Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:12:10.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial rearing of pigs

11. Effect of replacement of dried skim-milk by an isolated soya-bean protein on the performance of the pigs and digestion of protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. J. Newport
M. J. Newport
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG29AT
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. Pigs (twenty-one/diet) were weaned at 2 d of age and given liquid diets (200 g dry matter/l) at hourly intervals during a 26 d experiment. The pigs were fed on a scale based on live weight. The diets contained (g/kg DM): dried skim-milk 730 (diet A), dried whey 508·5, isolated soya-bean protein 218, DL-methionine 3·5 (diet S), and soya-bean oil 270 (diets A and S). Diet T contained equal proportions of diets A and S. Soya-bean supplied 0, 370 and 740 g crude protein (nitrogen × 6·25)/kg total crude protein in diets A, T and S respectively.

2. Performance was similar for both diets A and T (P > 0·05). Pigs given diet S scoured severely, and fourteen died. The survivors grew very poorly. Nitrogen retention (g/d per kg live weight) was greater for diet A compared with diet T (P < 0·0r), and decreased with age (P < 0·01).

3. Protein digestion was examined in the pigs killed at 28 d of age. The amount of soya-bean protein in the diet did not affect the amount of digesta in the stomach, but soya-bean protein decreased the pH, DM and total N content of the digesta (P < 0.01), and increased, though not significantly (P < 0·05), pepsin activity in the digesta and stomach tissue. Acid secretion into the stomach appeared to be enhanced in pigs given a diet containing soya-bean protein.

4. Amounts of trypsin, chymotrypsin, total N and proportion of non-protein-N in the digesta from the small intestine were similar for both diets A and T. The amounts for both diets were greater in the distal compared with the proximal region of the small intestine (P < 0·05). Chymotrypsin activity in the pancreas was reduced (P < 0·05) in pigs given diet T, although this reduction did not seem to impair digestion in 28-d-old pigs. Trypsin activity in the pancreas was similar for both diets A and T.

5. It seems likely that the neonatal pig does not have the digestive capacity to tolerate the large daily intakes of soya-bean protein when dried skim-milk was totally replaced in the diet (diet S). When half the dried skim-milk was replaced, protein digestion was not impaired in 28-d-old pigs.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , September 1980 , pp. 171 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Anson, M. L. (1938). J. gen. Physiol. 22, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Keal, H. D. & Newport, M. J. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Newport, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, A. J. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, G. E., Osegueda, F. L., Wallace, H. D. & Ammerman, C. B. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, H. M. & Brisson, G. J. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, V. W., Speer, V. C., Hartman, P. A. & Catron, D. V. (1959). J. Nutr. 69, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, B. C. W. (1959). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., Coalson, J. A. & Lecce, J. G. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 45, 1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, T. F., Hays, V. W., Catron, D. V., Quinn, L. Y. & Speer, V. C. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. H., Pond, W. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J. & Keal, H. D. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 44, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Thompson, A. M. & Hays, V. W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, W. G., Snook, J. T., McNeill, D., Snyder, W. I. & Stillings, B. R. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, D. L. & Sarett, H. P. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, R. F., Sheffy, B. E., Eggert, R. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar