Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T20:37:59.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of type and level of protein, fibre and starch on nitrogen excretion patterns in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. M. Beames  and
B. O. Eggum
R. M. Beames
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Copenhagen, Denmark
B. O. Eggum
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Copenhagen, Denmark
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. Three series of nitrogen balance experiments were performed with growing rats to test the effect of type and level of protein, fibre and starch on N excretion patterns. The design involved eighteen treatments in a 3×3×2 factorial experiment with five rats per dietary treatment. The eighteen treatments resulted from a combination of three protein treatments, three fibre treatments and two starch treatments. Protein treatments consisted of onelevel (15 g N/kg DM) of casein fortified with methionine, a protein of high digestibility, and two levels (15 and 20 g N/kg DM) of autoclaved brown beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), a protein source of low digestibility. The fibre treatments were two levels of cellulose powder and one level of barley hulls. The two starch treatments were autoclaved potato starch and autoclaved and raw potato starch (1:1, w/w).

2. The inclusion of raw potato starch reduced true protein digestibility markedly when the protein source was casein, but the corresponding biological values were increased significantly with this treatment. This strongly indicated a movement of urea from the blood to the intestines. This assumption was also supported by significantly lower blood urea concentrations in animals given raw starch. The influence of raw starch on true protein digestibility was, however, significantly less when cellulose and barley hulls were included. This is probably due to reduced transit time from fibre inclusion. The nature of the gut contents also supported this hypothesis.

3. The inclusion of raw potato starch when brown beans were the source of protein had much less effect on true protein digestibility and biological value than when casein was the protein source. This was probably due to the low digestibility of DM and protein in this food leaving sufficient energy and protein for maximum microbial growth. The inclusion of fibre also had little effect on N excretion patterns with the brown-bean diets.

4. An increase in the level of brown bean inclusion reduced true protein digestibility only on the diets containing raw starch whereas the biological value was consistently reduced regardless of starch treatment. The lower biological values were associated with significantly higher blood urea concentrations. Increasing the level of brown bean inclusion also resulted in higher fresh weights of caecum, colon and contents.

5. The present work proves that, through dietary manipulation, it is possible to affect nitrogen excretion patterns in rats.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , September 1981 , pp. 301 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Baker, F., Nasr, H., Morrice, F. & Bruce, J. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjerring, J. H., Greig, M. & Halm, J. (1975). U.B.C. BMD 10V. Vancouver, British Columbia: Computing Centre of University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Breite, S. (1973). Modelluntersuchungen zum Einfluss exogener Faktoren auf die Aminosäurenresorbierbarkeit. Diss. (Promotion A), University of Rostock, Rostock.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I., Grant, I. & White, F. (1976). Publ. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 16, p. 159.Google Scholar
Combe, E. & Sacquet, E. (1966). C.R. Acad. Sci. 262, 685.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. & O'Malley, E. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delort-Laval, J., Charlet-Lery, G., Zelter, S. Z., Mercier, C. & Guilbot, A. (1968). Proc. 2nd Wld Conf. Anim. Prod.Maryland, p. 336.Google Scholar
Eastwood, M. A. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. beretn 406.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Christensen, K. D. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Gruhn, K. (1976). Arch. Tierernähr. 24, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallsworth, E. G. & Coates, J. T. (1962). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmuth-Hoene, A. E. & Schwerdtfeger, E. (1979). Nutr. Metab. 23, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H. & Heitmann, R. N. (1975). J. Nutr. 105, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1978). 3rd Wld Cong. Anim. Feeding, Madrid, p. 197.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1980). In Current Concept of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs, [Low, A. G. and Patridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: NIRD.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C., Bech-Andersen, S. & Rudemo, M. (1980). Z. Tierephysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 43, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. & Just, A. (1976). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 36, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C., Just, A. & Bech-Andersen, S. (1976). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 36, 311.Google Scholar
Meier, H. & Poppe, S. (1977). Zum Einfluss der Rohfaser auf die wahre Verdaulichkeit der Aminosäuren. Vth int. Symp. Amino Acids, p. C5. Budapest.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C. (1966). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 6, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, M. D. & Asatoor, A. M. (1975). In Peptide transport in Protein Nutrition, p. 167 [Mathews, D. M., editor]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, H. T. (1975). N.Z.Jl agric. Res. 18, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W. (1975). In Peptide Transport in Protein Nutrition, p. 283 [Mathews, D. M., editor]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Prior, R. L., Hintz, H. F., Lowe, J. E. & Visek, W. J. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rerat, A. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rerat, A., Lisoprawski, C., Vaissade, P. & Vaugelade, P. (1979). Bull. Acad. vet. Fr. 52, 333.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Eggum, B. O. & Jacobsen, I. (1979). Arch. Tierernähr. 29, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1979). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 38, 141A.Google Scholar
Stoldt, W. (1952). Fette Seifen, Anstrichm. 54, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, R., Belzile, R. J. & Brisson, G. J. (1971). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51, 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Taylor, A. G. & Elsley, E. W. H. (1973). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 24, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Zebrowska, H. & Buraczewska, L. (1980). 3rd Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. Symp. Protein Metabolism and NutritionBraunschweig.Google Scholar