Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:11:58.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Availability of lysine in protein concentrates as determined by the slope-ratio assay with chicks and comparisons with rat, pig and chemical assays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. J. Major  and
E. S. Batterham
E. J. Major
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Agriculture, Poultry Research Station, Seven Hills, New South Wales 2147, Australia
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, 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. A slope-ratio assay was developed to determine the availability of lysine in protein concentrates for chicks, Two protein concentrates were assessed per assay, using three levels of incorporation into the basal diet.

2. Availability of lysine, expressed as a proportion of total lysine in five protein concentrates was: cottonseed meal 0·83, fish meal 1·00, meat-and-bone meal 0·86, soya-bean meal 0·93, sunflower meal 1·01.

3. The five protein concentrates had previously been assayed for available lysine with slope-ratio assays for pies and rats (Batterham et al. 1979; Batterharn et al. 1981), There was little relationship between the results for chicks and those for pigs and rats. For pigs, availability estimates ranged from 0·43 for cottonseed meal to 0·89 for fish meal. For rats, availability estimates ranged from 0·49 for sunflower meal to 1·04 for fish meal.

4. The results for chicks were in closer agreement with values obtained using the Silcock available-lysine assay (Roach et al. 1967) and the direct 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrobenzene procedure (Carpenter, 1960). By contrast, there was litlle relationship between the chemical tests and results for pigs or rats.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , November 1981 , pp. 513 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 383.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lowe, R. F. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 401.Google Scholar
Bjarnason, J. & Carpenter, K. J. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1960). Biochem. J. 77, 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J., McDonald, I. & Miller, W. S. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 7.Google Scholar
Castle, E. J. & Castle, M. E. (1956). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 47, 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Fisher, H., Griminger, P., Leveille, G. A. & Shapiro, R. (1960). J. Nutr. 71, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, L. S., Summers, J. D. & Moran, E. J. Jr. (1971). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Njike, M. C., Mba, A. U. & Oyenuga, V. A. (1975). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 26, 175.Google Scholar
Roach, A. G., Sanderson, P. & Williams, D. R. (1967). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 18, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robel, E. J. & Frobish, L. T. (1977). Poult. Sci. 56, 1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slump, P., van Beek, L., Janssen, W. M. M. A., Terpstra, K., Lenis, N. P. & Smits, B. (1977). In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, p. 70 [Tamminga, S. editor]. Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
Uwaegbute, H. O. & Lewis, D. (1966 a). Br. Poult. Sci. 7, 249.Google Scholar
Uwaegbute, H. O. & Lewis, D. (1966 b). Br. Poult. Sci. 7, 261.Google Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1978). Feedstuffs, no. 53, p. 15.Google Scholar