Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:45:33.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbohydrate digestion by the domestic cat (Felis catus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2007

J. G. Morris ,
Jeanette Trudell  and
Terri Pencovic
J. G. Morris
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science and Physiological Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
Jeanette Trudell
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science and Physiological Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
Terri Pencovic
Affiliation:
Departments of Animal Science and Physiological Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
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. Three experiments were conducted on the ability of cats to utilize dietary carbohydrates. In two experiments, the digestibilities of carbohydrates were measured by the chromic oxide-marker technique using a balanced Latin-Square allocation of treatments: in the third experiment, the effect of age and diet on the activity of intestinal β-galactosidase (lactase) (EC 3.2.1.23) and β-fructofuranosidase (sucrase) (EC 3.2.1.26) of kittens was measured.

2. In Expt 1 the digestibilities of six individual carbohydrates, glucose, sucrose, lactose, dextrin, raw maize starch and wood cellulose added to a meat-based basal diet were measured.

3. In Expt 2, a similar meat-based basal diet was used and the effect of three processing methods (fine and coarse grinding, and cooking) on the apparent digestibility of the starch in maize and wheat grain was measured.

4. In Expt 3 the effects of the inclusion of either 200 g lactose or 200 g sucrose/kg in an all-meat diet and of age on the β-galactosidase and β-fructofuranosidase activities of the small intestine of weanling kittens were measured.

5. Adult cats efficiently (> 0.94) digested all six individual carbohydrates added to the diet with the exception of cellulose, which was indigestible. The digestibility coefficients of glucose, sucrose and lactose were significantly (P < 0.01) greater than that of starch. The inclusion of lactose caused diarrhoea in some cats and significantly (P < 0.01) reduced apparent digestibility of crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) in the total ration.

6. Fine grinding significantly enhanced the digestion of starch in wheat and maize grain, but the effect was greatest for maize grain. Cooking had a similar effect to fine grinding for wheat grain, but an effect intermediate between coarse and fine grinding for maize grain.

7. Intestinal β-galactosidase activity decreased with age in kittens (71-106 d). Neither β-fructofuranosidase nor β-galactosidase activities were significantly affected by the addition of sucrose and lactose to the all-meat diet.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 365 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Allison, J. B., Miller, S. A., McCoy, J. R. & Brush, M. K. (1956). N. Am. Vet. 37, 38.Google Scholar
Arthur, D. (1970). Can. Spectrosc. 15, 134.Google Scholar
Association of, Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Official Methods of Analysis, 9th ed.Washington, D.C.: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. J. & Coon, E. (1966). J. Nutr. 88, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calloway, D. H., Murphy, E. L. & Bauer, D. (1969). Am. J. dig. Dis. 14, 811.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs, 2nd ed., p. 133. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Cunningham, H. M., Friend, D. W. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1962). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 42, 167.Google Scholar
Dahlqvist, A. (1964). Analyt. Biochem. 7, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DaSilva, A. C. (1950). Acta Physiol. latinoam. 1, 20.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. B. (1950). In The Care and Breeding of Laboratory Animals, p. 206 [Farris, E. J. editor]. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Dickinson, C. D. & Scott, P. P. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 304.Google Scholar
Ewer, R. F. (1973). The Carnivores, p. 205. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gershoff, S. M., Andrus, S. B. & Hegsted, D. M. (1959). J. Nutr. 68, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, J. P. & Scott, P. P. (1963). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 22, IV.Google Scholar
Hoffman, W. S. (1937). J. biol. Chem. 120, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hore, P. & Messer, M. (1968). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 24, 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCay, C. M. (1949). Nutrition of the Dog. New York: Comstock Publ. Co.Google Scholar
McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A. & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1973). Animal Nutrition, 2nd ed.New York: Hafner Publish. Co.Google Scholar
Manners, M. J. & Stevens, J. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 113.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. & Allison, J. B. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 493.Google Scholar
Morris, J. G. (1966). Qd agric. J. 92, 225.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1968). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1599.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1972). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 2028.Google Scholar
Rosensweig, N. S. & Herman, R. H. (1968). J. clin. Invest. 47, 2258.Google Scholar
Sriratanaban, A. & Thayer, W. (1970). Clin. Res. 18, 389.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Technicon Instrument Corp. (1967). Auto Analyzer Method N9a. Tarry Town, New York: Technicon Instrument Corp.Google Scholar
Technicon Instrument Corp. (1969). Auto Analyzer Method N14b. Tarry Town, New York: Technicon Instrument Corp.Google Scholar
Weichselbaum, T. E. (1946). Am. J. clin. Path. 7, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, H. Y. & Jenest, E. S. (1969). Technicon International Congress. Advances in Automated Analysis, p. 69. Tarry Town, New York: Technicon Instrument Corp.Google Scholar