Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:10:08.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of starch digestion in the large intestine of sheep on caecal fermentation, caecal microflora and faecal nitrogen excretion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
C. Fraser ,
V. C. Mason  and
S. O. Mann
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29 SB
C. Fraser
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29 SB
V. C. Mason
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29 SB
S. O. Mann
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB29 SB
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. The concentrations of volatile fatty acids (VFA) in the rumen and caecum were compared when sheep were given barley or dried grass. The molar proportions of VFA in the caecum resembled those in the rumen except that the proportions of isobutyric and isovaleric acids were higher in caecal than in rumen fluid indicating an extensive breakdown of protein during fermentation in the caecum.

2. The capacity for starch digestion in the large intestine was studied in two sheep receiving dried grass. Starch was infused into the caecum, the amount given increasing by daily increments of 20 g until 300 g daily were infused. Infused starch in excess of 138 g daily largely appeared in the faeces, indicating a limited but substantial capacity for starch fermentation in the large intestine. The infusion caused a marked increase in the molar proportion of butyric acid.

3. Determinations made with a single sheep showed that the infusion of starch into the caecum caused large changes in the microflora, and species similar to Butyrivibrio became prevalent. The viable count on a starch medium was increased by 83 % by starch infusion.

4. The infusions of starch increased the excretion of nitrogen in the faeces from 5.8 to 9.0 g daily. Using a fractionation procedure it was shown that when 100 g of starch were fermented in the large intestine the 'bacterial and endogenous debris' nitrogen increased by about 1.0 g. When starch was given orally to two sheep the increase in this fraction was about 0.4g nitrogen/100 g starch digested.

5. It is suggested that dietary factors that cause changes in the site of fermentation from the rumen to the caecum will render less microbial nitrogen available to the host animal per unit of carbohydrate fermented and decrease the apparent digestibility of nitrogen.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 671 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F. (1954). Biochem. J. 57, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Methods of Analysis p. 284. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Baker, F., Nasr, H., Morrice, F. & Bruce, J. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeim, O., Kleinberg, J. & Kirch, E. R. (1945). J. Bact. 49, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants 2nd ed. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. M. W., Ellinger, G. M. & Phillipson, A. T. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 63.Google Scholar
Cline, T. R., Garrigus, U. S. & Hatfield, E. E. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donefer, E., Lloyd, L. E. & Crampton, E. W. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Shazly, K. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, P. N. & Howard, B. H. (1969). In Handbuch der Tierernährung Vol. 1, p. 207 [Lenkeit, W, Breirem, K and Crasemann, E, editors]. Berlin: Verlag Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Phillipson, A. T. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1950). Bact. Rev. 14, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kurihara, Y., Eadie, J. M., Hobson, P. N. & Mann, S. O. (1968). J. gen. Microbiol. 51, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1966). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 25, xxxiii.Google Scholar
Mann, S. O. (1970). J. appl. Bact. 33. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 73, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Allen, D. M. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Andrews, R. P. & Gill, J. C. (1969). Anim. Prod. 11, 187.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Flatt, W. P. & Moe, P. W. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Foot, M. H. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 31A.Google Scholar
Ødrskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ødrskov, E. R. & Oltjen, R. R. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogosa, M., Mitchell, J. A. & Wiseman, R. F. (1951). J. Bact. 62, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyan, V., Sreenivasamurthy, V., Krishnamurthy, K. & Swaminathan, M. (1958). Ann. Biochem. exp. Med. 18, I17.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M., Gupta, B. N., Reid, R. S. & Murray, M. G. (1963). Proc. int. Congr. Nutr. VI. Edinburgh p. 579.Google Scholar
Topps, J. H., Kay, R. N. B. & Goodall, E. D. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Wiseman, G. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology. Sect. 6. Alimentary Canal Vol. 3 [Code, C. F. and Heidel, W., editors]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar