Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T02:46:24.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion in the pig between 7 and 35 d of age 6. The digestion of hydrolyzed milk and soya-bean proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Jane Leibholz
Jane Leibholz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales 2570, 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. Four pelleted diets were prepared containing milk or isolated soya-bean protein (ISP) as the major protein source. The milk and ISP were given either as intact proteins or partially (0·65) hydrolyzed with papain before feeding.

2. The diets were given ad lib. to thirty-two pigs from 7–28 d of age. The pigs were slaughtered at 28 d of age.

3. Weight gains, food conversion ratios and nitrogen balances of pigs given diets containing milk protein were better than those of diets containing ISP (231 g/d, 0·80 and 11·5 g/d compared to 209 g/d, 0·88 and 9·00 g/d respectively)

4. Partial hydrolysis of proteins before feeding did not affect the performance of the pigs.

5. Apparent digestibilities of N before the ileum and in the whole tract were 0·78 and 0.94 for the pigs given the ISP diets and 0·86 and 0·97 for the pigs given the milk-protein diets.

6. Retention time of ISP diets in the whole digestive tract was 1475 min and that of the milk-protein diets was 1089min.

7. pH of digesta in the stomach was 5·0–5·3 for all diets and increased to 6·9–7.1 in the ileum.

8. There were no differences in flows of total N and protein N to the ileum and lower digestive tract between the pigs given the intact- and hydrolyzed-protein diets.

9. Apparent absorptions of N in the stomach, duodenum and jejenum were greater in the pigs given diets containing hydrolyzed proteins than in those given diets containing the intact proteins.

10. Flows of total N and protein N to the ileum tract were greater when the pigs were given the ISP diets than when they were given the milk-protein diets.

11. Hydrolysis of proteins before feeding resulted in a reduced trypsin and chymotrypsin activity in the duodenum and pancreas.

12. Retention of dietary N in the carcass was greater in pigs given the milk-protein diets (0·79) than in those given the ISP diets (0·68).

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , July 1981 , pp. 59 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 12th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Braude, R., Newport, M. J. & Porter, J. W. G. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, E. T., Stevens, C. E. & Southworth, M. (1975). J. Nutr. 105, 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corring, T., Aumaitre, A. & Durand, G. (1978). Nutr. Metab. 22, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, R. F., Gangalli, S. D., Simson, P. & Matthews, D. M. (1971). Clin. Sci. 41, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranwell, P. D. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 142A.Google Scholar
Cunningham, H. M. & Brisson, G. J. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decuypere, J. A., Henderickx, K. H. & Bossuyt, R. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. P. & Slump, P. (1969). J. Nutr. 98, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. L. & Friend, D. W. (1970). Can. J. Physiol. Pharmac. 48, 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, P. A., Hays, V. W., Baker, R. O., Neagle, L. H. & Catron, D. V. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, V. W., Speer, V. C., Hartman, P. A. & Catron, D. V. (1959). J. Nutr. 69, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, F. & Yudkin, J. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J. W. & Weatherup, S. T. C. (1976). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 19, p. 169.Google Scholar
Low, A. G. & Zebrowska, T. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. H., Pond, W. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D. M., Croft, I. L., Geddes, D. M., Wise, I. J. & Hyder, C. W. (1968). Clin. Sci. 35, 415.Google Scholar
Newport, M. J. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C., Thomson, A. M. & Hays, V. W. (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, J. E., Harmon, B. G., Simon, J. & Baker, D. H. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 44, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, W. G., Snook, J. T., McNeill, D., Snyder, W. I. & Stillings, B. R. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyle, A. P. (1960). Biochem. J. 75, 145.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T. & White, O. D. (1978). Proc. Maryland Nutr. Conf. for Feed Manufacturers, p. 55.Google Scholar
Seve, B., Aumaitre, A., Joubert, P. & Tord, P. (1978). Annls Zootech. 27, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seve, B., Aumaitre, A. & Tord, P. (1975). Annls Zootech. 24, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Siddons, R. C. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 a). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 b). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 c). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 d). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyllie, D., Speer, V. C., Ewan, R. C. & Hays, V. W. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 29, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1973). Roczn. Nauk roln. Ser. B 95 (1), 115.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. & Buraczewska, L. (1972). Roczn. Nauk roln. Ser. B 94 (1), 81.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Buraczewska, L. & Buraczewski, S. (1978). Roczn. Nauk roln. Ser. B 99 (1), 87.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Simon, O., Munchmeyer, R. & Bergner, H. (1976). Arch. Tierernähr. 26, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar