Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:34:00.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of feeding regimen and protein supplementation on the sites of net absorption of magnesium in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

N. D. Grace  and
J. C. Macrae
N. D. Grace
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
J. C. Macrae
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
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. Sheep prepared with a rumen cannula and with re-entrant cannulas at the proximal duodenum and terminal ileum were given diets of dried grass, and dried grass supplemented with formalin-treated or untreated casein. They were fed either continuously or once daily. Paper impregnated with chromic oxide was given once daily via the rumen fistula.

2. The observed daily flows of magnesium at the duodenum and ileum were highly correlated with the corresponding flows of Cr.

3. There was a net absorption of Mg from the stomach as well as the intestinal region of all sheep.

4. Protein supplementation had no effect on the extent or sites of Mg absorption, but altering the feeding regimen changed the proportions of the net absorption of Mg occurring in the stomach and intestinal regions.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 51 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Brown, G. F., Armstrong, D. G. & MacRae, J. C. (1968). Br. Vet. J. 124, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Care, A. D. & van't Klooster, A. Th. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 177, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, N. D. (1970). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30, 21.Google Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Phillipson, A. T. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 97.Google Scholar
Kemp, A., Deijs, W. B., Hemkes, O. J. & van Es, A. J. H. (1961). Neth. J. agric. Sci. 9, 134.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Armstrong, D. G. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, J. C., Ulyatt, M. J., Pearce, P. D. & Hendtlass, J. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metson, A. J., Saunders, W. M. H., Collie, T. W. & Graham, V. W. (1966). N.Z.fl agric. Res. 9, 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, E., Thompson, A. & Armstrong, D. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Storry, J. E. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 181, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, P. A. M. & van't Klooster, A. Th. (1969). Meded. LandbHoogesch., Wageningm 69, 11.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1965). Q.Jl exp. Physiol. 50, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. & Moodie, E. W. (1956). J. comp. Path. 66, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillings, B. R., Bratzler, J. W., Marriott, L. F. & Miller, R. C. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E. (1961). Nature, Lond. 190, 1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, T. M., Gupta, B. N., Reid, R. S. & Murray, M. G. (1964). Proc. int. Congr. Nutr. VI. Edinburgh 1963, p. 579.Google Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. & Iismaa, O. J. (1962).J. agric. Sci, Camb. 59, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar