Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T19:23:36.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The measurement of exchangeable potassium in living pigs and its relation to body composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2009

M. F. Fuller ,
R. A. Houseman  and
A. Cadenhead
M. F. Fuller
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. A. Houseman
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
A. Cadenhead
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Twenty pigs were reared to a weight of 90 kg on various dietary regimens so that their lipid content varied from 16 to 38%;. They were injected intravenously with ~ 400 μCi of 42KCl. The animals were killed ~ 28 h after injection and their contents of water, lipid, sodium and potassium were determined.

The specific activity of plasma reached equilibrium 10–12 h after injection, that of urine not until 20 h after.

Losses of activity in urine, faeces and gut contents in the 24 h after injection amounted to 3·1, 0·3 and 1·5% of the injected dose, respectively.

Total body K was more accurately estimated from urine specific activity than from plasma specific activity.

Exchangeable K, estimated from urine specific activity Ke(u), was highly correlated with the weight of fat-free tissue (r = 0·93), the residual standard deviation of the regression being 1·8 kg fat-free tissue.

Percentage extractable fat was equally well correlated with Ke(u) (r = −0·92).

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 203 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1967). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 3. Pigs. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M. & Elsley, F. W. H. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 475.Google Scholar
Corsa, L. Jr, Olney, J. M. Jr, Steenburg, R. W., Ball, M. R. & Moore, F. D. (1950). J. clin. Invest. 29, 1280.Google Scholar
Flear, C. T. G., Cooke, W. T., Sivyer, A. & Domenet, J. (1963). Clinica chim. Acta 8, 768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, M. F., Houseman, R. A. & Cadenhead, A. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 35A.Google Scholar
Haberer, K. (1965). Atom Wirtsch. 10, 36.Google Scholar
Hydén, E. S. (1956). K. Lantbr Högsk. Annlr 22, 139.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. & Pearson, A. M. (1963). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, F. D. (1946). Science N.Y. 104, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oslage, H. J. (1965). LandbForsch-Vökenrode 15, 107.Google Scholar
Pfau, A. (1966). Landw. Forsch. Sonderheft no. 20, p. 139.Google Scholar
Stant, E. G. Jr, Martin, T. G. & Kessler, W. V. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 29, 547.Google Scholar
Talso, P. J., Miller, C. E., Carballo, A. J. & Vasquez, I. (1960). Metabolism 9, 456.Google Scholar