Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T21:33:42.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritional value of poor proteins fed at high levels

2.* Species differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. Anantharaman ,
K. J. Carpenter  and
M. C. Nesheim
K. Anantharaman
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
K. J. Carpenter
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
M. C. Nesheim
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, Cornell University, USA
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. The same six high-protein diets that were fed to rats (Carpenter & Anantharaman, 1968) have now been fed to chicks.

2. The net nitrogen retention by chicks, per 100 kcal consumed, was for each diet greater by 20–50% than the retention by rats. For a diet based on a mixture of commercial protein concentrates the NDpCal % was 19·1 (± 0·18); this value greatly exceeded the theoretical maximum of 14·6 obtained from the equations of Miller & Payne (1963).

3. Although groundnut protein plus lysine has a calculated chemical score of only 56, chicks receiving this at a high level retained N at the same rate (NDpCal % of 17·5–17·9) as those receiving a diet which included egg protein at the level (26% of the dietary ME) predicted to be optimal for them.

4. The ‘endogenous + metabolic’ losses of N were in almost the same proportion to metabolic size for chicks as for rats.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 1968 , pp. 199 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1968

References

Anantharaman, K. & Carpenter, K. J. (1967). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 26, xi.Google Scholar
Carew, L. B., Hopkins, D. T. & Nesheim, M. C. (1964). J. Nutr. 83, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Anantharaman, K. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & De Muelenaere, H. J. H. (1965). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 24, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J., March, B. E., Milner, C. K. & Campbell, R. C. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Anderson, D. L. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, E. A., Jacobson, W. C. & Moore, L. A. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 501.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1963). J. theor. Biol. 5, 1398.Google Scholar
Nesheim, M. C. & Carpenter, K. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 399.Google Scholar
Platt, B. S., Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961). In Recent Advances in Human Nutrition, p. 351. [Brock, J. F., editor.] London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Rajaguru, R. W. A. S. B., Vohra, P. & Kratzer, F. H. (1966). Poult. Sci. 45, 1339.Google Scholar
Summers, J. D. & Fisher, H. (1961). J. Nutr. 75, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zablan, T. A., Griffith, M., Nesheim, M. C., Young, R. J. & Scott, M. L. (1963). Poult. Sci. 42, 619.Google Scholar