Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T13:32:51.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acetate metabolism in lactating sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. W. Pethick  and
D. B. Lindsay
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, ARC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
D. B. Lindsay
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, ARC Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
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 metabolism of acetate, glucose and D(−)-3-hydroxybutyrate was studied in lactating and non lactating sheep in vivo. Special consideration was given to the utilization by hind-limb muscle in both groups of sheep and the uptake of nutrients by the lactating mammary gland was also measured.

2. The entry of acetate into the circulation (mmol/h per kg body-weight) was similar in all experimental animals at a given arterial concentration of acetate. However, normal lactation was associated with a reduced extraction of acetate by muscle and the 'spared' acetate was comparable with that removed by the udder. Feeding lactating ewes a 700 g concentrate/kg ration tended to prevent this redistribution of acetate utilization.

3. The muscle of non-lactating ewes utilized sufficient glucose, when corrected for lactate release, to account for 57% of the oxygen utilization by muscle. In lactation this fell to 32%, largely because of an increased lactate production. D(−)-3-Hydroxybutyrate utilization by muscle accounted for 16–17% of the O2 consumed by the muscle in non-lactating and lactating sheep.

4. Lactating mammary gland metabolism in sheep was similar to published values for dairy cows and goals. Thus the extraction (%) of glucose, O2, acetate and D(−)-3-hydroxybutyrate was 25, 28, 62 and 53 respectively. Blood flow was 529 ml/min per kg udder and the ratio blood flow: milk flow was 475. Glucose used by the udder relative to the whole animal utilization rate may be less in sheep than in cows and goats, but the comparable proportion for acetate is as large or larger than in these species.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 319 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F., Bickerstaffe, R. & Linzell, J. L. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, E. N. & Hogue, D. E. (1967). Am. J. Physiol. 213, 1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerstaffe, R., Annison, E. F. & Linzell, J. L. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. L. & Bauman, D. E. (1974). In Lactation, a Comprehensive Treatise, vol. 2, p. 3 [Larson, B. L. and Smith, V. R., editors]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C. L. & Brown, R. E. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 545 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Davis, S. R. & Bickerstaffe, R. (1978). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 31, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. R., Bickerstaffe, R. & Hart, D. S. (1978). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 31, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanski, A., Lindsay, D. B. & Setchell, B. P. (1974). J. Physiol., Lond. 242, 28P.Google Scholar
Engvall, A. (1980). Acta. Vet. scand. 72, Suppl. 1.Google Scholar
Flatt, W. P., Moe, P. W., Munson, A. W. & Cooper, T. (1969). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, p. 235 [Blaxter, K. L., Kielanowski, J. and Thorbek, G., editors]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, I. & Wahlefeld, A. W. (1974). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, vol. 3, p. 1464, 2nd ed. [Bergmeyer, H. V., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. A. (1974). J. Physiol., Lond. 242, 20P.Google Scholar
Jenness, R. & Sloan, R. E. (1970). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 32, 599.Google Scholar
Leng, R. A. & West, C. E. (1969). Res. vet. Sci. 10, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzell, J. L. (1974). In Lactation, a Comprehensive Treatise, vol. 1, p. 143 [Larson, B. L. and Smith, V. R., editors]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, W. V., Howard, B. & Siebert, S. B. (1969). Nature, Lond. 221, 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowance and Feeding Systems for Ruminants, Technical Bulletin 33. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Oddy, V. H. (1978). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 12, 145.Google Scholar
Pappenheimer, J. R. & Setchell, B. P. (1972). J. Physiol., Lond. 226, 48P.Google Scholar
Pethick, D. W. & Lindsay, D. B. (1981). In Metabolic Disorders in Farm Animals, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Production Disease in Farm Animals, p. 123 [Giesecke, D., Dirksen, G. and Stangassinger, M., editors]. Munich: Institut für Physiologie, Physiologische Chemie u Ernährungsphysiologie der Universität München.Google Scholar
Pethick, D. W., Lindsay, D. B., Barker, P. J. & Northrop, A. J. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 46, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar