Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:37:12.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional evaluation of the protein of dried tomato pomace in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

N. J. Drouliscos
N. J. Drouliscos
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Nuclear Research Centre ‘Democritos’, Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece
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. Nutritional evaluation of dried tomato pomace (DTP-20) as a source of protein was carried out using weanling rats. Comparisons were made with casein (CS), soya-bean meal (SOM-45) and the hydrocarbon-grown yeast Toprina (BP-T). The growth-promoting effects of the diets were evaluated over a period of 28 d of ad lib. feeding.

2. The unsupplemented DPT-20 had a protein efficiency ratio (per) of 2.18±0.13 and a net protein utilization (npu) of 0.55. The addition of dlmethionine (5 g/kg) resulted in a per of 1.74±0.15 (t 2.99, P < 0.01) and a npu of 0.40, while the addition of an amino acid mixture resulted in a per of 2.33±0.08 (t 1.84, P < 0.1) and a npu of 0.70.

3. The reason for the decrease in growth and the reduced per and npu values recorded for the methionine-supplemented group of rats is not clear and it is discussed in connexion with an imbalance or a slight toxicity caused by the added amino acid.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , November 1976 , pp. 449 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1976

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1970). Official Methods of Analysis, 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E. & Miller, D. S. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, vii.Google Scholar
Christias, C., Couvaraki, C., Georgopoulos, S., Macris, B. & Vomvoyanni, V. (1975). Appl. Microbiol. 29, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouliscos, N. J. & Bowland, J. P. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M. (1956). Analyt. Chem. 28, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). Beretn. Forsøgslab. no. 406.Google Scholar
FAO (1965). Tech. Rep. Ser. Wld Hlth Org. no. 301.Google Scholar
Greenstein, J. P. & Winitz, M. (1961). Chemistry of the Amino Acids, Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kalaisakis, P., Papadopoulos, G., Boufidis, B., Zacharioudakis, S. & Gourakou, A. (1970). Poult. Sci. Rev. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Lewis, O. A. H. (1966). Nature, Lond. 209, 1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maymone, B. & Tiberio, M. (1959). Aliment. anim., Noyon 3, 119.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Bender, A. E. (1955). Br. J. Nutr. 9, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muramatsu, K., Odagiri, H., Morishita, S. & Takeuchi, H. (1971). J. Nutr. 101, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1962). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash, no. 990.Google Scholar
Oser, B. L. (1951). J. Am. diet Ass. 27, 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. L., Nesheim, M. C. & Young, R. J. (1969). Nutrition of the Chicken. Ithaca, New York: M. L. Scott & Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1966). Adv. Chem. Ser. no. 57, p. 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H., Palmer, R. & Reade, A. E. (1975). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 26, 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stählin, A. (1957). Die Beurteilung der Futtermittel. Berlin: Neumann.Google Scholar
Woodham, A. A. & Deans, P. S. (1973). Br. Poult. Sci. 14, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar