Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:53:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion in the pig between 7 and 35 d of age

1. The performance of pigs given milk and soya-bean proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. H. Wilson  and
Jane Leibholz
R. H. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales 2570, Australia
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. One hundred and fourteen pigs between 7 and 35 d of age were given diets containing milk or soya-bean proteins in four separate experiments.

2. The substitution of milk protein by soya-bean meal (SBM) to 75% of the total dietary protein reduced the weight gains and food conversion efficiencies of the pigs by 85% between 7 and 14 d of age and 31% between 21 and 28 d of age.

3. The treatment of soya-bean protein with alkali did not improve the performance of the pigs.

4. The substitution of milk protein by two different isolated soya-bean proteins (ISP) resulted in weight gains of 34 and 60% of the gains of pigs given milk protein diets.

5. Supplementation of the soya-bean-protein diets with methionine to 13.7 g/kg (5 g/16 g nitrogen) resulted in reduced food intakes and weight gains of the pigs and a 20-fold increase in the concentration of methionine in the blood plasma.

6. Supplementation of soya-bean-protein diets with lysine to 22 g/kg (8g/16 g N) in addition to methionine doubled the concentration of lysine in the blood plasma.

7. The apparent digestibility (AD) of dry matter (DM) and N of the diets containing soya-bean protein increased with increasing age of the pigs, but the AD of the milk-protein diet was not affected by the age of the pigs. The retention of N as a percentage of the N intake increased from 57–67% for soya-bean protein over the duration of the experiments while the average value for the milk-fed pigs was 85% at all ages.

8. At 35 d of age, the fat content of the carcasses of the pigs given the ISP diet was 249 g/kg DM compared to 164 g/kg DM for the pigs given the milk diets.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , March 1981 , pp. 301 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Aherne, F. X. & Speer, V. C. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 38, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 1lth ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Baker, D. H. (1976). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 35, 1917.Google Scholar
Bayley, H. S. & Holmes, J. H. G. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 1101.Google Scholar
Benevenga, N. J. & Harper, A. E. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Keal, H. D. & Newport, M. J. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 37, 187.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. (1977). Anim. Prod. 24, 271.Google Scholar
Chaney, A. L. & Marbach, E. P. (1962). Clin. Chem. 8, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, E. R. & Bayley, H. S. (1976). Br. J. Nurr. 36, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Circle, S. J. & Smith, A. K. (1972). In Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology, p. 294 [Smith, A. K. and Circle, S. J., editors]. Connecticut: Avi Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Colvin, B. M. & Ramsey, H. A. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. P. & Slump, P. (1969). J. Nutr. 98, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddie, S. M. & McCracken, K. J. (1972). 45th An. Rep. N. Ireland Agric. Res. Inst. p. 27.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1970) Br. J. Nutr. 24, 983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, D. W., Hill, D. C. & Bayley, H. S. (1975). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 34, 1098.Google Scholar
Harper, A. E. & Benevenga, N. J. (1973). In Proteins in Human Nutrition, p. 417 [Porter, J. W. G. and Rolls, B. A., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hays, V. W., Speer, V. C., Hartman, P. A. & Catron, D. V. (1959). J. Nutr. 69, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., Coalson, J. A. & Lecce, J. G. (1977). J. Anim. Sci. 45, 1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, A. M., Ramsey, H. A., Alsmeyer, W. L., Clawson, A. J. & Barrick, E. R. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 33, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maner, J. H. W., Pond, W. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J. R., Becker, D. E., Jensen, A. H., Harmon, B. G. & Norton, H. W. (1968). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. W., Jagusch, K. T. & Walker, D. M. (1970). J. agric. Sci. Camb. 75, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, M. L. & Watt, B. K. (1968). U.S. Dep. Agric. Home Econ. Res Rep. no. 4. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Roach, A. G. (1968). In Techniques in Amino Acid Analysis. Technicon International Division S.A.: Geneva.Google Scholar
Rotruck, J. T. & Boggs, R. W. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, K. & Ocio, E. (1963). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtemittelk. 18, 129.Google Scholar
Sherry, M. P., Schmidt, M. K. & Veum, T. L. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. & Sisson, J. W. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Vohra, P. & Kratzer, F. H. (1967). Poult, Sci. 46, 1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Kirk, R. D. (1975). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1979). Anim. Prod. 28, 391.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 a). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 b). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 c). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 d). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L. G. & Smith, G. C. (1973). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamora, R. G., Schmidt, M. K. & Veum, T. L. (1975). J. Anim. Sci. 41, 331.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1973). Roczn. Nauk roln. Ser. B 95, 115.Google Scholar