Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:26:39.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of dietary antibiotics on the activity of the cellulose-splitting bacteria in the intestine of the bacon pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. E. Evans  and
M. F. Maguire
R. E. Evans
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
M. F. Maguire
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present investigation is concerned with the influence of procaine penicillin and aureomycin on digestion. In particular, the effect of antibiotics, in amounts generally included in feeding-stuffs, on the bacterial digestion of cellulose in the large intestine of the pig, was investigated.

The digestibility of a basal diet composed of fine bran, maize meal, dried lucerne meal and whitefish meal was determined with and without the addition of antibiotic. No effect was noted on the digestibility of any food constituent.

The diet fed in four digestion trials contained 500 g. of shredded fodder cellulose. The digestion coefficient for the crude fibre, in these diets rich in cellulose, was 76·2% when 18 mg. of procaine penicillin was added per lb. of meal and 76·8% when no antibiotic was added.

The nitrogen-free extractives in the fodder cellulose are mainly if not entirely composed of xylan. If the nitrogen-free extractives and crude fibre are combined to give ‘cellulose’ as defined by Norman & Jenkins, the digestion coefficients for the cellulose were 85·7, 83·4, 85·7 and 87·2%, respectively, thus showing little difference between treatments.

There is no warrant for assuming that the antibiotics had any bactericidal or bacteriostatic effect on the cellulose-splitting organisms.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1956 , pp. 344 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, P. (1953). Nord. Vet Med. 5, 636.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Kon, S. K. & Mitchell, K. G. (1953). Brit. J. Nutrit. 7, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, J. H., Dyer, I. A. & Powers, J. J. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, S. O., Masson, F. M. & Oxford, A. E. (1954). Brit. J. Nutr. 8, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, L. A. (1947). Animal Nutrition, 2nd ed. p. 103.Google Scholar
Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1933). Biochem. J. 27, 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, G. I., Newlander, J. A. & Riddell, W. H. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1947 a). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1947 b). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar