Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:30:53.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of total and digestible lysine as a predictor of lysine availability in protein concentrates for young pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Jane Leibholz
Jane Leibholz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales 2570, Australia
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. Forty pigs between 23 and 51 d of age were given, ad lib., diets containing 7.9 g lysine/kg. The diets contained wheat and one of five protein concentrates: milk, peanut (Arachis hypogaea) meal, cotton-seed (Gossypium herbaceum) meal, meat meal or lupins (Lupinus augustifolius).

2. Twenty of the pigs were given an indigestible marker, 103Ru-labelled Tris-(1, 10-phenanthro1ine)-rthenium(II) chloride, between 51 and 56 d of age and were killed at 56 d of age.

3. A further forty pigs, between 23 and 51 d of age, were given the same diets supplemented with 3 g L-lysine hydrochloride/kg.

4. The weight gains of the pigs given the diets containing 7.9 g lysine/kg (95–153 g/d) were significantly less (P < 0.05) than those of the pigs given the diets containing 10.9 g lysine/kg (274–340 g/d).

5. Weight gains of pigs given the diets containing meat meal were less than those of pigs given diets containing milk, peanut meal or lupins.

6. Feed conversion ratios decreased and N balances increased with increasing lysine content of the diets.

7. Apparent digestibilities of dry matter (DM) and nitrogen of the diets containing meat meal and cotton-seed meal were less than those of the other three diets, but there was no effect of lysine content of the diets on these indices.

8. The major site of DM and N absorption for the diet containing milk was the duodenum while for the other four protein concentrates the jejunum and ileum were the major absorption sites.

9. Apparent digestibility of lysine from the five diets ranged from 0.54 to 0.75. The retention of the apparently absorbed lysine in weight gain was 0.8–0.94, and there was no significant (P > 0.05) difference between diets which suggested that the apparent digestibility of lysine could be an indicator of its availability.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 615 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Achinewhu, S. C. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alimon, A. R. & Farrell, D. J. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumaitre, A. & Duée, P. H. (1974). Annales de Zootechnie 23, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, L. E. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 40,23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, L. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S. & O'Neill, G. H. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 39, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1960). Biochemistry Journal 77, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 32, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. H. G., Bayley, H. S., Leadbeater, P. A. & Horney, F. D. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 32, 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1982 a).Animal Feed Science and Technology 7, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1982 b). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, A. G. & Zebrowska, T. (1977). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1979). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals No. 2, Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Just, A., Jorgensen, H. H., Fekadu, M. & Eggum, B. O. (1980). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 30, 449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Tanksley, T. D., Knabe, D. A., Purser, K., Zebrowska, T. & Carley, J. R. (1981). Journal of Animal Science 52, 769–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverner, M. R., Curic, D. M. & Rayner, C. J. (1983). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. H., Curtin, L. V., Abraham, J., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1954). Journal of Biological Chemistry 208, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 a). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 b). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wünsche, J., Bock, H. D., Hennig, V., Kreinenbring, F. & Bergmann, E. (1979). Archiv für Tierernährung 29, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1975). Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, Seria B 96, 79–90.Google Scholar