Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:11:10.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnesium in the dairy cow. VI. Metabolism on artificial diets low in magnesium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A. F. Rook ,
R. C. Campling  and
V. W. Johnson
J. A. F. Rook
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfteld, nr. Reading
R. C. Campling
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfteld, nr. Reading
V. W. Johnson
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfteld, nr. Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The results are reported of three experiments in which metabolism trials were carried out with milking cows given artificial diets low in magnesium with or without supplementary magnesium.

2. In Exps. 1 and 2, the basal diets provided cither about 13 or about 9 g. of magnesium/day, that is an intake of magnesium similar to that found previously with cut-grass diets (Rook & Balch, 1958) which produced hypomagnesaemia. The ‘availability’ of the magnesium of the artificial diets was, however, of the order of 25–35 % and higher than that of cut-grass diets, and for all cows the artificial diets provided magnesium in excess of requirements, as indicated by the excretion of measurable amounts of magnesium in the urine and the maintenance of normal concentrations of magnesium in the blood serum.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 273 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aixcroft, R. (1960). British Veterinary Association Conference on Hypomagnesaemia, London, p. 102.Google Scholar
Balon, C. C., Johnson, V. W. & Machin, C. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 355.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Rook, J. A. F. (1954). J. Oomp. Pathol. 64, 176.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Rook, J. A. F. & MacDonald, A. M. (1954). J. Oomp. Pathol. 64, 157.Google Scholar
Cunningham, I. J. (1936a). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. 18, 419.Google Scholar
Cunningham, I. J. (1936b). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. 18, 424.Google Scholar
Field, A. C. (1960). Nature, Lond., 188, 1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A., Deijs, W. B., Hemkes, O. J. & Van Es, A. J. H. (1961). Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 9, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Baloh, C. C. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F., Balch, C. C. & Line, C. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Campling, R. C. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Storry, J. E. (1962). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32, 1055.Google Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Rook, J. A. F. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 61, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar