Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T04:45:22.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of the nutritional and physiological significance of raw and heated soya beans in chicks and goslings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2007

Zafrira Nitsan  and
I. Nir
Zafrira Nitsan
Affiliation:
Division of Poultry Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rehovot, Israel
I. Nir
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
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 comparative effects of raw soya beans on food intake, growth, digestive organ weight, and enzyme activities in goslings and chicks were studied.

2. Goslings were more affected than chicks by the ingestion of a raw soya-bean diet (RSD) in the following ways: reduction in food intake and growth rate; increase in relative weight of the digestive organs; reduction in specific activities of lipase (EC 3.1.1.3), amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) and chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.4.5) in the pancreas (not affected in chicks); greater inhibition of trypsin (EC 3.4.4.4), chymotrypsin and amylase in the intestinal contents of goslings than of chicks.

3. Addition of methionine to the RSD improved food intake and growth rate more in goslings than in chicks.

4. The interrelationships between enzyme activities, food passage rate, nutrient absorption and food intake regulation are discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 81 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Alumot, E. & Nitsan, Z. (1961). J. Nutr. 73, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernfeld, P. (1955). In Methods in Enzymology [Colowick, S.B. and Kaplan, N. O., editors]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Block, R. J. (1956). Amino Acids Handbook. Springfield, Illinois: C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
de Muelenaere, H. J. H. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertler, A. & Nitsan, Z. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepkovsky, S. (1973). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 26, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liener, I. E. & Kakade, M. L. (1969). In Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs [Liener, I. E., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1971). Publs natn. Res. Counc., Wash. no. 1345.Google Scholar
Nir, I. & Perek, M. (1971). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 11, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, I., Shapira, N., Nitsan, Z. & Dror, Y. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z., Dror, Y., Nir, I. & Shapira, N. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z. & Liener, I. E. (1976). J. Nutr. 106, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackis, J. J. (1974). J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 51, 161A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1960). J. Nutr. 70, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligman, A. M. & Nachlas, M. M. (1963). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis. [Bergmeyer, H. U. editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zöllner, N. & Kirsch, K. (1962). Z. ges. exp. Med. 135, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar