Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T22:54:40.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion of protein in small and large intestine of the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J. H. G. Holmes ,
H. S. Bayley ,
P. A. Leadbeater  and
F. D. Horney
J. H. G. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
H. S. Bayley
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
P. A. Leadbeater
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
F. D. Horney
Affiliation:
Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
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. Six 45 kg pigs with re-entrant ileal cannulas were used in two 3 × 3 Latin-square design experiments to study the site of absorption of protein and amino acids. Semi-purified diets containing soya-bean meal (SBM), rapeseed meal (RSM) or no protein source (protein-free) were offered at the rate of 1 kg dry matter/d.

2. Flow-rates of ileal contents for 24 h collection periods, corrected for recovery of marker, were 3135, 3127 and 1243 ml (SE 390) for SBM, RSM and protein-free diets respectively.

3. Amounts of dry matter digested in the small intestine were 730, 669 and 809 g/d for SBM, RSM and protein-free diets respectively, all values being significantly different (P < 0·001).

4. Nitrogen intakes were 32·6, 29·9 and 5·9 g/d, and amounts digested in the small intestine were 25·7, 20·2 and 1·6 g/d for SBM, RSM and protein-free diets respectively, all values being significantly different (P < 0·001). Amounts digested in the large intestine were 2·6, 3·7 and 0·7 g/d.

5. Total amino acid intakes and amounts collected at the ileum and in the faeces were (g/d): SBM, 177, 24 and 18; RSM, 149, 28 and 22; protein-free 3, 9 and 12. Digestibility in the small intestine was higher for SBM than RSM for seventeen of the eighteen amino acids estimated. Greater quantities of arginine, methionine, cystine and tyrosine were voided in the faeces than passed through the ileal cannulas for pigs receiving the SBM and RSM diets. For those receiving the protein-free diet this was true for each amino acid except proline.

6. Significant differences were found between all diets in the concentration of some amino acids in ileal and faecal amino-N, and endogenous protein secretions did not mask the differences between diets.

7. Differences in digestibility between SBM and RSM were greater at the ileum than in the faeces. Amino acid fermentation in the large intestine obscured or reduced differences between SBM and RSM.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 1974 , pp. 479 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Bayley, H. S., Cho, C. Y. & Holmes, J. H. G (1974). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 33, 94.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G. & Purser, D. G. (1968). J. Nutr. 95, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, C. Y. & Bayley, H. S. (1970). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 521.Google Scholar
Cho, C. Y. & Bayley, H. S. (1972). Can. J. Physiol. Pharmac. 50, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho da Silva, J. F., Seeley, R. C., Beever, D. E., Prescott, J. H. D. & Armstrong, D. G. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, D. W. T. & Nesheim, M. C. (1969). J. Nutr. 99, 43.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Fauconneau, G. & Michel, M. C. (1970). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. 4, p. 481 [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Federer, W. T. (1955). Experimental Design, Theory and Application. New York: MacMillan Co.Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. (1969). Review of Medical Physiology. Los Altos, California: Lange Medical Publications.Google Scholar
Gitler, C. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. I, p. 35 [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B., editors]. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. H. G., Bayley, H. S. & Horney, F. D. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. I. (1967). Handbook of Physiology: Section 6, Alimentary Canal [Code, C. F., editor]. Washington, DC: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
Nasset, E. S. & Ju, J. S. (1961). J. Nutr. 74, 461.Google Scholar
Nasset, E. S., Schwartz, P. & Weiss, H. V. (1955). J. Nutr. 56, 83.Google Scholar
Steele, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Twombly, J. & Meyer, J. H. (1961). J. Nutr. 74, 453.Google Scholar