concentration, but the N concentration when milk A was given did not appear to differ from that when milk B was given.

7. One calf had diarrhoea when given milk A at a young age. This was associated with an increased pyloric outflow, an increased outflow of undigested protein but little difference in the rate of proteolysis, and a high pH. In the ileal outflow the volume and amount of N was much increased although the N concentration was reduced.

8. It is concluded that the detrimental effect of milk A, found in earlier experiments, was largely associated with high pH and poor digestibility of protein in the abomasum, conditions which allow multiplication of coliform organisms in the intestine.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 1969 , pp. 763 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Alais, C. (1963 a). Thesis, Faculté des Sciences de l'Université de Paris.Google Scholar
Alais, C. (1963 b). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 3, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1959). Int. Dairy Congr. xv. London 3, 1631.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 172, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostettler, H. & Stein, J. (1958). Landw. Jb. Schweiz 7, 163.Google Scholar
Ingram, P. L. (1962). Observations on the pathology and pathogenesis of experimental colibacillosis in calves. PhD Thesis, Univenrsity of London.Google Scholar
Jančařik, A. (1962). Sb. čsl. Akad. Zeměd. Věd. (Zivočišhá výrobn) 7, 71.Google Scholar
Kannan, A. & Jenness, R. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 808.Google Scholar
Marchenko, G. M., Budnaya, M. B., Khimina, E. F. & Riyashko, A. A. (1964). Sechenow physiol. J. USSR 50, 613.Google Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, H. W. & Hogden, C. G. (1940). J. biol. Chem. 135, 707.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Palmer, J., Shillam, K. W. G., Ingram, P. L. & Wood, P. C. (1955). BY. J. Nutr. 9, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. & Shillam, K. W. G. (1961). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy. p. 45.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. & Shillam, K. W. G. (1962). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy. p. 41.Google Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G., Dawson, D. A. & Roy, J. H. B. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G. & Roy, J. H. B. (1961). Int. Congr. Anim. Prod. VII. Hamburg 3, 276.Google Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G. & Roy, J. H. B. (1963 a). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G. & Roy, J. H. B. (1963 b). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G., Roy, J. H. B. & Ingram, P. L. (1962 a). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 267.Google Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G., Roy, J. H. B. & Ingram, P. L. (1962 b). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 585.Google Scholar
Stevenson, I. L. (1959). Can. J. Microbiol. 5, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H., Dror, Y., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weijers, H. A. & van de Kamer, J. H. (1965). Nutr. Abstr. Reo. 35, 591.Google Scholar
Wood, P. C. (1955). J. Path. Bact. 70, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweig, G. & Block, R. J. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar