Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:55:55.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional effects of field bean (Vicia faba L.) proteinase inhibitors fed to rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

Bene W. Abbey ,
R. J. Neale  and
G. Norton
Bene W. Abbey
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
R. J. Neale
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
G. Norton
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
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. Weanling rats were fed on purified-casein diets containing active and inactive (autoclaved) field bean (Vicia faba L.) proteinase inhibitors (PI) at levels of 1.25, 2.5, 5.0 and 10 g/kg. Diets containing raw-and autoclaved-field-bean meal (FBM) were also given. The body-weight gain, protein efficiency ratio (PER); i.e. the ratio of the live weight gain in g/g of protein consumed and apparent nitrogen digestibility were determined 7, 14 and 21 d after the start of the trial.

2. Significant growth depression (P < 0.001) was observed in rats given diets containing 2.5 g/kg PI (27–35%). In rats fed on raw FBM growth depression was severe after 7 d (57%).

3. Food intake was depressed at PI inclusion levels of 5 g/kg and higher between 14 and 21 d.

4. PER was depressed significantly (33–44%) in rats given diets containing the active PI at all levels after 7 d. The protein utilization of all casein diets was higher than that of the FBM diets.

5. Apparent N digestibility was depressed in rats fed on diets containing 10 g/kg PI by 9 and 7% at 14 and 21 d respectively. The N digestibility of both raw and heated FBM was similar at approximately 84%.

6. It was concluded that the PI are not the main factors responsible for the growth depression observed when raw FBM is fed to rats.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 31 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Barnes, R. H. & Kwong, E. (1965). J. Nutr. 86, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. H., Kwong, E. & Fiala, G. (1965). J. Nutr. 85, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, E., Wright, D. S. & Boulter, D. (1976). Phytochemistry 15, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushirna, D. (1968). Cereal Chem. 45, 203.Google Scholar
Gertler, A., Birk, Y. & Bondi, A. (1967). J. Nutr. 91, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishaaya, I. & Birk, Y. (1965). J. Fd Sci. 30, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadirvel, R. & Clandinin, D. R. (1974). Poult. Sci. 53, 1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakade, M. L., Hoffa, D. E. & Liener, I. E. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khayambashi, H. & Lyman, R. L. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunitz, M. (1947). J. gen. Physiol. 30, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liener, I. E. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liener, I. E. (1969). Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs [Liener, I. E., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liener, I. E. (1977). In Protein Nutritional Quality of Foods and Feeds, part 2, p. 523 [Friedman, M., editor]. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Marquardt, R. R. & Campbell, L. D. (1973). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53, 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, R. R., McKirdy, J. A., Ward, T. & Campbell, L. D. (1975). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 55, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z. (1971). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 22, 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T.B. & Mendel, L. B. (1917). J. biol. Chem. 32, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, P. R. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1972). Lab. Anim. 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackis, J. J. (1965). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 24, 1488.Google Scholar
Sohonie, K., Apte, U. & Ambe, K. S. (1958). J. Scient. ind. Res. 17C, 42.Google Scholar
Ward, T., Marguardt, R. & Campbell, L. D. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warsy, A. S., Norton, G. & Stein, M. (1974). Phytochemistry 13, 2481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. & McNab, J. M. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J., McNab, J. M. & Bentley, H. (1972 a). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 23, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J., McNab, J. M. & Bentley, H. (1972 b). Poult. Sci. 13, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar