Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T14:22:19.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Avian Caeca: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

J. M. McNab
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Poultry Research CentreKing's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JS, Scotland
Get access

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Abraham, K. (1901). Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wellen-sittich (Melopsittacus undulntus). Anat. Heft. 17: 559.Google Scholar
Akester, A. R., Anderson, R. S., Hill, K. J. and Osbaldiston, G. W. (1967). A radio- graphic study of urine flow in the domestic fowl. Br. Poult. Sci. 8: 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annlson, E. F., Hill, K. J. and Kenworthy, R. (1968). Volatile fatty acids in the digestive tract of the fowl. J. Nutr. 22: 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, E. M. and Goldberg, H. S. (1962). The isolation of anaerobic, Gram positive bacteria from poultry reared with and without antibiotic supplements. J. appl. Boct. 25: 94.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M. and Impey, C. S. (1972). Some properties of the non-sporing anaerobes from poultry caeca. J. appl. Bnct. 35: 241.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. M. and Shrimpton, D. H. (1957). Causes of greening of uneviscerated poultry carcasses during storage. J. oppl. Bact. 20: 273.Google Scholar
Beach, J. R. (1925). The effect of feeding Bacillus acidophilus, lactose, dry skim milk or whole milk on the hydrogen ion concentration of the contents of the caeca of chickens. Hilgardin. 1: 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, J. and Shrimpton, D. H. (1958). Surgical and chemical techniques for in vivo studies of the intestinal microflora of domestic fowls. Q.JI:exp. Physiol. 43: 399.Google ScholarPubMed
Beer, A. E. (1969). A review of thc effects of nutritional deficlencies on hatchability. In “The fertility and hatchability of the hen's egg” (eds. Carter, T. C. and Freeman, B. M.). Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Browne, T. G. (1922). Some observations on the digestive system of the fowl. J. camp. Path. Ther. 35: 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, G. D., Insko, W. M. and Henry, A. H. (1944). Does breed, age, sex or laying condition affect the pH of the digestive system of chickens? Poult. Sci. 23: 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, M. L. (1933). The microscopic anatomy of the digestive tract of Callus domesticus. Iowa State Call. J. Sci. 7: 261.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E. (1962). Relationship between alimentary microflora and nutrition in poultry. In “Nutrition of pigs and poultry”. (eds. Morgan, J. T. and Lewis, D.). Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Ford, J. E. and Harrison, G. F. (1968). Intestinal synthesis of vitamins of the B complex in chicks. Br. J. Nutr. 22: 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E., Gregory, M. E., Porter, J. W. G. and Williams, A. P. (1963). Vitamin B12 and its analogues in the gut contents of germ-free and conventional chicks. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 22: 27.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E. and Jayne-Williams, D. J. (1965). Current views on the role of the gut flora in nutrition of the chicken. In “Physiology of the domestic fowl”. (eds. Horton-Smith, C., and Amoroso, E. C.). Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Couch, J. R., German, H. L., Knight, D. R., Parks, P. S. and Pearson, P. B. (1950). Importance of the caecum in intestinal synthesis in the mature fowl. Poult. Sci. 29: 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuk, H. E., Scheiber, A. R. and Duke, G. E. (1970). Caecectomised turkeys—physiological characteristics and susceptibility to bluecomb. Poult. Sci. 49: 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farner, D. S. (1942). The hydrogen ion concentration in avian digestive tracts. Poult. Sci. 21: 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farner, D. S. (1960). Digestion and the digestive system. In “Biology and comparative physiology of birds“. Volume l.—(ed. Marshall, A. J.). Academic Press, New York, and London.Google Scholar
Freter, R. (1969). Studies of the mechanism of action of intestinal antibody in experimental cholera. Tex. Rep. Biol. Med. 27: 299.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. and Jayne-Williams, D. J. (1968). The origin of bacteria recovered from the peritdneum and yolk sac of healthy chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 9: 159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, R. and Jayne-Williams, D. J. (1970). Resistance of the fowl (Callus domesticus) to invasion by its intestinal flora. II. Clearance of translocated intestinal bacteria. Res. vet. Sci. 11: 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R. and Turvey, A. (1971). Bacteria associated with the intestinal wall of the fowl (Gadus domesticus). J. appl. Bact. 34: 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldbepg, H. S., Barnes, E. M. and Charles, A. B. (1964). Unusual bacteriodes-like organisms. J. Bact… 87: 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halnan, E. T. (1949). Architecture of the avian gut and tolerance of crude fibre. Br.J. Nutr. 3: 245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwood, P. D. (1937). The frequency of change of caecal contents in fowls. Proc. helminth. Sac. Wash. 4: 38.Google Scholar
Henning, H. (1929). Die verdaulichkeit der Rohfaser beis Huhn. Landwn. VersStnen. 108: 253.Google Scholar
Herpol, C. and Van Gremenbergen, G. (1967a). La signification du pH dans le tube digestif de Gallus domesticus. Anuls. Biol. anim. Biochem. Biophys. 6: 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herpol, C. and Van Gremenbergen, G. (1967b). L'activité protéolytique du system digestif de Callus domesticus. Z. vergl. Physiol. 57: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., Durant, A. J. and Hogan, A. G. (1930). Studies on the pathology and physiology of the caecal pouches of turkeys. II. The utilization of food by turkeys with abligated caeca. Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sm. No. 136.Google Scholar
Jayne-Williams, D. J. and Coates, M. E. (1969). The micro-flora of the alimentary tract of the bird and itssignificance in nutrition. In “Nutrition of animals of agricultural importance. Part 1. The science of nutrition of farm livestock. International encyclopaedia food and nutrition 17”. (ed. Cuthbertson, D.). Perganlmon Press, Oxford, London and New York.Google Scholar
Johansson, K. R., Sarles, W. B. and Shapiro, S. K. (1948). The intestinal microflora of hens as influenced by various carbohydrates in a biotin deficient ration. J. Bact. 56: 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, M. and Briggs, C. A. E. (1956). The gut flora of the chick. II. The establishment of the flora. J. appl. Bacf. 19: 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, V. (1963). Reproduction and development of young in a population of California quail. Condor, 65: 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, E. (1928). Die physiologischen Funktionen des Blinddarms, allgemein und besonders bei den Voeeln. Sber. Ges. NafurL Freunde Berlin. 217.Google Scholar
Masson, M. J. (1954). Microscopic studies of the gut flora of the hen with special reference to the breakdown of starches. Proc. 10th World' Poultry CongressEdinburgh. P. 105.Google Scholar
Mattocks, J. G. M. (1971). Some aspects of the problems of cellulose digestion and caecal function in the domestic goose. N.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Bath.Google Scholar
Maumus, J. (1902). Les caecums des oiseaux. Annls. Sci. nat. Zool. 15: 2.Google Scholar
Maumus, J and Launoy, L. (1901). La digestion caecale chez les oiseaux. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. Nat., Paris. 7: 361.Google Scholar
McBee, R. H. and West, G. C. (1969). Caecal fermentation in the willow ptarmigan. Condor. 71: 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNab, J. M. and Shannon, D. W. F. (1972). Studies on the process of digestion in the fowl: dry matter and total nitrogen. Br. Poult. Sci. 13: 497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, W. (1927). Vergleichende mikroskopische unter-suchungen über die Verdauung der Kleberzellen verschiedener Zerealien im magen-darmkanal pflan-zenfressender Tiere (Huhn, Taub, Schaf, Kaninchen). Z. vergl. Physiol. 6: 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, P. C. (1901). On the intestinal tract of birds: with remarks on the valuation and nomenclature of zoological characters. Trans. Linn. Sac. Land. 8: 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. (1972). Effects of captivity on gut lengths in red grouse. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 36: 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, R. and Parkinson, J. A. (1972). The digestion of heather (Calluna vulgaris) by red grouse (lagopus lagopus scoticus). Br. J. Nutr. 27: 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nesheim, M. C. and Carpenter, K. J. (1967). The digestion of heat damaged protein. Br. J. Nutr. 21: 399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitsan, Z. and Alumot, E. (1963). Role of the caecum in the utilization of raw soybean in chicks. J. Nutr. 80: 299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, C. and Mann, F. C. (1935). The physiology of the caecum of the domestic fowl. J. Am. vef. med. Assn. 87: 151.Google Scholar
Payne, W. L., Kifer, R. R., Snyder, D. G. and Combs, G. F. (1971). Studies of protein digestion in the chicken. 1. Investigation of apparent amino acid digestibity of fish meal protein using caecectomized, adulg male chickens. Poult. Sci. 50: 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinchon, R. (1942). Théses: contribution á l'étude moruhologique des caecums dans la serie des oiseaux. Université de Paris.Google Scholar
Radeff, T. (1928). Uber die Rohfaserverdauung beim Huhn und die Hierbei die Blinddärm Zukommende Redeutung. Biochem. Z. 193: 192.Google Scholar
RÖseler, M. (1929). Die bedeutung der Blinddärme des Haushuhnes fur die Resorption der Nahrung und die Verduung der Rohfaser. Z. Tierrucht. Zuchtbiol. 13: 281.Google Scholar
Salter, D. M. and Coates, M. E. (1971). The influence of the microflora of the alimentary tract on protein digestion in the chick. Br. J. Nutr. 26: 55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrimpton, D. H. (1954). The utilization of intestinally synthesised riboflavin and vitamin B12by poultry. Proc. 10th World's Poultry CongressEdinburgh. p. 161.Google Scholar
Shrimpton, D. H. (1963). Some volatile oroducts of microbial metabolism in the caeca of the fowl. J. appl. Baci. 26: 1.Google Scholar
Skadhauge, E. (1968). The cloaca1 storage of urine in the rooster. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 24: 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunde, M. L., Cravens, W. W., Elvehjem, C. A. and Halpin, J. G. (1950). The effect of diet and caecectomy on the iuteitinal synthesis of biotin in the mature fowl. Poult. Sci. 29: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soumalainen, H. and Arhimo, E. (1945). On the microbial decomposition of cellulose by wild gallinaceous birds (family Tetraonidnel). Ornis fenn. 22: 21.Google Scholar
Thornburn, C. C. and Willcox, J. S. (1965a). The caeca of the domestic fowl and digestion of the crude fibre complex. I. Digestibility trials with normal and caecectomised birds. Br. Poult. Sci. 6: 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornburn, C. C. and Willcox, J. S. (1965b). The caeca of the domestic fowl and digestion of the crude fibre complex. II. Experiments in vivo with fistulated birds, and the artificd and isolated caecum in vitro. Br. Poult. Sci. 6: 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed