Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:50:13.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects upon glucose metabolism of feeding a low-or high-roughage diet at two levels of intake to sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

Essi Evans  and
J. G. Buchanan-Smith
Essi Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada
J. G. Buchanan-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada
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. To determine the effect of diet and level of energy intake on glucose metabolism in sheep, four dietary treatments consisting of feeding a low-roughage (LR) and a high-roughage (HR) diet at each of two intake levels estimated to provide 586 and 1172 kJ (140 and 280 kcal) digestible energy (DE)/kg body-weight0·75 per d were given to each of eight yearling rams in four different time periods each of 4 weeks duration. Both diets contained 140 g crude protein/ kg using ground maize, mixed hay and soya-bean meal and were given in two meals/d. Estimated DE values of food were verified during the study and actual intakes of DE were within 9·5% of the estimated values.

2. To study glucose metabolism, a single intravenous injection of [2-3H]glucose and subsequent withdrawal of nine venous blood samples within 3 h were made in each experiment. Two experiments were conducted on consecutive days for each sheep on each dietary treatment.

3. Coefficients of determination (r2) for linear regressions to measure the effect of time after a single injection of [2-3H]glucose on log specific radioactivity of plasma glucose were calculated for fifty-eight experiments. In fifty-six of the experiments, r2 values exceeding 0·95 were obtained.

4. Compared to the HR diet, the LR diet increased (P < 0·05) the pool size and decreased (P < 0·05) the half-life of glucose. At both intake levels, the LR diet increased (P < 0·05) the plasma concentration and the entry rate of glucose compared to the HR diet but interaction (P < 0·05) between diet and intake level was attributed to a greater difference obtained between diets at the higher compared to the lower level of food intake. Increasing the level of intake caused a greater (P < 0·05) pool size and space, and a shorter (P < 0·05) half-life of glucose.

5. It was concluded that substitution of roughage by concentrate in a ruminant's diet may increase the rate of glucose entry during a short time period after eating.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 33 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Armstrong, D. G. & Beever, D. E. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. W., Pennington, R. J. & Reid, R. S. (1964). Biochem. J. 90, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1970). Oficial Methods of Analysis 11th ed.Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Ballard, F. J., Hanson, R. W. & Kronfeld, D. S. (1969). Fedn. Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Bid. 28, 218.Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Davis, C. L. & Bucholtz, H. F. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants 2nd ed., p. 185. London: Hutchinson Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
Buchanan-Smith, J. G., Horney, F. D., Usborne, W. R. & Burgess, T. D. (1973). Can. J. Physiol. Pharmac. 51, 532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, A. W. A. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginochia, R. J. & Evans, J. W. (1973). J. Anim. Sci. 37, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, W. H. & King, R. P. (1958). Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 65, 224.Google Scholar
Jones, G. B. (1965). Analyt. Biochem. 12, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgenson, N. A., Schultz, L. H. & Barr, G. R. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, G. J., Anderson, E., Luick, J. R. & Leng, R. A. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, G. J. & Leng, R. A. (1972). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 25, 1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, G. J. & Leng, R. A. (1973 a). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, G. J. & Leng, R. A. (1973 b). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveille, G. A. (1970). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 29, 1294.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. B. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 438 [Phillipson, A. T., editor] Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (1968). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals No. 5, Nutrient Requirements of Sheep 4th ed.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Raabo, E. & Terkildsen, T. C. (1960). Scand. J. clin. Lab. Invest. 12, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, D. E. & Roubicek, C. B. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. L. (1958). Aust. J. agric. Res. 9, 788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear Models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Storry, J. E. & Rook, J. A. F. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkle, A. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Whitelaw, F. G. & Watson, F. G. (1970). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar