Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:37:01.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by sheep

1. The role of distension, flow-rate of digesta and propulsive motility in the intestines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

W. L. Grovum  and
G. D. Phillips
W. L. Grovum
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedial Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W2, Canada
G. D. Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada
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. Twelve sheep fitted with abomasal cannulas were given ad lib. access to a diet of chopped lucerne (Medicago sativa) hay to ascertain if the amount of digesta being transported by the intestines was limiting intake. If this was the situation, pumping a solution of the bulk-laxative methylcellulose (100 g/kg; MC) into the abomasum should have reduced intake in proportion to the mass of digesta attributable to the MC and associated water. In preliminary experiments faecal water and wet matter ouptuts increased by 6.2 and 7.4 g/g MC powder respectively.

2. The infusion of 2.95 kg MC/d did not affect food intake even though wet faecal output increased from a control value of 2.436 to 4.616 kg/d. The transit time of 51Cr-EDTA through the intestines decreased only slightly during the infusion indicating that MC produced a marked increase in the mass of intestinal contents. Increasing the rate of infusion to 5.336 kg/d increased wet faecal output to 5.437 kg/d, did not change transit time but significantly decreased food intake presumably to protect the intestines from overdistension. After stopping the infusion, food intakes and faecal outputs returned to control values but transit time remained unchanged. The intake of chopped lucerne hay by sheep was not limited by the capacity of the small and large intestines to transport bulk as intake was maintained even though wet faecal output was doubled and the intestines apparently became markedly distended.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 323 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Adolph, E. F. (1947). Am. J. Physiol. 151, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, B. K. & Pillai, R. V. (1967). J. Physiol., Lond. 192, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baile, C. A. & Forbes, J. M. (1974). Physiol. Rev. 54, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32, 669.Google Scholar
Bessou, P. & Perl, E. R. (1966). J. Physiol., Lond. 182, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 51.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wilson, R. S. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 351.Google Scholar
Carr, S. B. & Jacobson, D. R. (1967). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. & Hibbs, J. W. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 47, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W., Donefer, E. & Lloyd, L. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowcroft, P. J., Holman, M. E. & Szurszewski, J. H. (1971). J. Physiol., Lond. 219, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debons, A. F. & Krimsky, I. (1972). Postgrad. med. 51, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernandt, B. & Zotterman, Y. (1946). Acta physiol. scand. 12, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, R. & Leek, B. F. (1972). J. Physiol., Lond. 222, 139P.Google Scholar
Hertz, A. F. (1911). In The Sensibility of the Alimentary Canal, pp. 16–35. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, R. G., Ison, E. C., Jones, W. W. & Archdeacon, J. W. (1952). Am. J. Physiol. 170, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoelzel, F. (1947). Am. J. dig. Dis. 14, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iggo, A. (1955). J. Physiol., Lond. 128, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iggo, A. (1957 a). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 42, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iggo, A. (1957 b). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 42, 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janowitz, H. D. & Grossman, M. I. (1949 a). Am. J. Physiol. 158, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janowitz, H. D. & Grossman, M. I. (1949 b). Am. J. Physiol. 159, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. T., Ulyatt, M. J. & Glenday, A. C. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. (1972). Vet. Rec. 91, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, F. (1941). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernahr. Futtermittelk. 5, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machle, W., Heyroth, F. F., & Witherup, S. (1944). J. biol. Chem. 153, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinuddin, J. F. & Lee, H. W. (1959). Am. J. Physiol. 197, 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. J. & Baumgardt, B. R. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mraz, F. R., Boucher, R. V. & McCartney, M. G. (1957). Poult. Sci. 36, 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oomura, Y., Ooyama, H., Yamamoto, T. & Naka, F. (1967). Physiol. Behav. 2, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paintal, A. S. (1954). J. Physiol., Lond. 126, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paintal, A. S. (1957). J. Physiol., Lond. 139, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. W., Grau, C. R. & Peek, N. F. (1954). J. Nutr. 52, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettyjohn, J. D., Everett, J. P. & Mochrie, R. D. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, A. L., Brougham, R. W., Glenday, A. C. & Butler, G. W. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, N. T., Scott, H. M. & Kummerow, F. A. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 1166.Google Scholar
Reese, E. T., Siu, R. G. H. & Levinson, H. S. (1950). J. Bact. 59, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, K. N., Anand, B. K., Dua, S. & Singh, B. (1961). Am. J. Physiol. 201, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R., Slinger, S. J. & Ashton, G. C. (1960). J. Nutr. 72, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1967). In Statistical Methods, pp. 273–5. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stominger, J. L., Brobeck, J. R. & Cort, R. L. (1953). Yale J. Biol. Med. 26, 55.Google Scholar
Tainter, M. L. & Buchanan, O. H. (1954). Ann N. Y. Acad. Sci. 58, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Blaxter, K. L. & McDonald, I. (1967). Anim, Prod. 9, 463.Google Scholar
Welch, J. G. (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yudkin, J. (1959). Lancet ii, 1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar