Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:21:10.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on digestion and absorption in the intestines of growing pigs

2. Measurements of the flow of dry matter, ash and water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2011

A. G. Low ,
I. G. Partridge  and
I. E. Sambrook
A. G. Low
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks. RG2 9AT
I. G. Partridge
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks. RG2 9AT
I. E. Sambrook
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks. 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. Digesta were collected from twenty-three pigs, initially of 30 kg live weight, and fitted with single Ash re-entrant cannulas in either the duodenum, jejunum or ileum. A further twenty-four pigs were used in a conventional digestibility trial.

2. The diets contained: barley, fine wheat offal, white fish meal, minerals and vitamins (diet BWF); starch, sucrose, maize oil, cellulose, minerals, vitamins and either groundnut (diet SSG) or casein (diet SSC).

3. The flow-rates of dry matter (dm), ash and water were measured hourly in the duodenum and jejunum, and every 6 h in the ileum during 24 h collection periods. Faeces were collected during 5 d periods.

4. Marked increases in the flow rates of each of the digesta components after feeding each diet were observed in the duodenum and jejunum, but not in the ileum. The total flow in 24 h periods was much lower in the ileum than at the other sites.

5. Values for the ratio, dm output:intake for dm outputs from the duodenal, jejunal or ileal cannulas, and in faeces, in 24 h periods were respectively 0.94, 0.81, 0.28 and 0.22 for diet BWF; 0.96, 0.76, 0.20 and 0.15 for diet SSG; 0.96, 0.73, 0.08 and 0.04 for diet SSC. The corresponding values for ash were: 1.47, 1.65, 0.74 and 0.53 for diet BWF; 1.28, 1.34, 0.59 and 0.51 for diet SSG; 1.63, 1.35, 0.50 and 0.26 for diet SSC. The corresponding values for water were: 3.49, 3.41, 0.88 and 0.18 for diet BWF, 2.75, 2.80, 0.80 and 0.08 for diet SSG and 2.61, 1.87, 0.23 and 0.01 for diet SSC.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , May 1978 , pp. 515 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. & Pittman, R. J. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 199.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Fulford, R. J. & Low, A. G. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 a). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 b). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 c). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evseeva, Z. I. (1953). In The Nutritional Physiology of Farm Animals [Sineshchekov, A. D., editor]. Original in Russian. Translation, 1963. Boston Spa: National Lending Library.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1970). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Horszczaruk, F. (1971 a). Biul. Inst. Genet. Hodow. Zwierz. pol. Akad. Nauk. no. 21, p. 101.Google Scholar
Horszczaruk, F. (1971 b). Biul. Inst. Genet. Hodow. Zwierz. pol. Akad. Nauk. no. 21, p. 117.Google Scholar
Horszczaruk, F. (1971 c). Biul. Inst. Genet. Hodow. Zwierz. pol. Akad. Nauk. no. 21, p. 137.Google Scholar
Kvasnitskii, A. V. (1951). Voprosy Fiziologii Pischevarenija u Svinei. Moscow: Sel'Khozgiz (Translated by D. E. Kidder).Google Scholar
Laplace, J.-P. (1972). Annls Zootech. 21, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W. D. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1969). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1684.Google Scholar
Partridge, I. G. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1973). Roczn. Nauk. roln. 95B, 115.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. & Buraczewska, L. (1972). Roczn. Nauk. roln. 94B, 81.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Buraczewska, L., Buraczewski, S. & Horszczaruk, F. (1975). Roczn. Nauk. roln. 96B, 79.Google Scholar