Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:10:26.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional availability of methionine, lysine and tryptophan in fish meals, as assessed with biological, microbiological and dye-binding assay procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

D. Hewitt  and
J. E. Ford
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
J. E. Ford
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. In vitro assay procedures were applied in the measurement of available amino acids in a selection of fish meals representing good- and poor-quality product. Results were assessed by comparing them with results from chick-growth assays.

2. Available methionine and tryptophan were assayed microbiologically with Streptococcus zymogenes, after predigestion of the test samples with papain or pronase. Results for methionine were correlated with chick-growth assays (r 0.86 for papain, 0.91 for pronase; P < 0.01). Compared with the chick assays, papain tended to give lower, and pronase higher, results. Finer milling of the test samples did not influence the pronase values.

3. Results for available tryptophan were also correlated with chick-growth assays (r 0.95 for papain, 0.96 for pronase; P < 0.001). Compared with the chick values, papain gave markedly lower results and pronasem marginally higher ones. Finer milling of the test samples increased the papain values by about 50% but had no effect with pronase.

4. Available lysine was assayed microbiologically with Tetrahymena pyriformis and with a dye-binding procedure (DBL). The results correlated with the chick-growth assays (r 0.99 for DBL, P < 0.001; 0.85 for Tetrahymena, P < 0.01) but both methods overrated the poorer-quality samples.

5. True nitrogen digestibilities and amino acid digestibilities were determined with chickens by the 'ileal analysis' procedure: the amino acid digestibilities were significantly higher and similar to the corresponding availabilities as measured in chick-growth assays.

6. Ball milling a poor-quality fish meal caused a marked fall in its N digestibility, whereas similar treatment of a good-quality meal caused a slight increase. An explanation for this finding is proposed.

7. Strep. zymogenes assays following pronase digestion of the test samples gave precise and acceptably accurate measures of the biologically available methionine and tryptophan in the test samples. For available lysine, Tetrahymena and DBL values for the poorer-quality samples were notably higher than the chick-growth assay; possible reasons for this are discussed. The ileal analysis procedure underestimated true N digestibility.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 575 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

REFERENCES

Achinewhu, S. C. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 559–571.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. & Carpenter, K. J. (1970). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 21, 366–372.Google Scholar
Barlow, S. M., Collier, G. S., Juritz, J. M., Burt, J. R., Opstvedt, J. & Miller, E. L. (1984). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35, 154–164.Google Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Ford, J. E., Hewitt, D. & Shrimpton, D. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 153–162.Google Scholar
Buraczewski, S. (1966). Factors affecting amino acid levels in the blood. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Buraczewski, S., Buraczewska, L. & Ford, J. E. (1967). Acta Biochimica Polonica 14, 121–133.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1978). Statistical Methods in Biological Assay, 3rd ed. London and High Wycombe: Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1964). British Journal of Nutrition 18, 449–460.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1973). In Proteins in Human Nutrition, pp. 515–529 [Porter, J. W. G. and Rolls, B. A., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 325–340.Google Scholar
Harwood, E. J. & Shrimpton, D. H. (1969). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 28, 66A–67A.Google Scholar
Hewitt, D., Coates, M. E., Kakade, M. L. & Liener, I. E. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 29, 423–435.Google Scholar
Hurrell, R. F., Finot, P. A. & Ford, J. E. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 49, 343–354.Google Scholar
Hurrell, R. F., Lerman, P. & Carpenter, K. J. (1979). Journal of Food Science 44, 1221–1231.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, E. E., Moller, A., Nielsen, J. J., Schmidtsdorff, W. & Weidner, K. E. (1972). International Association of Fish Meal Manufacturers, 12th Annual Conference, Rome. Potters Bar, Herts EN6 3AR, England: IAFMM.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1967). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 18, 381–386.Google Scholar
Miller, E. L., Carpenter, K. J., Morgan, C. B. & Boyne, A. W. (1965). British Journal of Nutrition 19, 249–267.Google Scholar
Shorrock, C. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 35, 333–341.Google Scholar
Shorrock, C. & Ford, J. E. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slump, P. & Schreuder, H. A. W. (1969). Analytical Biochemistry 27, 182–185.Google Scholar
Spies, J. R. (1967). Analytical Chemistry 39, 1412–1416.Google Scholar
Sternberg, M. & Kim, C. Y. (1979). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 27, 1130–1132.Google Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 339–349.Google Scholar