Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:50:14.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial rearing of pigs

10. Effect of replacing dried skim-milk by a single-cell protein (Pruteen) on performance and digestion of protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. J. Newport  and
H. D. Keal
M. J. Newport
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG29AT
H. D. Keal
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG29AT
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. Spray-dried diets were prepared containing (g/kg): dried skim-milk 665, dried whey 65, soya-bean oil 270 (diet U); or single-cell protein (Pruteen; SCP) 308, dried whey 440, soya-bean oil 252 (diet X). The diets had a crude protein (nitrogen × 6·25) content (g/kg) of 250 (diet U) and 240 (diet X), excluding nucleic acids (36 g/kg) in diet X.

2. The diets were reconstituted (200 g dry matter/l) and mixtures of diets U and X prepared to give diets supplying 0 (diet U), and approximately 400 (diet V), 600 (diet W) and 800 (diet X) g crude protein from SCP/kg total protein. All diets were supplemented with vitamins, and minerals to equalize the calcium, phosphorous, sodium and potassium concentrations.

3. Pigs weaned at 2 d of age were given the diets at hourly intervals on a scale based on live weight. At 28 d age the experiment was terminated and pigs killed 1 h after a feed for a study of protein digestion. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) was fed in the diets (0.5 g/l) for 24 h before slaughter.

4. Performance of pigs fed on diet V was as good as on the all-milk diet U. Greater levels of replacement by SCP (diets W and X) reduced performance. Mortality was greater on the all-milk diet, but protein source had no effect on the incidence of scouring. N retention (g/d per kg live weight) was similar for all diets but declined with age.

5. SCP appeared to stimulate secretion of pepsin and chymotrypsin, and reduced the pH value in digesta in the stomach. Enzyme adaptation may have been insufficient to digest high levels of SCP in the diet, and together with the decreased transit time observed using PEG as a marker, may account for the poorer performance when 600 or 800 g/kg milk protein was replaced.

6. Nucleic acids from SCP were metabolized and not retained for tissue synthesis. Allantoin excretion accounted for 75% of the theoretical maximum for complete excretion of nucleic acids, and uric acid excretion was also increased.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , September 1980 , pp. 161 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Anson, M. L. (1938). J. gen. Physiol. 22, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Hosking, Z. D., Mitchell, K. G., Plonka, S. & Sambrook, I. E. (1977). Livestock Prod. 4, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Keal, H. D. & Newport, M. J. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Mitchell, K. G., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Newport, M. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Newport, M. J. (1978). IVth Wld Conf Anim. Prod. p. 117 Abstr.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, A. J. (1955). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'mello, J. P. F., Peers, D. G. & Whittemore, C. T. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 36, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, E. F. & Folkes, J. P. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, B. C. W. (1959). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. H., Pond, W. G., Loosli, J. K. & Lowrey, R. S. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979 a). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979 b). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, M. J. & Keal, H. D. (1978). Anim. Prod. 26, 397, Abstr. 93.Google Scholar
Newport, M. J., Storry, J. E. & Tuckley, B. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peers, D. G. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 63A.Google Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Thompson, A. M., Hays, V. W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, W. G., Snook, J. T., McNeill, D., Snyder, W. I. & Stillings, B. R. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. X. & Kirchgessner, M. (1977 a). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernahr. Futtermittelk. 39, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. X. & Kirchgessner, M. (1977 b). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernahr. Futtermittelk. 38, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seve, B. (1976). Journées Rech. Porc. France p. 153.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1958). Nature, Lond. 182, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittermore, C. T., Moffat, I. W. & Taylor, A. G. (1976). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 27, 1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Tullis, J. B. & Hastie, S. W. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. R. & Tegbe, S. B. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar