Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:31:21.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative apparent total tract digestibility of major nutrients and amino acids in dogs (Canis familiaris), blue foxes (Alopex lagopus) and mink (Mustela vison)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. G. Vhile ,
A. Skrede ,
Ø. AhlstrØm  and
K. Hove
S. G. Vhile*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
A. Skrede
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway Aquaculture Protein Centre, Centre of Excellence, PO Box 5003, N–1432 Ås, Norway
Ø. AhlstrØm
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
K. Hove
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Major nutrient and amino acid digestibilities were evaluated in experiments with dogs (Canis familiaris), blue foxes (Alopex lagopus) and mink (Mustela vison) using seven extruded diets containing different protein sources. Four dogs (German shepherd), four blue foxes and four mink were offered each of the experimental diets to determine apparent total tract digestibility. Average digestibility of crude protein (CP) in blue foxes and mink was similar, and lower than the corresponding value in dogs (0·834 and 0·831 v. 0·864) (P < 0·001). CP digestibility in blue foxes showed significant correlations with dogs and mink (P < 0·05), while no significant correlation was observed between dogs and mink. Average digestibility of most amino acids was significantly lower in blue foxes than in dogs (P < 0·001), whereas mink digested most essential amino acids at the same level as did dogs. Most non-essential amino acids were digested at a significantly lower rate in the mink than in the dog and the blue fox (P < 0·001). There were significant correlations in the digestibility of most amino acids between dogs and blue foxes, and between blue foxes and mink (P < 0·05). Correlations were significant between dogs and mink for the digestibility of most essential amino acids (P < 0·05) but not significant (P > 0·05) for several non-essential amino acids. Average digestibility of crude fat was high and similar among the species studied: 0·968, 0·967 and 0·959 in dogs, blue foxes and mink, respectively. Average digestibility of starch ranged from 0·971 in mink to 0·998 in dogs; significantly higher in dogs than in blue foxes and mink, and significantly higher in blue foxes than in mink (P < 0·001). It was concluded that digestibility determined with mink, blue foxes or dogs may be used to predict digestibilities in the other investigated species. However, both the characteristics of the protein sources as well as the individual amino acid studied will influence the difference in digestibility among the species.

Keywords

Alopex lagopusamino acidsdigestibilitydogsmink
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 2005 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Ahlstrøm, Ø. and Skrede, A. 1995. Comparative nutrient digestibility in blue foxes (Alopex lagopus) and mink (Mustela vison) fed diets with diverging fat: carbohydrate ratios. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 45: 74–80.Google Scholar
Ahlstrøm, Ø. and Skrede, A. 1998. Comparative nutrient digestibility in dogs, blue foxes, mink and rats. Journal of Nutrition 128: 2676S–2677S.Google Scholar
Association of official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E., Wisker, E., Daniel, M., Feldheim, W. and Eggum, B. O. 1994. Digestibility of energy, protein, fat and non-starch polysaccharides in mixed diets: comparative studies between man and the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 471–487.Google Scholar
Børsting, C. F. 1992. Mink digestibility of new and traditional feedstuffs. Scientifur 16: 47–56.Google Scholar
Dahlman, T., Kiiskinen, T., Mäkelä, J., Niemelä, P., Syrjälä-Qvist, L., Valaja, J. and Jalava, T. 2002. Digestibility and nitrogen utilisation of diets containing protein at different levels and supplemented with DL-methionine, L-methionine and L -lysine in blue fox (Alopex lagopus). Animal Feed Science and Technology 98: 219–235.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Thorbek, G., Beames, R. M., Chwalibog, A. and Henckel, S. 1982. Influence of diet and microbial activity in the digestive tract on digestibility, and nitrogen and energy metabolism in rats and pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 161–175.Google Scholar
Elnif, J., Hansen, N. E., Mortensen, K. and SØrensen, H. 1988. Properties of mink trypsinogen/trypsin and chymotrypsinogen/chymotrypsin compared with corresponding properties of these enzymes from other animals. In Biology, pathology and genetics of fur bearing animals. Proceedings of the fourth international scientific congress in fur animal production, Toronto and Wisconsin, pp. 308–319.Google Scholar
European Community Directive. 1998. EC, Commission Directive 98/64/EC. European Commission. Brussels.Google Scholar
European Community Directive. 2000. EC, Commission Directive 2000/45/EC. European Commission. Brussels.Google Scholar
Hendriks, W. H. and Sritharan, K. 2002. Apparent ileal and faecal digestibility of dietary protein is different in dogs. Journal of Nutrition 132: 1692S–1694S.Google Scholar
Hendriks, W. H., Sritharan, K. and Hodgkinson, S. M. 2002. Comparison of the endogenous ileal and faecal amino acid excretion in the dog (Canis familiaris) and the rat (Rattus rattus) determined under protein-free feeding and peptide alimentation. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 86: 333–341.Google Scholar
Kainer, R. A. 1954. The gross anatomy of the digestive system of the mink. II. The midgut and the hindgut. American Journal of Veterinary Research 15: 91–97.Google Scholar
Karr-Lilienthal, L. K., Grieshop, C. M., Spears, J. K., Patil, A. R., Czarnecki- Maulden, G. L., Merchen, N. R. and Fahey, G. C. Jr 2004. Estimation of the proportion of bacterial nitrogen in canine faeces using diaminopimelic acid as an internal bacterial marker. Journal of Animal Science 82: 1707–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, P. T., Holme, D. W. and Smith, P. M. 1982. Comparative evaluation of net digestive and absorptive efficiency in dogs and cats fed a variety of contrasting diet types. Journal of Small Animal Practice 23: 577–587.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. 1980. Nutrient absorption in pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 1087–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleary, B. V., Solah, V. and Gibson, T. S. 1984. Quantitative measurements of total starch in cereal flours and products. Journal of Cereal Science 20: 51–58.Google Scholar
Moore, S. 1963. On the determination of cysteine as cysteic acid. Journal of Biological Chemistry 238: 235–237.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1982. Nutrient requirements of mink and foxes. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1985. Nutrient requirements of dogs. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rouvinen, K., Kiiskinen, T. and Mäkelä, J. 1988. Digestibility of different fats and fatty acids in the blue fox (Alopex lagopus). Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 38: 405–412.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Cichon, R. and Misir, R. 1982. Amino acid availability and protein quality of canola and rapeseed meal for pigs and rats. Journal of Animal Science 54: 292–301.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Fan, M. Z., Mosenthin, R. and Drochner, W. 2000. Methods for measuring ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs. In Farm animal metabolism and nutrition (ed. D' Mello, J. P. F.), pp. 279–305. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Skrede, A. and Ahlstrøm, Ø. 2002. Bacterial protein produced on natural gas: a new potential feed ingredient for dogs evaluated using the blue fox as a model. Journal of Nutrition 132: 1668S–1669S.Google Scholar
Skrede, A., Berge, G. M., Storebakken, T., Herstad, O., Aarstad, K. G. and Sundstøl, F. 1998. Digestibility of bacterial protein grown on natural gas in mink, pigs, chicken and Atlantic salmon. Animal Feed Science and Technology 76: 103–116.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user's guide, volume 2, GLM VARCOMP, version 6, 4th edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Szymeczko, R. and Skrede, A. 1990. Protein digestion in mink. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 40: 189–200.Google Scholar
Vhile, S. G., Skrede, A., Ahlstrøm, Ø., Szymeczko, R. and Hove, K. 2005. Ileal and total tract nutrient digestibility in blue foxes (Alopex lagopus) fed extruded diets containing different protein sources. Archives of Animal Nutrition 59: 61–72.Google Scholar
Wisker, E. and Bach Knudsen, K. E. 2003. The rat as a model for pigs: comparative values for the digestibility of NSP and other macronutrients. British Journal of Nutrition 90: 373–383.Google Scholar