Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:06:38.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of protein quality and fibre level in the diet and microbial activity in the digestive tract on protein utilization and energy digestibility in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. O. Eggum ,
R. M. Beames ,
J. Wolstrup  and
K. E. Bach Knudsen
B. O. Eggum
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
R. M. Beames
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
J. Wolstrup
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 21, DK-1958 Copenhagen V, Denmark
K. E. Bach Knudsen
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology, Carlsberg Research Laboratory, Gl Carlsbergvej 10, DK-2500 Valby, 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. Two nitrogen-balance experiments were performed with growing rats to test the effect of dietary fibre level, protein quality and antibiotic inclusion on microbial activity, N excretion patterns and energy digestibility. Each experiment involved eight dietary treatments in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, with five rats per treatment. The eight treatments resulted from a combination of two protein treatments, two fibre treatments and two antibiotic treatments. In Expt 1 the protein was provided as barley, or barley plus 2 g L-lysine hydrochloride/kg dry matter (DM) (at 15 g N/kg DM) and in Expt 2 as soya-bean meal or soya-bean meal plus 2 g DL-methionine/kg DM (at 15 g N/kg DM). In both experiments the basal diet was provided with or without additional fibre as 100 g barley husk/kg DM and with or without antibiotic as 7 g Nebacitin/kg DM.

2. With both barley and soya-bean meal, true protein digestibility (TD) was improved with the addition of amino acids. Only with the soya-bean meal diets was TD increased with Nebacitin treatment, with the effect of Nebacitin and methionine being additive. Barley husk slightly reduced the TD of soya-bean meal.

3. The effect of treatments on biological value (BV) was considerable. Lysine increased BV of the barley diet from 0.741 to 0.815 whereas Nebacitin reduced BV from 0.799 to 0.757. Methionine increased the BV of soya-bean meal from 0.754 to 0.911 while BV was reduced by Nebacitin from 0.843 to 0.821 and by barley husk from 0.845 to 0.820.

4. Net protein utilization (NPU) was markedly improved by the addition of amino acids and reduced by the addition of Nebacitin. Barley husk reduced NPU with soya-bean meal diets only.

5. Amino acid addition had no effect on energy digestibility of either diet, but Nebacitin reduced this value by approximately 5% on the barley diets, with a smaller reduction on the soya-bean meal diets. Fibre reduced energy digestibility of both diets.

6. On both diets, blood urea (BU) decreased with addition of amino acids. Nebacitin increased BU with the barley diets, but decreased BU with the soya-bean meal diets. With the soya-bean meal diets, the decrease with a combination of barley husk and methionine was particularly marked.

7. Microbial activity, as measured by caecal ATP activity, was strongly reduced by antibiotic addition with both protein sources. On the soya-bean meal diets ATP activity was increased by the addition of methionine.

8. The results demonstrated a difference in response to the addition of fibre and the first limiting amino acid to barley and soya-bean meal, as measured by several indicators of protein and energy utilization.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 305 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Argenzio, R. A. (1982). In Physiologie Digestive Chez le Pore, pp. 207–215 [Laplace, P.J., Corring, T., Rerat, A., editors]. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E., Wolstrup, J. & Eggum, B. O. (1982). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 48, 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beames, R. M. & Eggum, B. O. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 301–313.Google Scholar
Bjerring, J. H., Greig, M. & Halm, J. (1975). U.B.C. BMD 10V. Vancouver, British Columbia: Computing Centre of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. T., Stevens, C. E. & Southworth, M. (1975). Journal of Nutrition 105, 759–768.Google Scholar
Dziewiatkowski, D. D. (1970). In Sulfur in Animal Nutrition, pp. 106–119. [Muth, H.O., Oldfield, J. E., editors]. Wesport: Avi.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). National Institute of Animal Science Report no. 406, pp. 173.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Andersen, J. O. & Rotenberg, S. (1982 a). Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 32, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Christensen, K. D. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Chwalibog, A. (1983). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung and Futtermittelkunde 49, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Fekadu, M., Wolstrup, J., Sauer, W. C. & Just, A. (1979). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 30, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Thorbek, G., Beames, R. M., Chwalibog, A. & Henckel, S. (1982 b). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1972). Animal Production 14, 209–217.Google Scholar
Friend, D. W., Cunningham, H. M. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1962). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 42, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gargallo, J. & Zimmerman, D. R. (1980). Journal of Animal Science 51, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruhn, K. (1976). Archiv für Tierernährung 24, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgdon, E. S., Horney, F. D. & Bayley, H. S. (1977). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57, 832.Google Scholar
Hoque, D. E. & Elliot, J. M. (1964). Journal of Nutrition 83, 171–176.Google Scholar