Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:29:41.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on intestinal digestion in the sheep

3.* Net movement of certain inorganic elements in the digestive tract on rations containing different proportions of hay and rolled barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. Pfeffer ,
A. Thompson  and
D. C. Armstrong
E. Pfeffer
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
A. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
D. C. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
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. In each of three experiments, two sheep were given diets consisting of hay, or two parts hay to one part barley or one part hay to two parts barley. Each sheep was equipped with a cannula into the rumen and re-entrant cannulas into the proximal duodenum and the terminal ileum. The rations containing barley were supplemented to adjust the intake of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium and potassium to a level similar to that in the all-hay ration. Paper impregnated with chromic oxide (Cr2O3) was given twice daily by rumen fistula.

2. Amounts of crude ash and the five minerals entering and leaving the small intestine and excreted in the faeces were measured. The amounts passing through the re-entrant cannulas were adjusted to give 100% recovery of chromic oxide. The values were used to calculate the direction and net movements of the elements through the walls of the three main parts of the alimentary tract.

3. In all instances there was an extensive net secretion of Na and P between mouth and small intestine, net absorption of K and P from the small intestine and of Na from the large intestine.

4. The net movements of Ca and Mg were small and rather variable. In five of the six observations there was a small net secretion of Ca and small net absorption of Mg during passage of the digesta through the reticulo-rurnen, omasurn and abomasurn. Net secretion of Ca and Mg apparently occurred in the small intestine and net absorption of Mg in the large intestine.

5. The only between-diet differences were small differences in net movements of Na and K.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 197 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

Ash, R. W. (1961). J. Physiol., Lond. 157, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B., Phillipson, A. T. & Vowles, L. E. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 46.Google Scholar
Care, A. D. & van't Klooster, A.Th. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond., 177, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P. T. & Cragle, R. G. (1962). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 111, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P. T., Kesler, E. M. & Jones, G. M. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A. (1959). J. Physiol., Lond. 146, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A. & Phillipson, A. T. (1958). J. Physiol., Lond. 140, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, E. D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 176, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, F. A. & Hill, K. J. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 162, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, F. A., Keynes, R. D. & Nauss, A. H. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 171, 18P.Google Scholar
Hydén, S. (1961). K. LantbrHögsk. Annlr. 27, 273.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1960). J. Physiol., Lond. 150, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1966). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 6, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klejmenov, N. I. (1966). TagBer. dt. Akad. LandwWiss. 85, p. 283.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969 a). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969 b). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyaert, W. & Bouchaert, J. H. (1961). Res. vet. Sci. 2, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parthasarathy, D. & Phillipson, A. T. (1953). J. Physiol., Lond. 121, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, E., Bertzback, J. & Lenkeit, W. (1967). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 22, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Storry, J. E. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 181, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarisbrick, R. & Ewer, T. K. (1951). Biochem. J. 49, lxxix.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1965). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 50, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1967). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 52, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1962). Biochem. J. 83, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, J. E. & Hydën, S. (1952). Nature, Lond. 169, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. (1961). Nature, Lond. 190, 1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. B. (1962). Res. vet. Sci. 3, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Weerden, E. J. (1961). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van't Klooster, A.Th. (1967). Meded LandbHoogesch., Wageningen 67, 5.Google Scholar