Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:25:01.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Availability of lysine in vegetable protein concentrates as determined by the slope-ratio assay with growing pigs and rats and by chemical techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. S. Batterham ,
R. D. Murison  and
L. M. Andersen
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
R. D. Murison
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
L. M. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
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 availability of lysine in nine vegetable-protein concentrates was assessed using the slope-ratio assay for growing pigs and rats. Diets were equalized for crude fibre using solka floc to minimize any possible effects of variation in fibre content on availability estimates.

2. The availability of lysine in the nine proteins for pigs, using food conversion efficiency (FCE) on a carcass basis as the criterion of response were (proportion of total): cottonseed meal 0.39, lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) seed meal no. 10.37, no. 20.65, no. 30.54, no. 40.54, field peas (Pisum sativum) 0.93, peanut (groundnut) meal 0.57, soya-bean meal no. 10.98, no. 2 0.89.

3. Estimates of available lysine for rats as assessed by the slope-ratio assay using FCE on a carcass basis were in close agreement with the pig estimates for cottonseed meal (0.35) and soya-bean meal no. 1(0.91) and no. 2(0.89), higher for lupin-seed meals (range 0.70–0.94 with a mean of 0.81) and peanut meal (0.76) and lower for field peas (0.76).

4. The differences in available lysine were not detected by the chemical Silcock available-lysine test (Roach et al. 1967) or by the direct 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrobenzene procedure (Carpenter, 1960).

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 85 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Barnett, C. W. & Batterham, E. S. (1981). Animal Feed Science and Technology 6, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S. (1979). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S. & Murison, R. D. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lowe, R. F. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1960). Biochemical Journal 77, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1973). Nutrition Abstracts & Reviews 43, 423–451.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Hove, E. L. & King, S. (1979). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hove, E. L., King, S. & Hill, G. D. (1978). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, B. J. F. (1979). Qualitas Plantarum-Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 29, 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husby, F. M. & Kroening, G. H. (1971). Journal of Animal Science 33, 592–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A. (1982). Livestock Production Science 9, 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. H. & Taverner, M. R. (1975). Animal Production 21, 275–284.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. & Cole, D. J. A. (1976). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1972). Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Porter, J. W. G., Westgarth, D. R. & Williams, A. P. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition 22, 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, A. G., Sanderson, P. & Williams., D. R. (1967). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 18, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, T. R. (1975). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 58, 500–506.Google Scholar
Ruiz, L. P. Jr (1976). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverner, M. R. & Farrell, D. J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46, 829–835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Williams, A. P., Hewitt, D., Cockburn, J. E., Harris, D. A., Moore, R. A. & Davies, M. G. (1980). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar