Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:25:38.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The mechanism of cellulose digestion in the ruminant organism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. E. Woodman
Affiliation:
(The Institute for the Study of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University.)

Extract

During the carrying out of the series of researches which led to the formulation of the well-known expression for calculating the starch equivalent of a feeding stuff, Kellner(1) was led to investigate the value of crude fibre in the fattening ration of oxen. For this purpose he used material which had resulted from the boiling of rye straw with an alkaline solution under pressure, the object of this treatment being to free the cellulose of the straw from incrusting substances. This fibre-rich preparation was added to a basal ration which was slightly in excess of maintenance requirements. The result produced by the addition to the basal ration of the digestible matter derived from the fibre of the treated straw was found by Kellner to be equal to that produced by the addition of an equal weight of pure starch. The conclusion was therefore warranted that the digestion products of cellulose in the ruminant organism are equal, for purposes of fat formation in the body, to those derived from the digestion of starch. This finding is given practical expression in Kellner1s formula for calculating the starch value of a feeding stuff, an equal value being attached to digestible fibre and digestible carbohydrate.

It is clear that any theory which is put forward to explain the breakdown of cellulose in the ruminant tract must be compatible with the experimentally demonstrated fact that the products of such digestion of a given weight of digestible fibre are equal in nutritive value to the products derived from the digestion of the same weight of starch.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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

REFERENCES

(1)Kellner, (1900). Versuchs-Stat. 53, 278.Google Scholar
(2)Brown, and Morris, (1890). Journ. Chem. Soc. 57, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Karrer, Joos and Staub, (1923). Helv. Chim. Acta, 6, 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Woodman, (1925). Journ. Agric. Sci. 15, 1; and Journ. Min. Agric. 31, March 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Omelianski, (1902). Centralbl. f. Bakt, ii Abt. 8, 324.Google Scholar
Omelianski, (1904). Centralbl. f. Bakt. ii Abt. 11, 369.Google Scholar
(6)Kellermann, and McBeth, (1912). Centralbl. f. Bakt. ii Abt. 34, 485.Google Scholar
(7)Viljoen, Fred and Peterson, (1926). Journ. Agric. Sci. 16, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Zuntz, and Mehring., v.Arch. ges. Physiol. 32, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Munk, . Arch. ges. Physiol. 46, 322.Google Scholar
(10)Mallévre., Arch. ges. Physiol. 49, 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Pringsheim, (1912). Zeit.f. physiol. Chem. 78, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Neuberg, and Rosenthal, (1923). Bioch. Zeit. 143, 399.Google Scholar
(13)Pringsheim, and Leibowitz, (1923). Zeit. f. physïol. Chem. 131, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar