Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T03:03:21.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the amount and type of food eaten on secretion from fundic abomasal pouches of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

L. M. McLeay  and
D. A. Titchen
L. M. McLeay
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preclinical Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
D. A. Titchen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Preclinical Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
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 effects on gastric secretion of altering the amount and type of food eaten were examined in sheep with fundic abomasal pouches and in sheep which also had the antral region of the abomasum isolated into a pouch or removed (antrectomy). Secretion, which was continuous in all preparations, was collected over 24 h periods, and daily determinations of its acid and pepsin concentrations were made for periods of up to 10 weeks.

2. Experimental diets consisting of chaffed lucerne, meadow and wheaten hays were fed on ad lib. or restricted regimens.

3. Raising and lowering the dry matter (DM) intakes of lucerne chaff increased and decreased respectively the volume, acidity and acid and pepsin outputs (volume x concentration of acid or pepsin) of fundic pouch secretion.

4. Increases of 27–64% in the amount of lucerne chaff eaten, after changing from restricted to ad lib. feeding, were followed by increases in the volume (19–66%), acid concentration (4–10 mequiv. H+/l, 3–9%) and acid output (18–76%) of pouch secretion.

5. With DM intakes of mixed lucerne and wheaten chaffs between 88 and 107% of those of lucerne, the secretion from the pouches was reduced to 45–88% of the volume and 39–77% of the acid output observed with the lucerne diet. Acid concentration was least affected, being unchanged in one series of observations and decreased by, at the most, 13 mequiv. H+/l (12%) in another. Reverting to a diet of lucerne chaff reversed these effects: the volume was increased by 30–49%, acid concentration by 2–15 mequiv. H+/l (2–14%), acid output by 38–68% and pepsin output by 30–43% although the intake of DM was the same or 6% less than that on the wheaten chaff mixture.

6. Secretion was greater when animals ate lucerne chaff than when they ate meadow chaff.

7. The changes in secretion according to diet were obtained in animals with antral pouches and antrectomy as well as in those with only fundic pouches.

8. It is argued in discussion that the markedly different abomasal secretions on different diets arise from abomasal stimulation due to the nature rather than the amount of digesta entering it and that although the pyloric antrum contributes to these changes it is not essential for their occurrence.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1974 , pp. 375 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. R., Fletcher, T. L., Pitts, C. L. & Harkins, H. N. (1962). Nature, Lond. 193, 1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1961 a). J. Physiol., Lond. 156, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. W. (1961 b). J. Physiol., Lond. 157, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., McAnally, R. A. & Phillipson, A. T. (1944). J. exp. Biol. 20, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, L., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B. & Ruckebusch, Y. (1972). J. Physiol., Lond. 227, 14P.Google Scholar
Carr, D. H., McLeay, L. M., Reid, C. S. W. & Webster, D. W. (1971). Digest 9th int. Conf. med. biol. Engng p. 94.Google Scholar
Carr, D. H., McLeay, L. M. & Titchen, D. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant p. 35 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Dedashev, Ia. P. (1959). Sechenov Physiol. J. USSR 45, 483.Google Scholar
Elwin, C.-E. & Uvnlis, B. (1966). In Gastrin: Proceedings of a Conference p. 69 [Grossman, M. I., editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, W. v., Erhlein, H-J. & Hörnicke, H. (1968). Q. Jl exp. Physiol. 53, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, M. I. (1967). In Handbook of Physiology Section 6: Alimentary Canal Vol. 2, p. 835 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J. (1960). J. Physiol., Lond. 154, 115.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant p. 221 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Washington, DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Hill, K. J. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology Section 6: Alimentary Canal Vol. 5, p. 2747 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1967). Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunner, M. C., Hudson, F. B. & Fletcher, T. L. (1969). Proc. Sac. exp. Biol. Med. 130, 1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. (1966). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 6, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuimov, D. K. (1952). Sov. Zootekh. 7, 75.Google Scholar
Masson, M. J. & Phillipson, A. T. (1952). J. Physiol., Lond. 116, 98.Google Scholar
McLeay, L. M. & Titchen, D. A. (1970 a). J. Physiol., Lond. 206, 605.Google Scholar
McLeay, L. M. & Titchen, D. A. (1970 b). Proc. Aust. Physiol. Pharmac. Soc. 1, 33.Google Scholar
McLeay, L. M. & Titchen, D. A. (1971). Proc. int. Union Physiol. Sci. 9, 382.Google Scholar
McLeay, L. M. & Titchen, D. A. (1973). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 33, 158.Google Scholar
Pennington, R. J. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Ash, R. W. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant p. 97 [Dougherty, R. W., ediotr’. Washington, DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Quin, J. I. & Van der Wath, J. G. (1938). Onderstepoort J. vet. Sci. Anim. Ind. 11, 361.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W. (1962). The influence of the afferent innervation of the ruminant stomach on its motility. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Sellers, A. F., Stevens, C. E., Dobson, A. & McLeod, F. D. (1964). Am. J. Physiol. 207, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, D. H. & Walsh, J. H. (1972). Clin. Res. 20, 223.Google Scholar
Titchen, D. A. (1958). J. Physiol., Lond. 143, 35P.Google Scholar
Titchen, D. A. (1968). In Handbook of Physiology Section 6: Alimentary Canal Vol. 5, p. 2705 [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Weston, R. H. (1966). Aust. J. agric. Res. 17, 939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1967). Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar