Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:46:34.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of the large intestine of sheep

2. Kinetics of liquid and solid phase markers in the caecum and proximal colon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

R. M. Dixon ,
J. V. Nolan  and
L. P. Milligan
R. M. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Rural Science, The University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. V. Nolan
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Faculty of Rural Science, The University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
L. P. Milligan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, 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. Experiments were undertaken to examine the errors associated with the use of indigestible markers, the 51Cr-labelled complex of chromium ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid (51Cr-EDTA) and 103Ru-labelled tris-(1,10-phenanthroline)-ruthenium(II) chloride (103Ru-P), to measure liquid- and solid-phase digesta kinetics in the caecum and proximal colon of sheep.

2. First-order kinetics of markers were observed following either single injection or termination of continuous infusion. There were no differences between the half-times (T½) of marker in the caecum plus proximal colon whether calculated from marker concentration in caecal digesta or in faeces. There were also no differences in the T½ values calculated for the liquid- and solid-phase markers. When pool sizes calculated from the marker kinetics were compared with the volume of digesta present in the caecum and proximal colon at slaughter, it appeared that the 51Cr-EDTA and 103Ru-P caecal pools described the digesta contained in the entire caecum and proximal colon.

3. The flow-rates of dry matter (DM) through the caecum of sheep given 694 g lucerne (Medicago sativa) DM/d were similar whether estimated from total collection of faeces, by single injection of marker, or by the ratio, marker concentration: DM in either caecal digesta or faeces during continuous infusion of marker into either the rumen or the caecum.

4. In sheep given 553 g brome grass (Bromus inermus) DM/d the coefficient of variation of estimates of the plateau of 51Cr-EDTA marker during continuous infusion into the caecum was greater when 130 ml infusate/d were administered than with 1000 ml/d.

5. In the sheep given brome grass the lines of best fit of decline in In 51Cr-EDTA marker concentration v. time following termination of the continuous infusions described previously and following single injection of marker in 20 or 2 ml into the caecum were examined. The variation was least when 1000 ml infusate/d had been administered and was unacceptably large following a single injection of 2 ml.

6. These experiments showed that tracer techniques could provide unbiased estimates of trace kinetics in the caecum and proximal colon.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , March 1982 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Ash, R. W. & Kay, R. N. B. (1963). In Progress in Nutrition and Allied Sciences [Cuthbertson, D. P., editor]. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. & Nolan, J. V. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 47, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, A. M. & McDonald, I. W. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1969). Aust. J. agric. Res. 20, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinsky, M. J., Smith, R. M., Spires, H. R. & Davies, C. L. (1976). J. Anim. Sci. 42, 1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinsky, M. J. & Tyler, T. R. (1977). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 36, 1180.Google Scholar
Goodall, E. E. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 176, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Hecker, J. F. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Phillipson, A. T. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Reid, C. S. W., Dellow, D. W. & Wyburn, R. S. (1973). Res. vet. Sci. 14, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Wilson, S. & Milne, J. A. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 16A.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. V., Norton, B. W. & Leng, R. A. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, J. B. (1978). Studies on the interrelationships between fermentation, digestion and metabolism in sheep. PhD thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Shipley, R. A. & Clark, R. E. (1972). Tracer methods for in vivo kinetics, p. 173. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames, lowa. USA: The lowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotopes 22, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., Egan, A. R. & Walker, D. J. (1973). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 33, 149.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Dellow, D. W., Reid, C. S. W. & Bauchop, T. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar