Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:50:58.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on intestinal digestion in the sheep

1. The use of chromic oxide as an indigestible marker

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 Newcastleupon Tyne
D. G. Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Newcastleupon 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. The use of chromic oxide (Cr2O3) as an indigestible marker for studies on intestinal digestion in sheep has been examined. The sheep used were equipped with a cannula into the rumen and a re-entrant cannula in the proximal duodenum; some also had a re-entrant cannula in the terminal ileum. The marker was administered twice daily in the form of Cr2O3-impregnated paper, through the rumen cannula.

2. Recovery of Cr2O3 in the faeces, based on 7-day collection periods, was satisfactory, the mean recovery for all seven experiments being 99.6 ± 0.7%. In seventeen 24 h collections of digesta entering the proximal duodenum, the mean recovery of the daily dose of marker was 83.7% (range 63.6-148.4%); in eleven such collections at the terminal ileum the mean recovery was 77.3% (54.0-90.0%).

3. Detailed examination of the concentrations of Cr2O3 in dry matter was made with individual samples taken during single 24 h periods for five duodenal and three ileal collection periods. There were always marked variations in these concentrations. It is concluded that use of short collection periods to give mean values for the flow of digesta throughout the 24 h, at particular points along the tract, may lead to large errors.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 15 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Brown, G. F., Armstrong, D. G. & MacRae, J. C. (1968). Br. vet. J. 124, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N. Z. Jl Sci. Technol. 36 A,328.Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Gwynn, P. E. & Walker, D. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., McDonald, I. & Florence, E. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowlishaw, S. J. & Alder, F. E. (1963). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 18, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deinum, B., Immink, H. J. & Deijs, W. B. (1962). Jaarb. Inst. biol. scheik. Onderz. LandbGewass. 188, 123 (see Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 33, Abstr. 5097).Google Scholar
Donaldson, R. M. Jr & Barreras, R. F. (1966). J. Lab. clin. Med. 68, 484.Google Scholar
Goodall, E. D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 176, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Phillipson, A. T. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 97.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Phillipson, A. T. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, S. (1956). K. LantbrHogsk. Annlr 22, 411.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Dinusson, W. E. & Bolin, D. W. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. (1952). J. Physiol., Lond. 166, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigden, W. J. & Brisson, G. J. (1956). Can. J. agric. Sci. 36, 146.Google Scholar
Putnam, P. A., Loosli, J. K. & Warner, R. G. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, A. E. & De Langen, H. (1960). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 3, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar