Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T06:26:30.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on digestion and absorption in the intestines of growing pigs. Measurements of the flow of digesta and pH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. Braude ,
Rosemary J. Fulford  and
A. G. Low
R. Braude
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berks.
Rosemary J. Fulford
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berks.
A. G. Low
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT, Berks.
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. Thirty-five pigs were fitted with single re-entrant cannulas in either the duodenum, jejunum or ileum. A further twenty-four pigs were used in a conventional digestibility trial.

2. Methods for collecting, sampling and returning digesta were developed.

3. A ‘practical-type’ diet and two purified diets were used, fed twice daily.

4. Flow and pH of digesta were measured hourly in the duodenum and jejunum, and every 6 h in the ileum.

5. In the duodenum and jejunum there were clear flow responses to feeding, while such an effect was not found in the ileum where the flow-rate was much lower and more uniform than in the former sites.

6. In the duodenum and jejunum, and within 6 h periods in the ileum, there was considerable variation in the flow-rate between different pigs within each hour but there was less variation in pH.

7. The pattern of flow in the duodenum and jejunum was similar for each of the diets but the total flow and the average pH in 24 h differed significantly between diets. There were more digesta of a lower pH from the ‘practical-type’ diet than the purified diets.

8. The pH in the duodenum was highest after feeding and decreased with increasing time after feeding. In the jejunum and ileum the pH varied over a much smaller range than in the duodenum.

9. Collections for 6 h periods appeared to be insufficiently long to predict the values obtained in 24 h collections with reasonable accuracy.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , November 1976 , pp. 497 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Ash, R. W. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 309.Google Scholar
Auffray, P., Martinet, J. & Rérat, A. (1967). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 7, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeeva, E. N. & Utekhin, B. P. (1958). Sechenov physiol. J. USSR 44, 1077.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. & Pittman, R. J. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 199.Google Scholar
Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1964). J. Anim. Techns Ass. 15, 71.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. T., Stevens, C. E. & Southworth, M. (1975). J. Nutr. 105, 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T., Aumaitre, A. & Rérat, A. (1972). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 12, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, H. M., Friend, D. W. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1963). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 43, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, A. (1966). J. Physiol., Lond. 182, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horszczaruk, F. (1971). Biul. Inst. Genet. Hodow. Zwierz. pol. Akad, Nauk 21, 101.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. & Pathak, J. D. (1960). J. Physiol., Lond. 154, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Spurrell, W. B. (1951). J. Physiol., Lond. 113, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivan, M. (1974). A nutritional evaluation of wheat for pigs with particular reference to quality and quantity of protein. PhD Thesis, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Kvasnitsky, A. V. (1951). Voprosy Fisiologii Pishchevarenija u Svinej. Moscow: Sel'Khozgiz (translated by D. E. Kidder).Google Scholar
Laplace, J.-P. (1972). Annls Zootech. 21, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplace, J.-P. (1975). Annls Zootech. 24, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplace, J.-P. & Tomassone, R. (1970). Annls Zootech. 19, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. (1970). Anim. Prod. 12, 151.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. (1974). Observations on the digestion of proteins by the growing pig. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ly, J. (1971). Revta cub. Cienc. agric. 5, 351.Google Scholar
Markowitz, J., Archibald, J. & Downie, H. G. (1954). Experimental Surgery, 3rd ed. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Noakes, D. E., Hill, K. J., Freeman, C. P. & Annison, E. F. (1967). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 26, vi.Google Scholar
Ochia, B. A. (1973). J. Physiol., Lond. 233, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimann, E. M., Maxwell, C. V., Kowalczyk, T., Benevenga, N. J., Grummer, R. H. & Hoekstra, W. G. (1968). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (1948). Nature, Lond. 162, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tkachev, E. Z. & Pakhno, V. S. (1970). Sb. nauch. Rab. uses. nauchno-issled. Inst. Zhivotn. 20, 25.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1973). Roczn. Nauk roln. 95B, 115.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. & Buraczewska, L. (1972). Roczn. Nauk roln. 94B, 81.Google Scholar