Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:35:36.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movements of the stomach compartments of a young bull during sucking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2009

R. N. B. Kay*  and
Y. Ruckebusch
R. N. B. Kay*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Physiologie, Therapeutique et Pharmacodynamie, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire, Toulouse, France
Y. Ruckebusch
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Physiologie, Therapeutique et Pharmacodynamie, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire, Toulouse, France
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. Gastric motility was studied in a young bull and two sheep which had retained their sucking behaviour. Pressure tracings or electromyograms were recorded from all compart-ments of the stomach.

2. During the sucking of milk or water reticulum contractions either became more fre-quent but weak, or ceased altogether. After sucking, or after the introduction of fluid directly into the abomasum, reticulum contractions slowed down but retained their strength. The rumen and omasum were more fully inhibited than the reticulum.

3. It is concluded that the inhibitory response to sucking has two phases, a cephalic phase dependent upon the eagerness of sucking which mainly influences the strength of the contractions of the forestomach, and an abomasal phase dependent on the degree of distension of the abomasum which mainly affects the frequency of the contractions.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Cannon, W. B. & Lieb, C. W. (1911). Am. J. Physiol. 20, 267.Google Scholar
Jansson, G. (1969). Acta physiol. scand. 75, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. & Ruckebusch, Y. (1971). J. Physiol., Lond. 214, 34P.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Benzie, D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y. (1970). J. Physiol., Lond. 210, 857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y. & Kay, R. N. B. (1971). Annls Rech. vét. 2, 99.Google Scholar
Schalk, A. F. & Amadon, R. S. (1928). Bull. N. Dak. agric. Exp. Stn no. 216.Google Scholar
Titchen, D. A. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology. Section 6: Alimentary Canal Ch. 129 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Warner, R. G. & Flatt, W. P. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant p. 24 [ Dougherty, R. W. editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Watson, R. H. (1944). Bull. Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. no. 180, p. 1s.Google Scholar