Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:15:05.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses to postruminal infusions of glucose and casein in lactating goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2007

S. S. E. Ranawana  and
R. C. Kellaway
S. S. E. Ranawana
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales 2570, Australia
R. C. Kellaway
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales 2570, 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. A study was made in goats of the response in terms of milk production, nitrogen utilization, plasma amino acids and glucose kinetics to postruminal infusions of glucose and casein. Goats in mid-lactation, housed in metabolism cages, were fed on 2 kg basal ration (containing 112 g crude protein (N × 6.25)/kg)/d alone (control) and with daily infusions into the abomasum of 45 g casein or 45 g glucose.

2. Milk production increased with casein infusion (P < 0.01), but not with glucose infusion, being 1.59, 1.86 and 1.62 kg/d with the control, casein and glucose infusions respectively. Milk composition was unaffected except for milk fat, which was decreased by the glucose infusion.

3. The goats were in positive N balance on the basal ration. Milk N output increased with casein infusion, by an amount equivalent to 27% of the infused N.

4. The concentration of dispensable amino acids in arterial plasma was decreased with casein infusion and increased with glucose infusion.

5. Glucose kinetic measurements with control, casein and glucose infusions indicated that pool sizes were 247, 279 and 302 mg/kg live weight0.75, and irreversible losses were 5.5, 6.7 and 7.0 mg/kg live weight0.75 per min respectively. The differences between the results obtained from the glucose and casein infusions were not significant (P < 0.05).

6. The results of the experiment indicate that the increased milk production obtained when casein was infused was not due to enhanced gluconeogenesis.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 395 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F., Bickerstaffe, R. & Linzell, J. L. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annison, E. F. & Linzell, J. L. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 175, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annison, E. F. & White, R. R. (1961). Biochem. J. 80, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, J. C. & Black, A. L. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, E. N. & Hogue, D. E. (1967). Am. J. Physiol. 213, 1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. H. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. H., Spires, H. R. & Derrig, R. G. (1973). J. Anim. Sci. 37, 340.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. T. (1966). In The Pituitary Gland, Vol. 1 [Harris, G. W. and Donovan, B. T., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. J. & Elliott, J. M. (1966). J. Dairy Sci. 49, 826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfpenny, A. F., Rook, J. A. F. & Smith, G. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwick, D. C., Linzell, J. L. & Price, S. M. (1961). Biochem. J. 80, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertelendy, F., Takahashi, K., Machlin, L. & Kipnis, D. M. (1970). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 14, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P., Weston, R. H. & Lindsay, J. R. (1968). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 21, 1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, A. St G. & Nixon, D. A. (1957). Lancet ii, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., Dunn, A., Chenoweth, M. & Golden, S. (1974). Biochem. J. 142, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopf, R. F., Conn, J. W., Fajans, S. S., Floyd, J. C., Guntsche, E. M. & Rull, J. A. (1965). J. clin. endocr. Metab. 25, 1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzell, J. L. (1967). J. Physiol., Lond. 190, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machlin, L. J. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mepham, T. B. & Linzell, J. L. (1974). J. Dairy Res. 41, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papas, A., Hatfield, E. E. & Owens, F. N. (1974). J. Nutr. 104, 1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, T. L. & Hansen, S. (1959). Clinica chim. Acta 25, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranawana, S. S. E. & Kellaway, R. C. (1976). Aust. Soc. anim. Prod. 11, 489.Google Scholar
Ranawana, S. S. E. & Kellaway, R. C. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. P., Smith, J. A. & Young, J. W. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrell, H. F., Bolt, D. V., Moe, P. W. & Swan, H. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 277.Google Scholar
Vik-Mo, L., Emery, R. S. & Huber, J. T. (1974). J. Dairy Sci. 57, 869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, J. E. & Bergman, E. N. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 223, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar