Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:46:11.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Critical note on the method of correcting protein digestion coefficients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Herbert Ernest Woodman
Affiliation:
Institute for the Study of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University.

Extract

The object of this note is to call into question the soundness of the generally accepted method by which the so-called apparent protein digestion coefficients of foodstuffs are corrected.

The digestion coefficient for the protein of a foodstuff as ordinarily determined by animal experiment does not afford a strictly accurate idea of the actual digestibility of that constituent. The figure represents a minimum value, and this arises from the well-known fact that the faeces do not consist solely of undigested food residues, but are to an appreciable extent contaminated by nitrogenous products which have been secreted into the alimentary tract and have escaped reabsorption. The nature of this so-termed metabolic material is twofold, being partly protein (mucus, epithelium, etc.) and partly non-protein (residues of digestive secretions, etc.). Before proceeding to a critical survey of the correction method, which is designed ostensibly to enable allowance to be made for the presence of such products in the faeces, it is of essential interest to consider briefly the true significance of the term “protein digestibility.”

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Crowther, and Woodman, . Journ. Agric. Sci. 8, 429, 1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Pfeiffer, and Lemmermann, . Landw. Versuchs-Stat. 55, 129, 1901.Google Scholar
(3)Stutzer, . Journal f. Landw. 28, 195, 1880.Google Scholar
(4)Paijkull, . Ztschr. f. physiol. Ch. 12, 204, 1888.Google Scholar
(5)Bülow, . Journal f. Landw. 48, 3, 1900.Google Scholar