Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T12:52:37.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absorption of magnesium by the young steer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Jane P. Horn  and
R. H. Smith
Jane P. Horn
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
R. H. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
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. Steers with rumen and simple duodenal cannulas were allowed to graze pasture or were given diets of dried grass or flaked maize with or without hay. For an experiment a solution or suspension of magnesium chloride, polyethylene glycol (molecular weight 4000) and either 144Ce (as cerous chloride) or chromic oxide was added to the rumen with a morning feed. Conditions in the rumen were sometimes modified by adding sodium chloride or hydrochloric acid.

2. Changes in magnesium: marker in samples of strained rumen contents with time interval after adding the dose were due partly to changes in Mg distribution between different phases. Results indicated, but not unequivocably, that negligible amounts of Mg were absorbed in the first few hours.

3. Relative recoveries of Mg and markers at the duodenum indicated that proportions of Mg intake absorbed (net) varied from approximately zero for pasture to 0.2–0.5 for flaked maize. Significant correlations between absorption efficiency and sodium: potassium in rumen contents (positive) and rumen pH (negative) were observed.

4. Steers with simple duodenal and re-entrant ileal cannulas were given a diet of flaked maize and hay supplemented with different amounts of magnesium oxide. Little net change in Mg relative to an unabsorbed marker was found between these sites even for a diet containing an Mg supplement of 8 g/kg dry matter.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , November 1978 , pp. 473 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Care, A. D. & Van't Klooster, A. Th. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 177, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirksen, G., Kaufmann, W. & Pfeffer, E. (1972). Fortschr. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. no. 1.Google Scholar
Edrise, B. M., Smith, R. H. & Buttle, H. L. (1977). Prod. Nutr. Soc. 36, 8A.Google Scholar
Field, A. C. & Munro, C. S. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 89, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitt, T. J., Hutton, K. & Otto, W. R. (1974). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33, 106A.Google Scholar
Grace, N. D. (1970). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30, 21.Google Scholar
Grace, N. D. & MacRae, J. C. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 51.Google Scholar
Grace, N. D., Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. P. (1975). Factors affecting absorption of magnesium in the stomachs and small intestine of the calf. PhD thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Horn, J. P. & Smith, R. H. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 33A.Google Scholar
Huston, J. E. & Ellis, W. C. (1968). J. agric. Fd Chem. 16, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, A., Van't Klooster, A. T., Rogers, P. A. M. & Gaurink, J. H. (1973). Neth. J. agric. Sci. 21, 44.Google Scholar
Martens, H., Harmeyer, J. & Breves, G. (1976). In Nuclear Techniques in Animal Production and Health, p. 261. Vienna:IAEA.Google Scholar
Perry, S. C., Cragle, R. G. & Miller, J. K. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, E. & Rahman, K. A. (1974). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 33, 209.Google Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Storry, J. E. (1965). J. Physiol., Lond. 181, 130.Google Scholar
Poutiainen, E. (1971). Annls agric. fen. 10, 14.Google Scholar
Rogers, P. A. M. & Van't Klooster, A. T. (1969). Meded. Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen 69–11, 26–39.Google Scholar
Sellers, A. F. & Dobson, A. (1960). Res. vet. Sci. 1, 95.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1962). Biochem. J. 83, 151.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1964). J. Physiol., Lond. 172, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 151.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & Horn, J. P. (1976). In Nuclear Techniques in Animal Production and Health, p. 253. Vienna: IAEA.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 703.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1967). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 26, xxxii.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 545.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 181.Google Scholar
Strachan, N. H. & Rook, J. A. F. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 11A.Google Scholar
Suttle, N. F. & Field, A. C. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomas, F. M. & Potter, B. J. (1976 a). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 37.Google Scholar
Tomas, F. M. & Potter, B. J. (1976 b). Aust. J. agric. Res. 27, 873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, G. E. & Hoff, J. E. (1974). J. Dairy Sci. 57, 1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. P. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar