Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:55:28.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The N:H2O ratio in the Sprague–Dawley rat and its variation with diet under the conditions of determination of net protein utilization*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. L. Pellett
P. L. Pellett
Affiliation:
Division of Food Technology and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
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. Analytical values are presented for body nitrogen, both on a fresh and dry carcass basis, body water and N to body water ratios for rats, of various ages, of the Sprague–Dawley Strain.

2. For 33- and 40-day-old animals, there were significant differences in body composition, including N:H2O ratio, between animals given a protein-free diet and those given protein at the 10% dietary level. For all age groups the N and water percentages were higher in the carcasses of animals given the non-protein diet.

3. For all age groups there were significant negative correlations between the percentage of N in the dry carcass and the net dietary protein value (NDpv) of the diet. For 33-, 37- and 40-day old animals there were significant negative correlations between the N content of the fresh carcass and the NDpv of the diet. For 33-day-old animals only, the correlation between N:H2O ratio and NDpv was also highly significant.

4. Body N values calculated from N:H2O ratio and from N:body-weight ratio were compared. At all ages, an equally good prediction was obtained from the N:body-weight ration as from the N:H2O ratio provided that the correct factors were used for animals given the non-protein and test diets.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1967 , pp. 609 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1967

References

Bender, A. E. & Doell, B. H. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, A. E. & Miller, D. S. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, vii.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. A. (1963). Methodology of Protein Evaluation: A Critical Appraisal of Methods for Evaluation of Protein Foods. American University of Beirut Publication. no. 21. Beirut, Lebanon.Google Scholar
Donoso, G. & Yanez, E. (1962). Nutr. Bromatol. Toxical. 1, 37.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. J. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegsted, D. M. & Worcester, J. (1947). J. Nutr. 33, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, K. M. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, K. M. & Toothill, J. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Bender, A. E. (1955). Br. J. Nutr. 9, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. M. (1923–1924). J. biol. Chem. 58, 873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. M. & Carman, G. C. (1926). J. biol. Chem. 68, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, C. R. (1923). J. biol. Chem. 57, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1963). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1100.Google Scholar
Pace, N. & Rathbun, E. N. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 158, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Miller, D. S. (1959). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 18, vii.Google Scholar
Platt, B. S., Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961). In Recent Advances in Human Nutrition, p. 351. [Brock, J. F., editor.] London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Rafalski, H. & Nogal, E. (1966). Int. Congr. Nutr. VII. Hamburg. Abstr. Pap. p. 167.Google Scholar
Scrimshaw, N. S. (1962). Food Tech. 16, no. 5, p. 26.Google Scholar
Stucki, W. P. & Harper, A. E. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar