Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:01:46.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Porto-arterial plasma concentration differences of urea and ammonia-nitrogen in growing pigs given high-and low-fibre diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Kjell Malmlöf
Kjell Malmlöf
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
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 a high-(HF) and a low-(LF) fibre diet on porto-arterial plasma concentration differences and plasma levels of urea and ammonia-nitrogen were compared in six Swedish Landrace x Yorkshire pigs (30–52 kg). Portal and arterial blood samples were drawn during 8 h following two consecutive meals, given at 08.00 and 16.00 hours.

2. The HF diet, in comparison with the LF diet, was found to produce significantly lower portal plasma urea levels. However, concomitant arterial plasma levels were equally depressed, consequently leaving the porto-arterial urea differences unchanged.

3. In no instance during the 16 h studied could negative porto-arterial urea differences clearly be observed. It was thus concluded that none of the diets induced an important net flux of plasma urea directly from the circulation into the gastrointestinal tract.

4. The significantly lower circulating plasma urea levels that were observed when the pigs received the HF diet were also associated with significantly lower urinary excretions of urea.

5. The HF and LF diets had similar effects on portal and arterial plasma levels of ammonia-N. This was also true with regard to porto-arterial ammonia-N differences.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 439 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Barr, A., Goodnight, H. H., Sall, J. P., Blair, W. P. & Chilko, D. M. (1979). SAS User's Guide. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Beames, R. M. & Eggum, B. O. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergner, H. (1981). Pig News and Information 2, 135–140.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Hill, M. J., Bone, E. S., Branch, W. J. & Jenkins, D. J. A. (1979). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 32, 2094–2101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. (1980). In Current Concepts of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs, Technical Bulletin no. 3, pp. 136–150 [Low, A. G. and Partridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: National Institute for Research in Dairying.Google Scholar
Forsythe, S. J. & Parker, D. S. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Y., Tsuiki, S., Nisizawa, K. & Pigman, W. (1963). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 106, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1971). British Journal of Nutrition 26, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imler, M., Frick, A., Stahl, A., Peter, B. & Stahl, J. (1972). Clinica Chimica Acta 37, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopstein, J. & Wrong, O. M. (1977). Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine 52, 9–17.Google Scholar
Malmlöf, K. & Håkansson, J. (1984). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 53–57.Google Scholar
Malmlöf, K. & Simoes Nunes, C. (1985). In Digestive Physiology in the Pig, pp. 223–226 [Just, A., Jörgensen, H. and Fernandez, J. F., editors]. Copenhagen: National Institute of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Marty, J., Lavarde, M.-A. & Raynaud, P. (1976). Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie et Biophysique 16, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosenthin, R. & Henkel, H. (1978). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 40, 122–123.Google Scholar
Rerat, A., Lisoprawski, C., Vaissade, P. & Vaugelade, P. (1979). Bulletin de l' Académie Vétérinaire de France 52, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rerat, A., Vaugelade, P. & Villiers, P. (1980). In Current Concepts of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs. Technical Bulletin no. 3, pp. 177–214 [Low, A. G. and Partridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: National Institute for Research in Dairying.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1981). In Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Foods, pp. 123–158 [James, W. P. T. and Theander, O., editors]. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Stothers, S. C. & Parker, R. J. (1977). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51, 775–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverner, M. R., Hume, I. D. & Farell, D. J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon Instruments Co. (1972). Clinical Method no. 01. Tarrytown, New York: Technicon Instruments Co.Google Scholar
Wolpert, E., Philips, S. F. & Summerskill, W. H. J. (1971). Lancet ii, 1387–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrong, O. M., Vince, A. J. & Waterlow, J. C. (1985). Clinical Science 68, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Simon, O., Münchmeyer, R. & Bergner, H. (1976). Archiv für Tierernährung 26, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar