Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:56:35.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concurrent studies of the flow of digesta in the duodenum and of exocrine pancreatic secretion of calves

2.* The effects of addition of fat to skim milk and of ‘severe’ preheating treatment of spray-dried skim-milk powder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

J. H. Ternouth ,
J. H. B. Roy  and
R. C. Siddons
J. H. Ternouth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
J. H. B. Roy
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
R. C. Siddons
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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 duodenal flow of digesta and the concurrent pancreatic secretion were compared when six Ayrshire calves, with duodenal re-entrant and pancreatic sac cannulas, were fed on three reconstituted milks. The diets were: reconstituted, ‘mildly’ preheated, spray-dried skim-milk powder (SK); the same skim milk containing 20 g fat/l (SKF); and reconstituted, ‘severely’ preheated skim-milk powder containing 20 g fat/l (HSKF). The calves were fed ad lib. from teats twice daily from 9 to 21 d of age, each diet being offered for 4 d. Collections of duodenal digesta and pancreatic secretions were made for 12 h after the fourth and eighth meals on each diet.

2. The calves tended to have the highest liquid intakes when diet SK was given. After adjustment for differences in intake, diet SK resulted in the appearance of more hydrogen, chloride and potassium ions but less undigested protein nitrogen in the duodenal digesta than with either diet SKF or HSKF.

3. Compared with diets SK and SKF, the whey fluids from diet HSKF took significantly longer to leave the abomasum, less H+ passed through the duodenum during the first 6 h after feeding and less Cl− during the whole postprandial period. More undigested protein N and fat from diet HSKF passed through the duodenum during the first 6 h after feeding, although this difference was significant only for protein N during the 1st hour after feeding.

4. Over the 12 h postprandial period, the duodenal digesta contained almost exactly the same quantities of polyethylene glycol (PEG), N and fat as those in the meal. The total volume of digesta was 2.25 l greater than the quantity of milk ingested. When the hourly duodenal flows of PEG and fluid were expressed as the square root of the hourly quantities recovered, the pattern of abomasal emptying was rectilinear. The flows of N and fat were curvilinear, when expressed on the same basis.

5. The concentration of ‘sodium-free’chloride in the duodenal digesta, in excess of that ingested in the milk, was used as an indicator of the quantity of acid secreted by the abomasum. The relative quantity of acid secreted was greatest with diet SK and least with diet HSKF.

6. The pancreatic secretion of fluid was highest during the period 5–9 h after feeding but the secretion of enzyme activity was highest during the first 2 h after feeding.

7. Considerable variability in the secretion of enzyme activity was observed and the rate of secretion did not appear to be related to any component of the duodenal digesta.

8. Diet SKF was associated with a greater volume of pancreatic secretion and more pancreatic protease secretion than either diet SK or HSKF, but most amylase activity was secreted when diet HSKF was given. Evidence is presented which suggests that pancreatic enzyme activity adaptation occurred when diet HSKF was offered in succession to diet SK or SKF. The secretion of trypsin activity did not differ between diets.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1974 , pp. 13 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Ash, R. W. (1959). Int. vet. Congr. XVI, Madrid, p. 19.Google Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 172, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Abdeljlil, A., Visani, A. M. & Desnuelle, P. (1963). Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun. 10, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Standards Institution (1969). Specification no. 696, part 2.Google Scholar
Bucko, A., Simko, V. & Kopec, Z. (1969). Nutritio Dieta 11, 303.Google Scholar
Bush, L. J., Schuh, J. D., Tennille, N. B. & Waller, G. R. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clary, J. J., Mitchell, G. E., Little, C. O. & Bradley, N. W. (1969). Can.J. Physiol. Pharmac. 47, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlqvist, A. (1961). Biochem. J. 78, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espe, D. L. & Cannon, C. Y. (1935). J. Dairy Sci. 18, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florey, H. W. & Harding, H. E. (1934). J. Path. Bact. 39, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M. I., Greengard, H. & Ivy, A. C. (1944). Am. J. Physiol. 141, 39.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. A. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 162, 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. J., Noakes, D. E. & Lowe, R. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 166 [ Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. (1966). J. Physiol., Lond. 182, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, F. & Yudkin, J. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. N. (1951). J. Physiol., Lond. 113, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Wan, B. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology Sect. 6, Alimentary Canal p. 781 [ Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Keller, P. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology Sect. 6, Alimentary Canal p. 2605 [ Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
King, E. J. & Wooton, I. D. P. (1956). Microanalysis in Medical Biochemistry 3rd ed. London: J. and A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Mathieu, C. -M.. (1968). Annls Biol. anim Biochim. Biophys. 8, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, C. -M. & Barré, P.-E. (1964). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 4, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 a). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 b). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 c). Res. vet. Sci. 7, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, F. G., Jacobson, N. L., Allen, K. S. & Homeyer, P. G. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelot, D. & Grossman, M. I. (1962). Am. J. Physiol. 202, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, A. M. & Robinson, K. L. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1962). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairying p. 41.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1970). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 21, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Shillam, K. W. G., Thompson, S. Y. & Dawson, D. A. (1961). Br.J. Nutr. 15, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Stobo, I. J. F. & Gaston, H. J. (1970). Br.J. Nutr. 24, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1968). Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 39, 333.Google Scholar
Schwert, G. W. & Takenaka, Y. (1955). Biochim. biophys. Acta 16, 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G. & Roy, J. H. B. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillam, K. W. G., Roy, J. H. B. & Ingram, P. L. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C. (1968). Biochem. J. 108, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1958). Nature, Lond. 182, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1962). Biochem. J. 83, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagari, H. & Roy, J. H. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. (1971). Studies of the role of the abomasum and pancreas in digestion in the young calf. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. & Buttle, H. L. (1973). Br.J. Nutr. 29, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, H. (1967). Practical Clinical Biochemistry. London: W. Heinemann.Google Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964). Br.J. Nutr. 18, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C. C. & Grossman, M. I. (1951). Am. J. Physiol. 164, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar