Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:45:13.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestion of protein in young pigs and the utilization of dietary methionine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2008

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.Forty pigs between 23 and 51 d of age were given ad lib. diets containing wheat and one of five protein concentrates: meat meal A, meat meal B, soya-bean meal, milk and lupins (Lupinus augustifolius). Twenty of these pigs were given indigestible markers from 51 to 56 d of age and were killed at 56 d of age.

2.The diets containing meat meals A and B, soya-bean meal and milk contained 2.3 g total methionine/kg and the diet containing lupins contained 2.1 g/kg.

3.A further forty pigs of the same age were given the same diets supplemented with 1 g synthetic methionine/kg.

4.The weight gains and feed conversion ratios of the pigs given the diets containing 2.1–2.3 g methionine and 3.1–3.3 g methionine/kg were not significantly different.

5. The weight gains of the pigs given lupins (2.1 g methionine/kg) were less than those of the pigs given the diets containing 2.3 g methionine/kg.

6. The apparent digestibility of dry matter (DM) and nitrogen was less for the diets containing the meat meals (0.75 and 0.78 respectively) than for those containing the other protein concentrates (0.80 and 0.84).

7.The retention times in the large intestine of the diets containing soya-bean meal and lupins were 965 and 1083 min which were greater than those of the diets containing the other protein concentrates, mean 732 min.

8. The major site of N digestion and absorption for the diet containing milk was the area of the small intestine 25–50% of total length from the pylorus, while for the other protein concentrates the major site was 50–75% of its total length from the pylorus.

9. The digestion and absorption of N in the large intestine was less (3.4%) for the diet containing milk than for those containing the other protein concentrates (7.5–11.3%).

10. The apparent digestibility of the methionine to the ileum for the five diets ranged from 0.74 to 0.86 while the calculated retention of the apparently-absorbed methionine was 1.00. It was suggested that methionine digestibility could be used as an indicator of availability.

11. The calculated retention of apparently absorbed N in the carcass was 0.71 for the pigs given the diet containing milk and 0.51–0.58 for the pigs given the other diets.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 137 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

REFERENCES

Achinewhu, S. C. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British journal of nutrition 41, 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural research council (1981). The nutrient requirements of pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alimon, A. R. & Farrell, D. J. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumaitre, A. & Duée, P. H. (1974). Annales de zootechnie 23, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). British journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. C. & Friend, D. W. (1970). Canadian journal of physiology 48, 745–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, P. A., Hays, V. W., Baker, R. O., Neagle, L. H. & Catron, D. V. (1961). Journal of Animal Science 20, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 32, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1968). Proceedings of the nutrition society 27, 46A.Google Scholar
Kidder, D. E. & Manners, M. J. (1974). Proceedings, 3rd International Pig Veterinary CongressLyon L 11, 1–3.Google Scholar
Kidder, D. E., Manners, M. J. & McCrea, M. R. (1961). Research in Veterinary Science 2, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, T. L. J. (1970). Animal Production 12, 151–163.Google Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1984). Animal production 39, 125–128.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1973). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals no. 2, Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 7th ed.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1979). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals no. 2, Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 8th ed.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Ryle, A. P. (1960). Biochemical Journal 75, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, J., Buttery, P. J. & Boorman, K. N. (1971). British Poultry Science 12, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Siddons, R. C. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. H., Curtin, L. V., Abraham, J., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1954). Journal of Biological Chemistry 208, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 a). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 b). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981 c). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1973). Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 95 B, 115–133.Google Scholar