Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:00:38.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative effects of wheat bran and barley husk on nutrient utilization in rats

2. Zinc, calcium and phosphorus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Carmen M. Donangelo  and
B. O. Eggum
Carmen M. Donangelo
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, 25 Rolighedsvej, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
B. O. Eggum
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Animal Physiology and Biochemistry, 25 Rolighedsvej, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
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. The present work was undertaken to study comparatively the effect on mineral availability in rats of wheat bran and barley husk when supplying the same amount of dietary fibre (DF). The experiment involved a total of nine dietary treatments including a control group and two series of four groups with increasing amounts of fibre from the two sources (total DF ranging from 42 to 117 gsol;kg dry matter (DM)). Dietary nitrogen concentration was kept constant at 15 g N/kg DM. Zinc concentration of the diets was adjusted to the level provided by the diet with the highest wheat-bran content (21 mg/kg DM) using zinc sulphate. Other minerals were not adjusted.

2. Two experiments were performed. In Expt 1 the diets were given to 5-week-old rats during 9 d and apparent absorptions of Zn, calcium and phosphorus and the femur concentrations of Zn, Ca and P were measured. In Expt 2 the diets were given to 9-week-old rats during 12 d. Mineral concentration in femur and total and albumin-bound plasma Zn and availability of plasma Zn for enzyme reactivation were measured.

3. In the younger animals, wheat bran depressed significantly the absorption of Zn when providing 40 g DF/kg DM and absorbtion of Ca when providing 80g DF/kg DM. Barley husk depressed significantly both the absorption of Zn and Ca already at 20 g DF/kg DM. Both fibre sources had a more negative effect on Zn than on Ca absorption. Only barley husk had a small negative effect on absorption of P. Phytate did not appear as a major factor affecting mineral absorption in barley husk. All diets containing barley husk had a very low molar ratio, phytate:Zn.

4. The age orthe animals influenced the utilization of dietary minerals using femur Concentration as a criterion, particularly in the case of Zn. In the younger animals the decrease in femur Zn with fibre correlated with apparent Zn absorption both with wheat bran (R2 0.986, P < 0.01) and with barley husk (R2 0.996, P < 0.01). In the older animals femur Zn did not change significantly with fibre.

5. In the older animals, plasma Zn, albumin-bound plasma Zn and availability of plasma Zn for enzyme reactivation were lowest with the highest addition of wheat bran.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , July 1986 , pp. 269 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, H., Nävert, B., Bingham, S. A., Englyst, H. N. & Cummings, J. H. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asp, N.-G., Johansson, C.-G., Hallmer, H. S. & Siljeström, M. (1983). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 31, 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballam, G. C., Talmadge, S. N. & Kirby, L. K. (1984). Nutrition Reports International 30, 1089–1100.Google Scholar
Camire, A. L. & Clydesdale, F. M. (1981). Journal of Food Science 46, 548–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. R. & Gowing, H. S. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 673–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Hill, M. J., Jivraj, T., Houston, H., Branch, W. J. & Jenkins, D. J. A. (1979). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 32, 2086–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. T., Hristic, V. & Flett, A. A. (1977). Nutrition Reports International 15, 207–214.Google Scholar
Davies, N. T. & Olpin, S. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donangelo, C. M. & Chang, G. W. (1981). Clinica Chimica Acta 1130, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donangelo, C. M. & Eggum, B. O. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen Report no. 406, p. 173..Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Christensen, K. D. (1975) In Breeding for seed protein improvement using nuclear techniques, pp. 135–143. Vienna: International atomic energy agency.Google Scholar
Forbes, R. M. & Parker, H. M. (1977). Nutrition Reports International 15, 681–688.Google Scholar
Forbes, R. M., Parker, H. M. & Erdman, J. W. Jr (1984). Journal of Nutrition 114, 1121–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frølich, W. (1984). Bioavailability of minerals from unrefined cereal products. in vitro and in vivo studies. phd thesis, University of lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Gill, J. L. (1978). Design and Analysis of Experiments in the Animaland Medical Sciences, vol. 1. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Giroux, E. L. (1975). Biochemical Medicine 12, 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, E. L., Durieux, M. & Schechter, P. J. (1976). Bioinorganic Chemistry 5, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, E. L. & Henkin, R. I. (1972). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 273, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie-Muncy, D. A. & Rasmussen, A. J. (1979). Journal of Nutrition 109, 321–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunkel, M. E., Roughead, Z. K., Gagne, C. M. & Acton, J. C. (1984). Nutrition Reports International 29, 735–743.Google Scholar
Lantzsch, H. J. & Scheuermann, S. E. (1982). In Trace Element Metabolism in Man and Animals, pp. 114–116 [ Gawthorne, J. M., Howell, J. and White, C. L., editors]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Morris, E. R. & Ellis, R. (1980). Journal of Nutrition 100, 2000–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, L. (1981). In Cereals: a Renewable Resource. Theory and Practice, pp. 427–459 [Pomeranz, Y. and Munck, L., editors]. Minnesota: American Association of Cereal Chemists.Google Scholar
Nävert, B., Sandström, B. & Cederblad, Å. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 47–53.Google Scholar
O'Dell, B. L. (1984). Nutrition Reviews 42, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, B. & Eggum, B. O. (1983). Qualitas Plantarum Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 33, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, A. S. & Oberleas, D. (1970). Journal of Laboratory Clinical Medicine 76, 416–425.Google Scholar
Reinhold, J. G., Imail-Beigi, F. & Faradji, B. (1975). Nutrition Reports International 12, 75–85.Google Scholar
Sandberg, A. S., Hasselblad, C., Hasselblad, K. & Hulten, L. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuffins, C. B. (1967). Analyst 92, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dokkum, W., Wesstra, A. & Schippers, F. A. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, E. L. & Ferrel, R. E. (1971). Cereal Chemistry 48, 312–320.Google Scholar