Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:04:30.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viscoelastic properties of the small intestinal and caecal contents of the chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. Takahashi ,
M. Goto  and
T. Sakata
T. Takahashi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Okayama University, Tsushimanaka 1-1-1, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
M. Goto
Affiliation:
Faculty of Bioresources, Mie University, Kamihama-cho 1515, Tsu 514-8507, Japan
T. Sakata*
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Sciences, Ishinomaki Senshu University, Ishinomaki 986-8580, Japan
*
*Corresponding author: Professor Takashi Sakata, fax +81 225 22 7746, email [email protected]
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.

We measured the coefficients of viscosity, shear rates and shear stresses of chicken small intestinal and caecal contents, including solid particles, using a tube-flow viscometer. The coefficients of viscosity of chicken small intestinal and caecal contents were correlated negatively with their shear rates, a characteristic typical of non-Newtonian fluids. The coefficient of viscosity of the small intestinal contents was lower than that of the caecal contents at a shear rate of 1 s−1. Chicken caecal contents were more viscous than pig caecal contents. The exponential relationship between shear stress and shear rate showed that chicken small intestinal and caecal contents had an apparent Herschel–Bulkley fluid nature. These results indicate that solid particles, including uric acid crystals, are mainly responsible for the viscosity of the digesta in the chicken.

Keywords

BroilerIntestinal contentsViscoelasticityFlow behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 91 , Issue 6 , June 2004 , pp. 867 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2004

References

Antoon, BC & Kirsch, JF (1982) Investigation of diffusion-limited rates of chymotrypsin reactions by viscosity variation. Biochemistry 21, 1302–1307.Google Scholar
Bedford, MR, Classen, HL & Campbell, GL (1990) The effect of pelleting, salt, and pentosanase on the viscosity of intestinal contents and the performance of broilers fed rye. Poult Sci 70, 1571–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björnhag, G & Sperber, I (1977) Transport of various food components through the digestive tract of turkeys, geese and guinea fowl.Swed J Agric Res 7, 57–66.Google Scholar
Borghesani, AF (1988) Non-Newtonian flow behavior of coal-fuel oil suspensions. In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics. Volume 7: Rheology and Non-Newtonian Flows, pp. 89–134 [Cheremisinoff, NP, editor]. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Braun, EJ (1999) Integration of renal and gastrointestinal function. J Exp Zool 283, 495–499.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheremisinoff, NP (1986) Properties and concepts of single fluid flows. In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 1: Flow Phenomena and Measurement, 285 –351 [Cheremisinoff, NP, editor]. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Clarke, B (1967) Rheology of coarse settling suspensions. Trans Inst Chem Eng 45, T251–T256.Google Scholar
Clemens, ET, Stevens, CE & Southworth, M (1975) Site of organic acid production and pattern of digesta movement in the gastrointestinal tract of geese. J Nutr 105, 1341–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, R (1988) Laminar flow and turbulent pipe flows of non-Newtonian fluids. In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics. Volume 7: Rheology and Non-Newtonian Flows, 19–54 [Cheremisinoff, NP, editor]. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
De Larrard, F, Ferraris, CF & Sedran, T (1998) Fresh concrete: A Herschel–Bulkley material. Mater Struct 31, 494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M, Gilles, KA, Hamilton, JK, Rebers, PA & Smith, F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, RW & McDonald, AT (1985) Internal incompressible viscous flow. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics, 3rd ed. pp. 331–388New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
García-Pérez, AI, López-Beltrán, EA, Klüner, P, Luque, J, Ballesteros, P & Cerdán, S (1999) Molecular crowding and viscosity as determinants of translational diffusion of metabolites in subcellular organelles. Arch Biochem Biophys 362, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasinoff, BB, Dreher, R & Davey, JP (1987) The association reaction of yeast alcohol dehydrogenase with coenzyme is partly diffusion-controlled in solvents of increased viscosity. Biochim Biophys Acta 911, 53–58.Google Scholar
Hoskins, CL & Zamcheck, N (1968) Bacterial degradation of gastrointestinal mucins. Gastroenterology 54, 210–217.Google Scholar
Huang, X & Garcia, MH (1998) A Herschel–Bulkley model for mud flow down a slope. J Fluid Mech 374, 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isshiki, Y (1980) Nitrogen components of caecal contents in fasted chickens. Jpn J Zootech S, 51, 12–16.Google Scholar
Jaroni, D, Scheideler, SE, Beck, MM & Wyatt, C (1999) The effect of dietary wheat middlings and enzyme supplementation II: apparent nutrient digestibility, digestive tract size, gut viscosity, and gut morphology in two strains of leghorn hens. Poult Sci 78, 1664–1674.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, DJ & Acrivos, A (1976) The rheological properties of suspensions of rigid particles. Am Inst Chem Eng J 22, 417–430.Google Scholar
Karasawa, Y (1989) Effect of colostomy on nitrogen nutrition in the chicken fed a low protein diet plus urea. J Nutr 119, 1388–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasing, KC (2000) Digestion of food. In Comparative Avian Nutrition, pp. 36– 70New York: CAB International.Google Scholar
Lentle, RG, Stafford, KJ, Kennedy, MS & Haslett, SJ (2002) Rheological properties of digesta suggest little radial or axial mixing in the forestomach of the tammar ( Macropus eugenii ) and the parma ( Macropus parma ) wallaby. Physiol Biochem Zool 75, 572–582.Google Scholar
Razdan, A & Pettersson, D (1996) Hypolipidaemic, gastrointestinal and related responses of broiler chickens to chitosans of different viscosity. Br Poult Sci 76, 387–397.Google Scholar
Saraf, DN & Khullar, SD (1975) Some studies on the viscosity of settling suspensions Can J Chem Eng 53, 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, RR & Rohlf, JS (1995) Biometry, 3rd ed., 820–825. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T & Sakata, T (2002) Large particles increase viscosity and yield stress of pig cecal contents without changing basic viscoelastic properties. J Nutr 132, 1026–1030.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T, Sakata, T, Yamanaka, N & Ogawa, N (2001) Effects of dietary particles on the viscosity of gut contents and intestinal tissue weight. Ann Nutr Metab 45 Suppl. 178.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T, Sakata, T, Yamanaka, N & Ogawa, N (2003) Influence of solid particles on the viscous properties of intestinal contents and intestinal tissue weight in rats. J Jpn Soc Nutr Food Sci 56, 199–205.Google Scholar
Van der Klis, JD, Verstegen, MW & Van Voorst, A (1993) Effect of a soluble polysaccharide (carboxy methyl cellulose) on the absorption of minerals from the gastrointestinal tract of broilers. Br Poult Sci 34, 985–997.Google Scholar
Yoon, WB & McCarthy, KL (2002) Rheology of yogurt during pipe flow as characterized by magnetic resonance imaging. J Texture Stud 33, 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Zimeri, JE & Kokini, JL (2003) Rheological properties of inulin-waxy maize starch systems. Carbohydr Polym 52, 67–85.Google Scholar
Zubair, AK, Forsberg, CW & Leesson, S (1996) Effect of dietary fat, fiber, and monensin on caecal activity in turkeys. Poult Sci 75, 891–899.Google Scholar