Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:41:00.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the metabolism of the ruminant by indirect calorimetry. IV. The influence of food on the energy exchange of the goat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. E. Magee
H. E. Magee
Affiliation:
From the Rowett Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effects of food ingestion on the total energy exchange of man and of the dog have been fairly completely worked out. Lavoisier was the first to show that the oxygen absorption and carbon dioxide production were increased by ingestion of food. Rubner, in addition to confirming these observations of Lavoisier, showed that the heat given off from the body after food was equal to the heat evolved from the foodstuffs actually oxidised within the body and thus established the agreement between direct and indirect calorimetry. He showed, further, that the increase in heat production was greatest after protein food. This specific effect of protein food he designated the “specific dynamic action.” The work of Rubner has been continued by, amongst others, Magnus-Levy, Benedict, and Lusk. The latter showed that the specific dynamic action of proteins is due to the special stimulating effect of certain amino-acids on the tissues and that the increased heat production after fat and carbohydrate ingestion is due to plethora of oxidisable molecules round the living body cells. Recently Wood and his school (1) have carried out investigations on the metabolism after food in pigs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 1924 , pp. 600 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1924

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

(1)Wood, and Capstick, (1922). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 94. Deighton. Proc. Roy. Soc. Abs. in Brit. Med. Journ. 11. xi. 23.Google Scholar
(2)Armsby, and Fries, (1915). Journ. Agric. Res. 3.Google Scholar
(3)Magee, (1924). Journ. Agric. Sci. 14, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Krogh, and Lindhard, (1920). Biochem. Journ. 14, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Gephart, , Du Bois, and Lusk, (1916). Journ. Biol. Chem. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Lusk, (1917). Science of Nutrition, 225.Google Scholar
(7)Cathcart, and Orr, (1919). Energy Expenditure of Infantry Recruit, H.M.S.0.11.Google Scholar
(8)Benedict, and Higgins, (1912). Am. Journ. Physiol. 30.Google Scholar
(9)Kühn, , cited by Armsby (1917). Nutrition of Farm Animals, 94.Google Scholar
(10)Lusk, (1912). Journ. Biol. Chem. 12.Google Scholar
(11)Benedict, and Carpenter, (1918). Carnegie Inst. Publ. 261, 190.Google Scholar
(12)Magnus-Levy, (1907). Metabolism and Pract. Medicine (v. Noorden), 209.Google Scholar
(13)Benedict, and Emmes, (1912). Am. Journ. Physiol. 30.Google Scholar
(14)Benedict, and Carpenter, (1912). Am. Journ. Physiol. 148.Google Scholar
(15)Lusk, (1912). Journ. of Biol. Chem. 13, 27 and 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Dmitrenko, (Disser. Odessa 1916). Physiol. Abs. 2, 30.Google Scholar
(17)Maydell, (Disser. Kiev. 1917). Physiol. Abs. 2, 415.Google Scholar
(18)Dodds, (1920). Journ. Physiol. 54.Google Scholar
(19)Bennett, and Dodds, (1921). Journ. Physiol. 55 and (1922) Brit. Journ. Ex. Path. 2.Google Scholar
(20)Markoff, , cited by Krogh and Schmit-Jensen. Journ. Physiol.Google Scholar
(21)Lusk, (1921). Journ. Biol. Chem. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Khouvine, (1923). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 37.Google Scholar
(23)Lusk, (1917). Science of Nutrition, 297.Google Scholar
(24)Hill, and Lupton, (1923). Quart. Journ. Med. 16.Google Scholar