Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:36:52.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The site of magnesium absorption from the ruminant stomach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

F. M. Tomas  and
B. J. Potter
F. M. Tomas
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Human Nutrition (formerly Division of Nutritional Biochemistry), Kintore Avenue, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
B. J. Potter
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Human Nutrition (formerly Division of Nutritional Biochemistry), Kintore Avenue, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
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. A low-magnesium diet was fed to four sheep, each of which had been surgically prepared with a rumen fistula, a tube into the cranial one-third of the omasum, a tube to the cranial one-third of the abomasum and a re-entrant duodenal cannula. Mg, as gluconate or acetate, was continuously infused for 12–14 d in turn into (1) the caudal duodenal cannuia, (2) the abo-masum, (3) the omasum, (4) the rumen. A continuous infusion of the chromium-ethylene- diaminetetraacetic acid complex (CrEDTA) was maintained to the rumen. The abomasal effluent which flowed through the cranial duodenal cannula was continually sampled and the flow of Mg calculated from the concentrations of Mg and CrEDTA. Blood and rumen fluid samples were taken and urine and faeces collected during each period of Mg infusion.

2. The Mg infused to either the abomasum or omasum was completely recovered at the duodenum, indicating a lack of net absorption of Mg from these stomach compartments. In contrast, 13.7–18.7 mmol (36–61 %) of the Mg infused to the rumen was not recovered at the duodenum which suggested that a substantial net absorption of the infused Mg occurred from the reticulo-rumen. Absorption of Mg caudal to the pylorus was not related to the site of Mg infusion and averaged 3.28 ±0.56 (sem) mmol/d.

3. Compared with the intraruminal infusion, the post-ruminal infusion of Mg was associated with decreased plasma and rumen fluid Mg concentrations, decreased urinary Mg excretion, decreased Mg balance and increased faecal Mg excretion.

4. It is concluded that no significant absorption of Mg occurs from either the omasum or abomasum in sheep and that the reticulo-rumen is the principal site of Mg absorption before the pylorus. Absorption of Mg post-ruminally is insufficient to maintain normal Mg status in the animal.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , July 1976 , pp. 37 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Behar, J. (1974). Am. J. Physiol. 227, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D., Tagari, H., Zamwel, S. & Bondi, A. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buéno, L. & Ruckebusch, Y. (1974). J. Physiol., Lond. 238, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Care, A. D. & van't Klooster, A. Th. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 177, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driedger, A., Condon, R. J., Nimrick, K. O. & Hatfield, E. E. (1970). J. Anim. Sci. 31, 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, W. v. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 132 [Phillipson, A. T. editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, W. v. & Hauffe, R. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 216 [McDonald, I. W., Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, New South Wales, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Grace, N. D. & MacRae, J. C. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, F. A. (1971). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 262, 301.Google Scholar
Kemp, A., van't Klooster, A. Th., Rogers, P. A. M. & Geurink, J. H. (1973). Neth. J. agric. Sci. 21, 44.Google Scholar
Lauwers, H. (1973). Meded. Fac. Diergeneesk. Rijks-Univ. Gent nos. 1–2.Google Scholar
Marongiu, A. (1971). Boll. Soc. ital. Biol. Sper. 47, 768.Google Scholar
Perry, S. C., Cragle, R. G. & Miller, J. K. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, E. & Rahman, K. A. (1974). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 33, 209.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, E., Thompson, A. & Armstrong, D. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1970). In Duke's Physiology of Domestic Animals, 8th ed., p. 424 [Swenson, M. J. editor]. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Storry, J. E. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 181, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, P. A. M. & van't Klooster, A. Th. (1969). Meded. LandbHoogesch. Wageningen 11, 26.Google Scholar
Sellers, A. F. & Stevens, C. E. (1966). Physiol. Rev. 46, 634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. & Moodie, E. W. (1956). J. comp. Path. 66, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. (1961). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 57, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timet, D., Herak, H., Emanovic, D. & Kraljevic, P. (1974). Vet. Arh. 44, 46.Google Scholar
Tomas, F. M., Jones, G. B., Potter, B. J. & Langsford, G. L. (1973). Aust. J. agric. Res. 24, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomas, F. M. & Potter, B. J. (1975). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar