Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:45:45.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methionine requirement of kittens given amino acid diets containing adequate cystine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Katherine A. Smalley ,
Quinton R. Rogers  and
James G. Morris
Katherine A. Smalley
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiological Sciences and Animal Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
Quinton R. Rogers
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiological Sciences and Animal Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
James G. Morris
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiological Sciences and Animal Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
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 effects of feeding either high-protein (HP) or low-protein (LP) diets between 1.8 and 15 kg live weight (LW) and a low-energy (LE) or high-energy (HE) intake subsequently on the cellularity of muscle and adipose tissue in pigs growing to 75 kg LW were investigated.

2. The effects of the nutritional treatments on muscle tissue were assessed from the weight and DNA content of the m. adductor. For adipose tissue the total DNA content and fat cell size of the subcutaneous adipose tissue contained in the left shoulder joint were determined.

3. Feeding the LP diets in early life reduced the weight and DNA content of the m. adductor (P < 0.01) and increased fat cell size (P < 0.01) at 15 kg LW.

4. Subsequent to 15 kg there was an almost linear increase in muscle DNA with increasing LW, and the difference between pigs from the initial protein treatments progressively diminished and was no longer apparent at 60 kg LW.

5. At 30 kg LW, pigs given the LP diets before 15 kg LW contained less DNA in the subcutaneous adipose tissue from the shoulder joint (P < 0.01) and had larger fat cells (P < 0.05) than pigs given the HP diets initially. However, adipose DNA and fat cell size increased with increasing LW and the differences resulting from the initial protein treatments progressively diminished. On the LE and HE treatments subsequent to 15 kg these differences were no longer evident at 45 and 60 kg respectively.

6. Pigs given the HE intake subsequent to 15 kg, contained less DNA in muscle tissue (P < 0·05) at 60 and 75 kg LW and had larger fat cells (P < 0·05) at 45, 60 and 75 kg LW, than pigs on the LE treatment.

Type
Paper on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 411 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 12th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Baker, D. H., Clausing, W. W., Harmon, B. G., Jensen, A. H. & Becker, D. E. (1969). J. Anim. Sci. 29, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, R. A. & Milner, J. A. (1981). J. Nutr. 111, 2117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
D'Mello, J. P. F. (1976). Br. Poult. Sci. 17, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dymsza, H. A. & Miller, S. A. (1964). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 23, 186.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, J. D. & Mudd, S. H. (1967). J. biol. Chem. 242, 873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, G., Scott, H. N. & Baker, D. H. (1971). Poult. Sci. 50, 1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandage, A. (1958). Biometrics 14, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halver, J. E., DeLong, D. C. & Mertz, E. T. (1959). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 18, 527.Google Scholar
Hardy, A. J., Morris, J. G. & Rogers, Q. R. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, K. C., Carey, R. E. & Schmidt, S. Y. (1975). Science 188, 949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopf, K., Sturman, J. A., Armstrong, M. & Hayes, K. C. (1978). J. Nutr. 108, 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1978). Nutrient Requirements of Cats. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Ngwira, T. N. & Beames, R. M. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambaut, P. C. & Miller, S. A. (1965). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 24, 373.Google Scholar
Ritter, S. M. & Owens, F. N. (1974). J. Anim. Sci. 39, 981.Google Scholar
Rogers, Q. R. & Morris, J. G. (1979). J. Nutr. 109, 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. C., Rogers, Q. R. & Morris, J. G. (1982). J. Nutr. 112, 962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, B. M., Howe, J. M. & Clark, H. E. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowers, J. E., Stockland, W. L. & Meade, R. J. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stipanuk, M. H. & Benevenga, N. J. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teeter, R. G., Baker, D. H. & Corbin, J. E. (1978 a). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teeter, R. G., Baker, D. H. & Corbin, J. E. (1978 b). J. Nutr. 108, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. R. & Wood, F. E. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar