Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:13:51.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein and energy utilization in germ-free and conventional chicks given diets containing different levels of dietary protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Furuse  and
H. Yokota
M. Furuse
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464, Japan
H. Yokota
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464, Japan
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 present study was done to clarify the relationship between the amount of dietary protein given to, and the gut microflora of, the host. Day-old chicks were given diets containing three concentrations of dietary protein (50, 200 and 400 g/kg) for 14 d. Body-weight gain, food consumption, body consumption, and protein and energy utilization were measured.

2. There was no difference in body-weight gain and food consumption between germ-free (GF) and conventional (CV) chicks, but food conversion efficiency (g body-weight gained/g food consumed) was significantly higher in GF than in CV chicks.

3. Little difference was found in protein retention (g protein retained/14 d), but protein retention rate (g protein retained/g protein consumed) tended to be higher in GF chicks, particularly those given the diet with the lowest protein.

4. The presence of micro-organisms improved metabolizable energy (ME) values of the diets, but not all of the digested energy in CV chicks was utilized for growth. Therefore there was little difference in energy retention (kJ energy retained/14 d) between environments, although energy retention rate (kJ energy retained/kJ ME consumed) was significantly lower in CV chicks. The amount of body fat in GF chicks was higher than that in CV chicks, especially in those fed on the low-protein diet.

5. It is suggested that although the gut microflora may have beneficial effects on the digestion of dietary energy components, they may have detrimental effects on utilization of ME by their hosts, because chicks harbouring a gut microflora seem to have higher energy requirements for maintenance.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Baker, D. H. (1977). Poultry Science 56, 2105–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. & Dewar, W. A. (1965). British Poultry Science 6, 103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlet–Lery, G., Szylit, O. & Bewa, H. (1979). In Energy Metabolism, pp. 81–84 [Mount, L. E., editor]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Ford, J. E., Gregory, M. E. & Thompson, S. Y. (1969). Laboratory Animals 3, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E., Hewitt, D. & Salter, D. N. (1972). In Germfree Research, pp. 291–295 [Heneghan, J. B., editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fraps, G. S. (1946). Texas Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 678, 4–37.Google Scholar
Hegde, S. N., Rolls, B. A. & Coates, M. E. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Anderson, D. L. (1958). Journal of Nutrition 64, 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayne–Williams, D. J. & Fuller, R. (1971). In Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic Fowl, Vol. 1, pp. 73–92 [Bell, D.J., Freeman, B. M., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levenson, S. M., Kan, D., Lev, M. & Doft, F. (1968). In Advances in Germfree Research and Gnotobiology, pp. 71–75 [Miyakawa, M., Luckey, T.D., editors]. Cleveland: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Levenson, S. M. & Tennant, B. (1963). Federation Proceedings 22, 109–119.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1977). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. 1. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 7th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Okumura, J., Hewitt, D., Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. (1973). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 32, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N., Coates, M. E. & Hewitt, D. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, D. W. F. & Brown, W. O. (1969). Poultry Science 48, 41–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C. & Coates, M. E. (1972). British Journal of Nutrition 27, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. L. R. & Jukes, T. H. (1950). Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 73, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wostmann, B. S., Bruckner–Kardoss, E. & Knight, P. L. (1968). Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 128, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wostmann, B. S., Wiech, N. L. & Kung, E. (1966). Journal of Lipid Research 7, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokota, H. (1978). Proceedings of XVIth World's Poultry Congress, pp. 1661–1667. Brazil: Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Morimoto, H. & Oda, R. (1970). Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 34, 1301–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar