Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T04:52:28.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the physiology of the nematodes of the alimentary canal of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. G. Davey
D. G. Davey
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Pathology, Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An investigation was made of certain aspects of the physiology of nematodes from the alimentary canal of sheep.

Cellulose digestion has apparently no effect on the nematodes.

The composition and concentration of a physiological saline solution suitable for Ostertagia circumcincta—and possibly for the other species—was determined.

The effect of acidity on the intestinal worms showed that they could not live in the abomasum because the acidity in this chamber would be too great. O. circumcincta could not inhabit the stomach of horses, and carnivores, or the abomasum of cattle, in all of which the acidity reaches a level lethal to this species.

A graph is given showing the distribution of the nematodes in the small intestine of the sheep. After a study of the effect of bile salts on the different species its influence in determining this distribution is discussed.

A discussion of the evidence relating to the food of nematodes of the alimentary tract led to the conclusion that even species with rudimentary buccal capsules might suck blood; on the other hand, the results from the benzidine tests and spectroscopic examinations indicate that the haemoglobin demonstrated in nematodes is synthesized by them.

It was shown that O. circumcincta does not probably feed on abomasal contents. Bacterial difficulties hampering these experiments were overcome by using an apparatus whereby the contents of the abomasum could be percolated over the worms. The latter had been surface-sterilized with acriflavine solution.

All attempts to feed the nematodes on serum, defibrinated blood, and blood digests failed. Bacteria again constituted a difficulty, but it is suggested that the failure is not entirely due to them, and that perhaps the tissues of the host must be incorporated into the media.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1938 , pp. 278 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Askanazy, M. (1896). Dtsch. Arch. klin. Med. 57, 104–17.Google Scholar
Bayliss, W. M. (1924). Principles of General Physiology. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1929). Hookworm Disease. New York: The Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
Clark, W. M. (1925). The Determination of Hydrogen Ions. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
Collip, J. B. (1920). J. Biol. Chem. 42, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, D. G. (1936 a). J. Helminth. 14, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, D. G. (1936 b). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 328–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, D. G. (1938). J. Exp. Biol. 15, 217–24.Google Scholar
De Waele, A. (1934). Ann. Parasitol. 12, 6, 492.Google Scholar
Dukes, H. H. (1935). The Physiology of Domestic Animals. New York: Comstock Co.Google Scholar
Foster, A. O. & Landsberg, J. W. (1934). Amer. J. Hyg. 20, 259–90.Google Scholar
Fourie, P. J. J. (1931). 17th Rep. Dir. Vet. Ser. and Anim. Ind. Ondersteport, S. Africa, pp. 495–572.Google Scholar
Galli-Valerio, B. (1915). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. I, Orig. 76, 511–18.Google Scholar
Hoeppli, R. J. C. (1927). Arch. Schiffs.- u. Trop. Hyg. 31, Beiheft 3, 1–88.Google Scholar
Hoeppli, R. J. C. & Feng, L. C. (1933). Arch. Schiffs.- u. Trop. Hyg. 37, 176–82.Google Scholar
Horral, O. H. (1931). Physiol. Rev. 11, 122–42.Google Scholar
Keilin, D. (1925). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 98, 312–39.Google Scholar
Lane, C. (1937). Trop. Dis. Bull. 34, 1–14.Google Scholar
Lapage, G. (1933). Rep. Dir. Inst. An. Path., Univ. Camb. 3, 237–71.Google Scholar
Lapage, G. (1935). J. Helminth. 13, 115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. C. (1933). Lignan Sci. J. 12 Suppl. 33–41. (Abst. in Biol. Abst. 1934, 8, no. 8881.)Google Scholar
Mangold, E. (1929). Handb. Ern. Stoffw. landw. Nutst. Berlin, 2, 155.Google Scholar
McCoy, O. R. (1929). Amer. J. Hyg. 10, 140–56.Google Scholar
McCoy, O. R. (1934). J. Parasitol. 20, 333.Google Scholar
Pringsheim, H. (1912). Hoppe-Seyl. Z. 78, 266–91.Google Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, G. (1902). Arch. wiss. prakt. Tierheilk. 29, 332–76.Google Scholar
Schopfer, W. (1932). Rev. Suisse Zool. 39, 59–194.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1921 a). J. Agric. Res. 22, 379–432.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1921 b). J. Parasitol. 7, 144–5O.Google Scholar
Tetley, J. H. (1935 a). Nature, Lond., 136, p. 477.Google Scholar
Tetley, J. H. (1935 b). J. Helminth. 13, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, A. (1933). Arch. Tierernãhr. Tierz. 9, 178–93. (Nut. Abst. Rev. 3, 1751.)Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Stewart, J. (1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 713–23.Google Scholar