Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:42:59.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Availability of iron from chicken meat and liver given to rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Funke E. Bogunjoko ,
R. J. Neale  and
D. A. Ledward
Funke E. Bogunjoko
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
R. J. Neale
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
D. A. Ledward
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
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 concentration and distribution of iron in 59Fe-labelled chicken leg and breast meat and liver were determined by gel filtration. In all samples approximately 50% of the Fe was insoluble (haemosiderin) and the haemoproteins (haemoglobin and myoglobin) constituted from 15% (liver) to 25% (leg meat) of the total Fe. Ferritin accounted for from 12% (leg meat) to 27% (liver) of the total Fe.

2. A technique was developed which enabled the time-course of the passage of 59Fe-labelled whole and fractionated meat and liver through the gastrointestinal tract of Fe-replete and Fe-deficient rats to be followed and it was found that the rate of stomach emptying appeared to be a function of the viscosity of the meal. In Fe-replete rats approximately 71% of a meal of raw chicken meat had left the stomach within 1 h of administration and by 2 h the stomach was almost empty and much of the unabsorbed 59Fe was in the ileum. By 4 h the ileum and colon contained almost equal amounts of 59Fe. Between different test meals there were only slight differences in gastrointestinal distribution and these reflected the different rates of stomach emptying.

3. Stomach emptying was slower in Fe-deficient compared with Fe-replete rats.

4. In Fe-replete, but not Fe-deficient, rats it was found that the amount of 59Fe lost (absorbed) from the gastrointestinal tract 2 h after administration of a test meal was not significantly different from the value found using a 7 d faecal collection technique.

5. Comparison of the 2 h absorption values for several test meals indicated that 59Fe absorption from raw whole meat was significantly higher than from the soluble extract and the residue after extraction (haemosiderin).

6. Heat treatment caused a significant decrease in the absorption of Fe in whole meat and the soluble meat extract but a significant increase in the liver absorption values. It is suggested that denatured haemoproteins are less available for absorption than their native forms but that heating increases the availability of the Fe of haemosiderin or ferritin or both.

7. Isolated muscle ferritin was poorly absorbed but on the addition of excess bovine serum albumin the absorption of the Fe was markedly increased.

8. It is concluded that, to estimate the Fe availability of a food such as chicken meat or liver one must not only take account of the concentration and type of each Fe-containing compound present but also such factors as their possible synergistic effects, the presence of chelating agents, the extent of cooking and the concentration and type of proteinaceous digestion products.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 1983 , pp. 511 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Bjorn-Rasmussen, E., Hallberg, L., Isaksson, B. & Ardvidsson, B. (1974). Journal of Clinical Investigation 53, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, S. T. (1971). Gerontologia Clinica 13, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, M. E., Benjamin, B. J., Williams, H. L. & Foy, A. L. (1967). Gastroenterology 53, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, T. (1982). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculure 33, 1049–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, T., Ledward, D. A. & Neale, R. J. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 39, 631–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, T., Ledward, D. A., Neale, R. J. & Root, I. C. (1980). Meat Science 5, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, R. A. (1979). Meat Science, 3rd ed, p. 30. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Ledward, D. A. (1971). Journal of Food Science 36, 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, A. (1974). In Iron in Biochemistry and Medicine, pp. 370–395 [Jacobs, A. and Worwood, M., editors]. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar