Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:41:14.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of diet on the exocrine pancreatic secretion of growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

I. G. Partridge ,
A. G. Low ,
I. E. Sambrook  and
T. Corring
I. G. Partridge
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. G. Low
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
I. E. Sambrook
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
T. Corring
Affiliation:
Centre National de Recherches Zootechniques – INRA, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
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. Pancreatic juice was collected from six pigs of 48 kg initial weight fitted with a collection catheter in the pancreatic duct and a return catheter in the duodenum.

2. Measurements of flow and composition of the juice were made during 24 h periods after adaptation to isonitrogenous diets based on barley, wheatings and fish meal (diet BWF) or starch, sucrose, casein, maize oil and cellulose (diet SSC), given in a change-over design. Measurements were also made during the periods of adaptation to a change from one diet to the other.

3. Mean flow-rates for pigs adapted to diets showed a highly significant four-fold difference between diets; values were 4962 ml/d for diet BWF and 1273 ml/d for diet SSC. The hourly volumes of juice were very variable and showed no clear response to feeding and no consistent diurnal pattern for either diet.

4. There were no significant differences between diets in the specific activities of the proteases. Average values were (units/nig protein) trypsin. (EC 3.4.21.4) 29·6, chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1) 7·7, carboxypeptidase A (EC 3.4.17.1) 0·65, carboxypeptidase B (EC 3.4.17.2) 1.6. The total output of each tended to be higher with diet BWF than with diet SSC. The specific activities and tolal outputs of α-amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) and lipase (EC 3.1.1.3) were significantly higher for diet BWF than for diet SSC; specific activities for the two diets respectively were: (units/mg protein) α-amylase 95·6 and 42·3, lipase 59·0 and 14·5.

5. The higher daily volume of juice with diet BWF was associated with significantly (but only slightly) higher levels of both sodium and potassium, compared with diet SSC.

6. The results are discussed in relation to previous studies on digestion at this Institute, in which pigs with intestinal cannulas were given the same diets.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 137 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. M. & Ash, R. W. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 34A.Google Scholar
Bernfield, P. (1951). Adv. Enzym. 12, 379.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Fulford, R. & Low, A. G. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. (1974). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 14, 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. (1980). In Current Concepts of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs, p. 136 [Low, A. G. and Partridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: National Institute for Research in Dairying.Google Scholar
Corring, T., Aumaitre, A. & Rerat, A. (1972). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 12, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. & Bourdon, D. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. & Saucier, R. (1972). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 12, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T. & Sumoes-Nunes, C. (1977). Irish J. med. Sci. 146, Suppl. 1, 43.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1970). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Folk, J. E., Piez, K. A., Carroll, W. R. & Gladner, J. A. (1960). J. biol. Chem. 235, 2272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folk, J. E. & Schirmer, E. W. (1963). J. biol. Chem. 238, 3884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickson, J. C. D. (1970). J. Physiol., Lond. 206, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, B. C. W. (1959). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janowitz, H. D. (1967). In Handbook of Physiology, Section 6, The Alimentary Canal, vol. 2, p. 925 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington: The American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Leeds, A. R., Kang, S. S., Low, A. G. & Sambrook, I. E. (1980). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39, 44AGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. (1979 a). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. (1979 b). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 48, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G., Partridge, I. G. & Sambrook, I. E. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosenbrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, I. G. (1978 a). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, I. G. (1978 b). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, I. G., Low, A. G., Sambrook, I. E. & Corring, T. (1979). Anim. Prod. 28, 440.Google Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Hays, V. W. & Thompson, A. M. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Thompson, A. M. & Hays, V. W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, I. E. (1979 a). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, I. E. (1979 b). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, I. E. (1981). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 32, 781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietz, N. W. & Fiereck, E. A. (1966). Clinica. chim. Acta 13, 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Low, A. G. & Zebrowska, H. (1981). Proc. VIth int Symp. Amino Acids, Serock, Poland.Google Scholar