Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:19:07.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk-substitute diet composition and abomasal secretion in the calf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

V. J. Williams ,
J. H. B. Roy  and
Catherine M. Gillies
V. J. Williams
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
Catherine M. Gillies
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. The effect of different protein sources in milk-substitute diets on abomasal acidity and proteolytic activity was studied in Friesian calves, aged 20–58 d (Expt 1). The diets contained ‘mildly’ preheated, spray-dried skim-milk powder (MHM), ‘severely’ preheated, spray-dried skim-milk powder (SHM), fish-protein concentrate (FPC) or solvent-extracted soya-bean flour (SF) as the main protein source.

2. Gastric juice was collected from abomasal pouches before feeding and at 15 min intervals for 8 h after the morning feed. Samples of digesta were obtained from the abomasum at 1 h intervals during the same period.

3. Digesta pH was lower and titratable acidity higher 0-3 h after giving the diet containing MHM than when any of the other three diets was given.

4. Acid secretion from the pouches for the different diets was in the order: FPC > MHM > SHM ≥ SF.

5. Protease secretion from the pouches, assayed at pH 2.1, was in the order: MHM > SHM = FPC > SF.

6. The effect of dry matter (dm) intake and concentration on abomasal acidity was also studied in calves given diets which contained MHM (Expt 2). This diet was reconstituted at either 100 or 149 g dm/kg liquid diet and fed at either 32.5 or 49.0 g DM/kg live weight 0.75 per d. Samples of abomasal digesta were collected as in Expt 1.

7. A high intake of dm at a low dm concentration resulted in low acidity of the digesta in the first 3 h after feeding, which suggested a dilution effect. Comparison of two diets of different dm concentration, which were fed in the same volume of liquid, indicated that the greater the dm intake, the greater was the amount of acid secreted.

8. It is concluded that the protein sources varied in their ability to stimulate abomasal acid and protease secretion and it is suggested that this may relate to calf performance.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , November 1976 , pp. 317 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Anson, M. L. (1938). J. gen. Physiol. 22, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1961). J. Physiol., Lond. 157, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 172, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, F. R. & Razig, S. A. D. (1973). J. Physiol., Lond. 228, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debas, H. T., Konturek, S. J., Walsh, J. H. & Grossman, M. I. (1974). Gastroenterology 66, 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espe, D. L. & Cannon, C. Y. (1935). J. Dairy Sci. 18, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R. A. (1974). J. Physiol., Lond. 241, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henschel, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henschel, M. J., Hill, W. B. & Porter, J. W. G. (1961). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 20, xl.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology. Section 6: Alimentary Canal, Vol. 5, p. 2747 [Code, C. F. editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J. & Gregory, R. A. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 647.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J., Noakes, D. E. & Lowe, R. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 166 [Phillipson, A. T. editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G., Roy, J. H. B. & Ingram, P. L. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, A. G. (1951). J. Physiol., Lond. 115, 73P.Google Scholar
Tagari, H. & Roy, J. H. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. (1971). Studies on the role of the abomasum and pancreas in digestion in the young calf. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Siddons, R. C. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B., Thompson, S. Y., Toothill, J., Gillies, C. M. & Edwards-Webb, D. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehorn, J. C. (1921). J. biol. Chem. 45, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1933). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 1, 129.Google Scholar