Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T06:19:22.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bloat investigations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. S. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berks
R. A. Terry
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berks

Extract

An account is given of experimental work carried out at Jealott's Hill on bloat.

Bloat was produced in dairy cows and sheep by dosing with lucerne juice. Sheep proved convenient test animals and were used in most of the tests described.

Parenteral and intravenous administration of the flavone quercetin, which inhibits the activity of smooth muscle, did not cause bloat even in the presence of cyanide. It is unlikely that flavones are concerned in bloat.

Fractionation of bloat-provoking lucerne juice showed that activity was retained after (a) precipitation of chloroplastic material, and (b) passage of clear juice through an anion or cation exchange resin. This suggests that the bloat-provoking factor is non-ionic and not adsorbed on resins—properties shown by saponinis.

Dosing sheep with lucerne saponins, four other saponins, egg albumin and a synthetic foaming compound failed to produce bloat.

Two household detergents and a number of surface-active agents did not relieve bloat, but foam-breaking compounds were very effective.

A synthetic inorganic saliva and cow's saliva did not prevent bloat in sheep and from the single test made with cow's saliva it is not possible to say if it increased the severity of bloat.

It is concluded that the formation of a stable foam is a major factor in lucerne bloat and that food constituents, other than saponins, and the physical condition of the rumen ingesta probably influence the stability of the foam.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

REFERENCES

Clark, R. (1948). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 23, 389.Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1950). J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Ass., 21, 173.Google Scholar
Clark, R. & Weiss, K. E. (1952 a). J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Ass., 23, 163.Google Scholar
Clark, R. & Weiss, K. E. (1952 b). Fmg in S. Afr. 27, 282.Google Scholar
Cole, H. H., Huffman, C. F., Kleiber, M., Olson, T. M. & Schalk, A. F. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, R. W. (1953). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 22, 345.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W. S. (1948). Nature, Lond., 161, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, W. S., De B. Ashworth, R. & Terry, R. A. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrici, M. (1952). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 25, 45.Google Scholar
Johns, A. T. (1955). (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Lindahl, I. L., Cook, A. C., Davis, R. E. & Maclay, W. D. (1954). Science, 119, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, R. E. (1951). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 12, 199.Google Scholar
Quin, A. H., Austin, J. A. & Ratcliff, K. A. (1949). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 114, 313.Google Scholar
Shawyer, C. B., Hogg, P. & Morrison, E. G. (1954). Quoted in Mississippi Farm Res. 17, no. 3, 1.Google Scholar
Singh, G. B. & Rao, M. M. (1953). Indian Vet. J. 29, 543.Google Scholar
Walter, E. D., Van Atta, G. R., Thompson, C. R. & Maclay, W. D. (1954). J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 76, 2271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, K. E. (1953 a). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 26, 241.Google Scholar
Weiss, K. E. (1953 b). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 26, 251.Google Scholar