Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:01:54.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritive value of mixed proteins

2*. As determined by net protein utilization and protein efficiency ratio tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2007

A. A. Woodham  and
Eileen M. W. Clarke
A. A. Woodham
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Eileen M. W. Clarke
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. A fish meal, meat meal, soya-bean meal, groundnut meal and sunflower-seed meal of known amino acid composition were evaluated individually, and combined in all possible pairs, by the estimation of net protein utilization (NPU) and protein efficiency ratio (body-weight gain:crude protein intake; per) using rats. Each pair provided a total of 100 g protein/ kg diet made up so that the amounts of the constituents were (w/w) 100:0, 80:20, 60:40, 20:80 and 0:100.

2. Marked synergistic effects were noted only for mixtures of sunflower-seed meal with soya-bean, fish and meat meals.

3. Chemical score ([amount of limiting amino acid/the rat's requirement for the same amino acid] × 100; CS), but not essential amino acid index; geometric mean for the ratio, amount of essential amino acid: the rat's requirement for that amino acid, for all ten essential amino acids; EAAI), successfully predicted the rankings of all mixtures except groundnut meal-meat meal and groundnut meal-soya-bean meal, by both per and NPU tests.

4. Although there is broad agreement linking results of per and NPU tests with results obtained by a more practical feeding trial in which the mixtures were evaluated as supplements to cereals, neither of these two standard tests is capable of predicting in every instance the advantages to be gained by mixing protein concentrates.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 309 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Bressani, R. & Béhar, M. (1964). Proc. 6th int. Congr. Nutr., Edinburgh, p. 181.Google Scholar
Bressani, R. & Valiente, A. T. (1962). J. Fd Sci. 27, 401.Google Scholar
Bressani, R., Valiente, A. T. & Tejada, C. (1962). J. Fd Sci. 27, 394.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. A. (1963). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1100, p. 31.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. P. & Van Stratum, P. G. C. (1963). Qualitas Pl. Mater. veg. 10, 168.Google Scholar
Derse, P. H. (1960). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 43, 38.Google Scholar
Derse, P. H. (1962).J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 45, 418.Google Scholar
Derse, P. H. (1965). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 48, 847.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. (1963). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 1100, p. 34.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1972). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals No. 10, Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, 2nd ed.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.Google Scholar
Woodham, A. A. & Deans, P. S. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 37, 289.Google Scholar