Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:43:15.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rate of passage of digesta in sheep

5.* Theoretical considerations based on a physical model and computer simulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

W. L. Grovum  and
G. D. Phillips
W. L. Grovum
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
G. D. Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
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 were given 800 g lucerne chaff/d and the mean half-times of cerium-144 – praseodymium-144 and the complex of chromium-51 with EDTA were 811 and 604 min in the reticulo-rumen, 37 and 17 min in the abomasum and 413 and 406 min in the caecum and proximal colon respectively. The average time available for digestion and absorption in the abomasum was therefore very short relative to that in the other two organs.

2. The half-times of the markers also indicated that particulate matter and water had different rates of turn over in the reticulo-rumen and abomasum but not in the caecum and proximal colon.

3. Evidence is presented which suggests imperfect mixing of the digesta in the caecum and proximal colon.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , September 1973 , pp. 377 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1973

References

Asplund, J. M. & Harris, L. E. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 1199.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1950). Br. J. Nutr. 4, 361.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant p. 108 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Washington: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 69.Google Scholar
Brandt, C. S. & Thacker, E. J. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956 a). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 15.Google Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956 b). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, J. B. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eng, K. S. Jr, Riewe, M. E., Craig, J. H. Jr & Smith, J. C. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 1129.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. & Williams, A. J. (1962). Aust. J. agric. Res. 13, 894.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Hecker, J. F. (1973). Br. J.Nutr. 30, 221.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973 a). Br. J.Nutr. 29, 13.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973 b). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 231.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973 c). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 313.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes p. 208. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
King, K. W. & Moore, W. E. C. (1957). J. Dairy Sci. 40, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, D. D. & Dorn, W. S. (1964). Numerical Methods and Fortran Programming with Application in Engineering and Science p. 133. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Patton, R. A. & Krause, G. F. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterse, P. J. S., Lesch, s. F. & Van Schalwyk, A. P. (1963). S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 6, 737.Google Scholar
Putnam, P. A., Bond, J. & Lehmann, R. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 1428.Google Scholar
Shellenberger, P. R. & Kesler, E. M. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stielau, W. J. (1967). S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 10, 753.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1968). Aust. J. agric. Res. 19, 261.Google Scholar