Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:39:02.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestion of fibre by pigs

3. Effects of the amount and type of fibre on physical characteristics of segments of the gastrointestinal tract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

George Stanogias  and
G. R. Pearce
George Stanogias
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
G. R. Pearce
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, 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 aim of the study was to determine the relative effects of feeding growing pigs with graded amounts of neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) from various sources on the empty wet weight of segments of the pig gastrointestinal tract, on the weight and moisture content of their digesta, and on the pattern of digesta movement in them.

2. Increased NDF intakes were associated with significantly higher wet weights of all gastrointestinal segments and increased lengths of the caecum. The lengths of both the small and the large intestines were unaffected by the ingestion by the pigs of different amounts of NDF from various sources. However, the caecum responded to these increased intakes of NDF by significant increases in length. The source of NDF in the diet was a factor that markedly influenced both the length and the weight of the distal colon. The nature of these increases in weight and length morphologically and their biological significance have not been determined.

3. Despite some significant differences, neither the type nor the level of dietary NDF had any appreciable effect on the dry weight and on the proportion of dry matter (DM) of the contents in the stomach. As the level of NDF intake was increased, more undigested dietary material was found in all segments of the digestive tract of the pigs. The proportion of DM in the residues decreased progressively from the caecal contents to the contents of the distal colon. In most cases the degree to which the level of NDF intake affected the weight of the contents and the proportion of DM in them was highly dependent on the source of NDF in the diet.

4. The distribution of the feed consumed in the morning and in the evening, as measured with stained feed particles and polyethylene beads, was extremely variable. It is concluded that prolonged intakes by pigs of diets containing high levels of fibre may lead to a hypertrophy and hence increased weight of segments of the gastrointestinal tract.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 537 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

REFERENCES

Araujo, P. E. (1978). Journal of Food Science 43, 1040–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argenzio, R. W. & Southworth, M. (1975). American Journal of Physiology 228, 454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argenzio, R. A., Southworth, M. & Stevens, C. W. (1975). American Journal of Physiology 226, 1043–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. M., McCampbell, H. C. & Allison, J. R. (1970). Journal of Animal Science 31, 518–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. M., McCampbell, H. C. & Allison, J. R. (1975). Journal of Animal Science 41, 1039–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, V. R., Hunter, J. E. & McCormick, J. (1955). Journal of Animal Science 14, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. C., Kelleher, J. & Losowsky, H. S. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coey, W. E. & Robinson, K. L. (1954). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 45, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. J. A., Duckworth, J. E. & Holmes, W. (1967). Animal Production 9, 141–148.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 52, 322–339.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Southgate, D. A. T., Branch, W., Houston, H., Jenkins, D. J. A. & James, W. P. T. (1978). Lancet i, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, H. M., Friend, D. W. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1961). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 41, 120–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, R. H., Riecken, E. O., Laws, J. W. & Booth, C. C. (1967). Clinical Science 32, 1–9.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1972). Animal Production 14, 209–217.Google Scholar
Fell, B. F. (1969). In Nutrition of Animals of Agricultural Importance, p. 295 [Cuthbertson, D., editor]. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. E. (1957). American Journal of Physiology 188, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, R. M. & Hamilton, T. S. (1952). Journal of Animal Science 11, 480–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. H. F. (1953). Journal of the National Cancer Institute 13, 1035–1041.Google Scholar
Friend, D. W., Nicholson, W. G. & Cunningham, H. M. (1964). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 44, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gargallo, J. & Zimmerman, D. R. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 51 (Supplement 1), 198 (Abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. & Grovum, W. L. (1975). Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 28, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochstetler, L. N., Hoefer, J. A., Pearson, A. M. & Luecke, R. W. (1959). Journal of Animal Science 18, 1397–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imoto, S. & Namioka, S. (1978 a). Journal of Animal Science 47, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, M. L., Van Soest, P. J., Pond, W. G., Lewis, B. & McDowell, R. E. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 50, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, J. E. Jr & DeBarthe, J. V. (1974). Journal of Animal Science 39, 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. H. & Taverner, M. R. (1975). Animal Production 21, 275–284.Google Scholar
Komai, M. & Kimura, S. (1980). Journal of Nutritional Science & Vitaminology 26, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepkovsky, S., Lyman, R., Fleming, D., Nagumo, M. & Dimick, M. M. (1957). American Journal of Physiology 188, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W.D. (1974). Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture 25, 1457–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, H., Hakansson, J. & Eriksson, S. (1979). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 75–82.Google Scholar
Pond, W. G., Yen, J. T., Lindvall, R. N. & Hill, D. (1981). Journal of Animal Science 51, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, H. McL., Eastwood, M. A., Brydon, W. G., Anderson, J. R. & Anderson, D. H. W. (1983). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 37, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1973). Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stanogias, G. & Pearce, G. R. (1985). Brirish Journal of Nutrition 53, 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1984). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierda, J. L. (1950). Anatomical Record 107, 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wussow, W. & Weniger, J. H. (1954). Archivs für Tierernährung 4, 151–181.Google Scholar
Younoszai, M. K., Adedoyin, M. & Ranshaw, J. (1978). Journal of Nutrition 108, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar