Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:30:49.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gluconeogenesis from caecal propionate in the horse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2008

E. J. H. Ford  and
H. A. Simmons
E. J. H. Ford
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston, South Wirral L64 7TH
H. A. Simmons
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston, South Wirral L64 7TH
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 production of propionate in the caecum of the horse has been measured in two Shetland-type ponies fitted with caecal and colonic cannulas and fed on hay or on hay and wheat bran. A continuous intracaecal infusion of 14C-labelled sodium propionate was used and samples were obtained from a cannula at the origin of the right ventral colon. A simultaneous intravenous infusion of [2-3H]glucose was used to measure total glucose entry.

2. On a hay diet which provided 177 kJ/kg body-weight per d, mean caecal propionate production was 19.6 (range 17.2–21.2) mg/h per kg body-weight and on a hay and wheat bran diet, which provided 187 KJ/kg body-weight per d, mean caecal propionate production was 34.0 (range 28.9–38.3) mg/h per kg body-weight.

3. Mean total glucose production (mg/h per kg body-weight) in one pony was 104 (range 100–110) and in the other 135 (range 123–153). Rates were not influenced by diet.

4. About 7% of total glucose production was derived from propionate produced in the caecum and this percentage was unaffected by diet or by individual animals.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 55 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, F. (1970). British Veterinary Journal 126, 604–606.Google Scholar
Argenzio, R. A., Southworth, M. & Stevens, C. E. (1974). American Journal of Physiology 226, 1043–1050.Google Scholar
Bergman, E. N., Roe, W. E. & Kon, K. (1966). American Journal of Physiology 211, 793–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. R., Hitchcock, M. W. S., Marshall, R. A. & Phillipson, A. T. (1946). Journal of Experimental Biology 22, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, E. J. H.& Evans, J. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, E. J. H. & Winchester, J. G. (1974). Journal of Endocrinology 62, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinsky, M. J., Smith, R. M., Spires, H. R. & Davis, C. L. (1976). Journal of Animal Science 42, 1465–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetenyi, G. & Reynolds, J. (1967). International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 18, 331–332.Google Scholar
Huggett, A. St. G. & Nixon, D. A. (1957). Lancet 2, 368–370.Google Scholar
Jones, G. B. (1965). Analytical Biochemistry 12, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, J. A., Anderson, E., Luick, J. R. & Leng, R. A. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition 22, 69–75.Google Scholar
White, R. G., Steele, J. W., Leng, R. A. & Luick, J. R. (1969). Biochemical Journal 114, 203–214.Google Scholar