Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:21:39.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen transactions in the digestive tract of lambs exposed to the intestinal parasite, Trichostrongylus colubriformis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. P. Poppi ,
J. C. Macrae ,
A. Brewer  and
R. L. Coop
D. P. Poppi
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. C. Macrae
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
A. Brewer
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. L. Coop
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Ten 5-month-old lambs (29 (SE 1.2) kg), reared parasite-free and prepared with rumen duodenal and ileal cannulas, were paired and given rations of Ruminant Diet AA6 (90 g/kg live Weight0.75) by means of continuous feeders. From 6 months of age one of each pair was dosed daily with 2500 Trichostrongylus colubriformis larvae for 14 weeks. Untreated animals received the amount of ration consumed by their infected pair-mates the previous day.

2. During three periods, ((1) the week before and the first 2 weeks of dosing with infected larvae, (2) during weeks 5–7 and (3) during weeks 11–13 of dosing) all lambs underwent a series of experiments to determine their nitrogen balance, the amounts of N leaving the small intestine, the amount of 51CrC13-labelled plasma protein leaking into the small intestines, and the disappearance of 35S-labelled bacteria from the small intestine.

3. The infection caused varying degrees of feed refusal in all infected animals. As a result the values for N balance and for the flow of N at the ileum during the latter two periods were regressed against dry-matter intakes for each group in each period.

4. The infection caused a reduction (P < 0.05) in N retention and increased (P < 0.05) flow of N at the ileum. The increase in N flow at the ileum of infected lambs was greater (P < 0.01) at weeks 11–13 of dosing (infected–control 3.6 g N/d (standard error of difference (SED) 0.57), P < 0.01) than at weeks 5–7 of dosing (infected–control 1.5 g N/d (SED 0.57), P < 0.05).

5. There were no between-treatment or between-period differences in the disappearance of 35S-labelled bacteria from the small intestines of infected or control lambs, but the infection did cause an increase in plasma N leakage during both periods. During weeks 5–7 and 11–13, plasma N leakage in infected lambs was 1.1 g N/d (P < 0.01) and 1.7 g N/d (P = 0.056) respectively higher than that in the control lambs.

6. A proportion of the endogenous secretions which enter the small intestine is likely to be resorbed before the ileum. It was calculated that to account for the extra non-ammonia-N (NAN) flow at the ileum up to 3–5 g NAN/d during weeks 5–7 of dosing and 15–20 g N/d during weeks 11–13 of dosing could have entered the small intestine as mucin and sloughed cells.

7. The results seem to indicate that the nutritional penalty associated with the development of resistance to infection is greater than that associated with the primary infection.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 593 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. G. & Hutton, K. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 432–447 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D., McMeniman, N. P. & Armstrong, D. G. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 39, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D., Tagari, H., Bondi, A. & Tadmore, A. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, M. D., Poppi, D. P. & Sykes, A. R. (1984). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64 Suppl., 197–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. M. W., Ellinger, G. M. & Phillipson, A. T. (1966). Proceedings of the Royal Society 166B, 63–79.Google Scholar
Dargie, J. D. (1979). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 349–371 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, London 95, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R. & Little, D. A. (1977). British Journal of Nutrition 37, 285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. K. & Scott, J. E. (1960). Journal of Clinical Pathology 13, 156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 30, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1974). Experimental Surgery in Small Ruminants, p. 126. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Holmes, P. H. & MacLean, J. M. (1971). Research in Veterinary Science 12, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, J. R., Hogan, J. P. & Donnelly, J. B. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Milne, J. A, Wilson, S. & Spence, A. M. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Smith, J. S., Dewey, P. J. S., Brewer, A. C., Brown, D. S. & Walker, A. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Smith, J. S., Sharman, G. A. M., Corrigall, W. & Coop, R. L. (1982). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, pp. 112–115 [Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F., editors], EAAP Publication no. 29. Åas, Norway: Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
Mahin, D. T. & Lofberg, R. T. (1966). Analytical Biochemistry 16, 500–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Miller, E. L. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 43, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., MacRae, J. C., Brewer, A. C., Dewey, P. J. S. & Walker, A. (1985). Journal of Comparative Pathology 95, 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., MacRae, J. C., Corrigall, W. & Coop, R. L. (1981). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 40, 116A.Google Scholar
Roseby, F. B. (1977). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 115–164.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, J. W. (1974). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10, 139–147.Google Scholar
Steel, J. W. & Symons, L. E. A. (1982). In Biology and Control of Endoparasites, pp. 235–256 [Symons, L. E. A., Donald, A. D. and Dineen, J. K., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steel, J. W., Symons, L. E. A. & Jones, W. O. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 821–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. R. & Coop, R. L. (1976 a). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. R. & Coop, R. L. (1976 b). Agricultural Research Council Research Review 3, 41–46.Google Scholar
Symons, L. E. A. & Jones, W. O. (1970). Experimental Parasitology 27, 496–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Tongeren, J. H. M. & Majoor, C. L. H. (1966). Clinica Chimica Acta, 1431–1441.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Smith, J. S. & Dewey, P. J. S. (1975). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar