Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:56:42.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on intestinal digestion in the sheep

2.* Digestion of some carbohydrate constituents in hay, cereal and hay-cereal rations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. C. Macrae  and
D. G. Armstrong
J. C. Macrae
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
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. In seven experiments sheep were given diets ranging from all-hay to all-barley, and also a diet comprising one part hay to two parts flaked maize. Each sheep was equipped with a cannula into the rumen and a re-entrant cannula in the proximal duodenum; six of the ten also had a re-entrant cannula in the terminal ileum. Paper impregnated with chromic oxide (Cr2O3) was given twice daily by rumen fistula.

2. Amounts of α-linked glucose polymer entering and leaving the small intestine and excreted in the faeces were measured. Some values for a fraction designated non-glucose reducing polymer for cellulose and for gross energy were also obtained. The amounts passing the proximal duodenum and the terminal ileum were adjusted to give 100% recovery of Cr2O3 and the values were used to measure the extent of digestion in various parts of the alimentary tract.

3. When rolled or whole barley was given alone or was the major feed constituent the amount of α-linked glucose polymer entering the small intestine was 6.0±0.76% of that ingested (range 2.6–8.1%). The value was significantly lower than that found for the diet of hay and flaked maize (10.4±1.3%, range 8.0–13.6 %).The α-linked glucose polymer which entered the small intestine was almost completely digested there.

4. The digestibility of the non-glucose reducing polymer, which included much of the hemicelluloses present, ranged from 51 to 73% and almost all the digestible fraction (93–97%) was digested before the small intestine when hay or predominantly hay diets were given. On high-cereal diets only 71–85% of the digested fraction disappeared before the small intestine and appreciable amounts were digested in the large intestine.

5. On the all-hay diet 91% of the digestible cellulose and 67% of the digestible energy were lost before the small intestine, 0 and 21% in the small intestine and 9 and 12% in the large intestine.

6. Mean digestibility coefficients determined in sheep fed solely on either whole or rolled barley were: for dry matter 88.1 and 87.9%, for nitrogen 83.5 and 82.1%, for crude fibre 53.7 and 56.6% and for gross energy 87.7 and 88.0%.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 377 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Armstrong, D. G. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant, p. 272. [Dougherty, R.W., Allen, R.S., Burroughs, W., Jacobson, N.L. & McGilliard, A.D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1957). Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, A. J. G. (1957).J. agric. Sci., Camb. 49, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B., Phillipson, A. T. & Vowles, L. E. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 46.Google Scholar
Heald, P. J. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Phillipson, A. T. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, M. R., Little, C. O. & Mitchell, G. E. Jr. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. &Armstrong, D. G. (1968). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 19, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Fraser, C. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 37A.Google Scholar
Porter, P. & Singleton, A. G. (1965). Biochem. J. 96, 59P.Google Scholar
Ridges, A. P. & Singleton, A. G. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 161, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sineschchekov, A. D. (editor) (1953). Fiziologiya pitaniya sel' skokhozyaistvennykh zhivotnykh. Moscow: Sel'khozgiz. (The Nutritional Physiology of Farm Animals. English translation 1964. National Lending Library for Science and Technology, Boston Spa, Yorkshire).Google Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 160, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 49A.Google Scholar
Topps, J. H., Kay, R. N. B. & Goodall, E. D. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topps, J. H., Kay, R. N. B., Goodall, E. D., Whitelaw, F. G. & Reid, R. S. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, R. E., Little, C. O., Mitchell, G. E. Jr, Hayes, B. W. & Karr, M. R. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 911.Google Scholar
Weller, R. A. & Gray, F. V. (1954). J. exp. Biol. 31, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar