Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T23:23:58.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Studies on digestion and absorption in the intestines of growing pigs

4. Effects of dietary cellulose and sodium levels on mineral absorption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2012

I. G. Partridge
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. Seven pigs of 30 kg initial live weight were fitted with re-entrant cannulas in the terminal ileum. Each was fed, in succession, four purified diets having cellulose and sodium levels (g/kg) of 30 and 2.7, 30 and 0.9, 90 and 2.7 or 90 and 0.9, respectively. Collections of digesta (24 h) and 3 or 4 d collections of faeces were made.

2. There was a greater throughput of ileal digesta with the high-cellulose diets than with the low-cellulose diets, mainly due to increased water content, and there was a concomitant reduction in the net absorption of Na from the small intestine. The immediate response to reduced Na intake was increased secretion of Na into the gut lumen anterior to the terminal ileum; this was more pronounced with the high-cellulose diet. Na concentrations in ileal digesta were very similar for all four diets.

3. The apparent absorptions of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium and zinc were reduced by the high-cellulose diets. In each instance this was due to reduced absorption posterior to the terminal ileum.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Barber, R. S., Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G. & Pittman, R. J. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 199.Google Scholar
Becker, W. M. & Hoekstra, W. G. (1971). In Intestinal Absorption of Metal Ions, Trace Elements and Radionuclides, p. 229 [Skoryna, S. C. & Waldron-Edward, D., editors]. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Fulford, R. & Low, A. G. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 a). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 b). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. H. & Tyler, C. (1959 c). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H. (1973). Gut 14, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, M. A. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1970). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Field, H., Dailey, R. E., Boyd, R. S. & Swell, L. (1954). Am. J. Physiol. 179, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G., Partridge, I. G. & Sambrook, I. E. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1942). J. Physiol., Lond. 101, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W. D. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, I. G. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, J. G., Ismail-Beigi, F. & Faradji, B. (1975). Nutr. Rep. int. 12, 75.Google Scholar