Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-f97m6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T21:03:44.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phytate and phytase: consequences for protein utilisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2007

P H Selle*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia BASF Animal Nutrition, 87a St Hilliers Road, Auburn, NSW 2144, Australia
V Ravindran
Affiliation:
Monogastric Research Centre, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A Caldwell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
W. L Bryden
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Peter Selle, fax +61 2 9735 5404, email: sellep@basf-australia.com.au
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.

The excretion of large amounts of P in effluent from intensive pig and poultry units is indicative of the poor availability of phytate-bound P in plant-derived feed ingredients. This environmental problem prompted the development and acceptance of microbial phytase feed enzymes for single-stomached animals. Their introduction led to an increasing recognition that phytate may have adverse effects on protein utilisation in addition to P. Consequently, the nutritional relevance of protein–phytate interactions for pigs and poultry is considered in the present review. Since the current understanding of the effects of protein–phytate interactions comes mainly from responses obtained to added phytase, literature on the influence of microbial phytases on amino acid digestibility and utilisation is summarised, followed by a discussion of possible mechanisms contributing to the negative effects of phytate. However, the rationale for the protein responses to added phytase remains largely speculative, and several modes of action are probably involved. It may be that the release of protein from protein–phytate complexes occurring naturally in feed ingredients, the prevention of formation of binary and ternary protein–phytate complexes within the gut, the alleviation of the negative impact of phytate on digestive enzymes and the reduction in endogenous amino acid losses are all contributing factors. A better understanding of the mechanisms of protein–phytate interactions and the modes of action of exogenous phytase enzymes is clearly desirable. Studies are also needed to identify and quantify the factors that contribute to the variable amino acid responses to added phytase. It appears that the relative solubilities of phytate salts and proteins from different feed ingredients and their effects on the extent of protein–phytate complex formation, coupled with variations in the effectiveness of phytase in different dietary contexts, may be the major factors responsible.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2000