Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:46:37.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of different feeds, including those containing soya-bean products, on the passage of digesta from the abomasum of the preruminant calf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

R. H. Smith  and
J. W. Sissons
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
J. W. Sissons
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. The effects of various factors on rates of flow and composition of digesta leaving the abomasum of preruminant calves were studied. The possible relation of some of these effects to the development of serum antibodies to certain dietary constituents has also been examined. Two situations were distinguished: (a) unsensitized responses, shown by calves receiving milk protein or soya-bean products for the first one or two occasions; (b) sensitized responses, shown by calves receiving certain soya-bean products, after a number of these feeds had been given.

2. For unsensitized calves, the rate of flow of total digesta from the abomasum was greater in the first few hours after a feed consisting of a mineral solution was given, than after cow's milk was given. This difference was apparently due to differences in the composition of digesta entering the duodenum. Total digesta flows after giving synthetic milk feeds, prepared from different protein sources, were similar to those after cow's milk was given.

3. For sensitized calves, rates of flow of total digesta from the abomasum were greatly affected by the nature of the protein source used in the diet. Soya-bean flour (heated or unheated) generally caused inhibition of flow for some hours after feeding; a soya-bean protein isolate (isoelectric) had a similar but smaller effect, but a soya-bean concentrate (prepared by alcohol extraction of a soya-bean flour) and milk protein had little or no effect. The inhibition, believed to be a sign of more general disorders, appeared to be caused by a factor entering the duodenum which induced a change in the way in which the calf responded, probably as the result of a gastrointestinal allergy.

4. Calves given soya-bean flour or a soya-bean protein isolate (isoelectric) in their diets for several weeks, showed respectively high and low titres of serum antibodies to an antigen prepared from soya-bean flour. Calves given alcohol-extracted soya-bean concentrate had no similar antibodies.

5. In addition to variations in total digesta flow, dietary nitrogen compounds were held up in the abomasum to different extents after different feeds. After a whole-milk feed or a synthetic feed prepared from casein, a slow, steady release of N occurred over at least 9 h. N hold-up after giving soya-bean-containing feeds was slight for the soya-bean flour, but extremely marked for the soya-bean protein isolate (isoelectric). The latter hold-up was followed after several hours by a rapid outflow of N from the abomasum.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 329 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Aitken, M. M., Sanford, J. & Zarkower, A. (1974). Res. vet. Sci. 16, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ament, M. E. & Rubin, C. E. (1972). Gastroenterology 62, 227.Google Scholar
American Oil Chemists' Society (1965). Official and Tentative Methods 3rd ed. Tentative method Ba 11–65. Chicago: American Oil Chemists' Society.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 172, 425.Google Scholar
Bell, F. R. & Razig, S. A. D. (1973). J. Physiol., Lond. 228, 499.Google Scholar
Boyden, S. V. (1951). J. exp. Med. 93, 107.Google Scholar
Coalson, J. A., Jones, E. E. & Lecce, J. G. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 214.Google Scholar
Colvin, B. M. & Ramsey, H. A. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 898.Google Scholar
Colvin, B. M., Lowe, R. A. & Ramsey, H. A. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52,687.Google Scholar
Cook, C. D. (1960). New Eng1. J. Med. 263, 1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, N. B. (1972). Carbohydrate digestion and absorption in the preruminant calf. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Coombe, N. B. & Smith, R. H. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 331.Google Scholar
Fleck, A. & Munro, H. N. (1965). Clinica chim. Acta 11, 2.Google Scholar
Frazer, A. C., Fletcher, R. F., Ross, C. A. C., Shaw, B., Sammons, H. G. & Schneider, R. (1959). Lancet ii, 252.Google Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. L. & Thomas, J. W. (1967). J. Nutr. 92, 215.Google Scholar
Gryboski, J. D. (1967). Pediatrics, Springfield 40, 354.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Knox, M. T. (1968). J. Physiol., Lond. 194, 327.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Knox, M. T. (1969). J. Physiol., Lond. 201, 161.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Knox, M. T. (1971). In Gastrointestinal Motility p. 46 [Demling, L. and Ottenjaun, R., editors.]New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kakade, M. L., Rackis, J. J., McGhee, J. E. & Puski, G. (1974). Cereal Chem. 51, 376.Google Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 a). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 333.Google Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 b). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 394.Google Scholar
Nitsan, Z., Volcani, R., Gordin, S. & Hasdai, A. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 1294.Google Scholar
Nitsan, Z., Volcani, R., Hasdai, A. & Gordin, S. (1972). J. Dairy Sci. 55, 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paruelle, J.-L., Toullec, R., Frantzen, J.-F & Mathieu, C.-M. (1972). Annls Zootech. 21, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1952). J. Physiol., Lond. 116, 84.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. G. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, H. A. & Witaszek, P. (1972). J. Dairy Sci. 55, 705.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Shillam, K. W. G., Hawkins, G. M. & Lang, J. M. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 123.Google Scholar
Self, T. W., Herskovic, T., Czapek, E., Caplan, D., Schonberger, T. & Gryboski, J. D. (1969). J. Am. med. Ass. 207, 2393.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. A., Halpern, S. R., Johnson, R. B., Anderson, D. W., Saperstein, S. & Shannon, B. S. (1971). Ann. Allergy 29, 126.Google Scholar
Siewert, K. L. & Otterby, D. E. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1305.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1958). Nature, Lond. 182, 260.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1962). Biochem. J. 83, 151.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H., Hill, W. B. & Sissons, J. W. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 6A.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & Wynn, C. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 75A.Google Scholar
Stein, J. F., Knodt, C. B. & Ross, E. B. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H. & Roy, J. H. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K. B., Thomson, D. L., Truelove, S. C. & Wright, R. (1961). Br. med. J. ii, 1727.Google Scholar
Technicon Instruments Ltd (1967). Technicon Methodology Sheet N-3b. Basingstoke: Technicon Instruments Ltd.Google Scholar
Toullec, R. & Mathieu, C.-M. (1973). Annls Rech. vet. 4, 13.Google Scholar
Toullec, R., Thivend, P. & Mathieu, C.-M. (1971). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 11, 435.Google Scholar
van Adrichem, P. W. M. & Frens, A. M. (1965). Tijdschr. Diergeneesk. 90, 525.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, J. M., Weide, H. J. & Braas, C. C. (1969). Versl. landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. no. 732.Google Scholar
Vest, M., Olafson, A. & Schenker, P. (1966). Schweiz. med. Wschr. 96, 762.Google Scholar