Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T09:29:41.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ammonia in the large intestine of herbivores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2009

J. F. Hecker
J. F. Hecker
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge
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 object was toinvestigate the importance of urea a source of ammonia in the large intestine of herbivores. Urea was present in small intestinal contents of slaughtered horses in concentrations similar to those in blood but, in the small intestine of salughtered sheep, the urea was less than in blooc.

2. There was little ammonia in small intestinal contents of slaughtered horses but consider-able ammonia was present in small intestinal contents of slaughtered sheep. The ammonia in small intestinal contents of the slaughtered sheep was probably formed from urea, as ileal con-tents taken from a sheep with an ileal cannula contained considerable urea and little ammonia.

3. The ammonia concentration in caecal contents of sheep was related to the concentration of urea in blood except when ileal contents were prevented from entering the caecum.

4. Ileal digesta of sheep contained more free amino nitrogen than did caecal digesta.

5. Ammonia was absorbed more rapidly than water from the caecum of sheep. The rate of absorption was related to the concentration of ammonia in the caecum.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 135 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, F. & Davies, M. E. (1963). J. comp. Path. 73, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J., Goodall, E. D., Kay, R. N. B., Phillipson, A. T. & Vowles, L. E. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 46.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. M. W., Ellinger, G. M. & Phillipson, A. T. (1966). Proc. R. Soc. B 166, 63.Google Scholar
Cocimano, M. R. & Leng, R. A. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1968). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 21, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, K. (1962). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 276, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, E. D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 176, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. (1961). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 14, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Phillipson, A. T. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E., Phillips, G. D., McGregor, A., Hungate, D. P. & Buechner, H. K. (1959). Science, N. Y. 130, 1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. & Hobson, P. N. (1963). J. Dairy Res. 30, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E. J. & Wootton, I. D. P. (1959). Micro-analysis in Medical Biochemistry. London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar
Kornberg, H. L. & Davies, R. E. (1955). Physiol. Rev. 35, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1957). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. W. (1948). Biochem. J. 42, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marty, J. & Raynaud, P. (1964). Archs Sci. physiol. 18, 1.Google Scholar
Peters, J. P. & Van Slyke, D. D. (1932). Quantitative Clinical Chemistry Vol. 2 Methods. London: Baillière, Tindall & Cox.Google Scholar
Preston, R. L., Schnakenberg, D. D. & Pfander, W. H. (1965). J. Nutr. 86, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar