Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:55:15.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein quality in cereals and pulses

3. Bioassays with rats and chickens on sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.), barley and field beans (Vicia faba L.). Influence of polyethylene glycol on digestibility on the protein in high-tannin grain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. E. Ford  and
D. Hewitt
J. E. Ford
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfeld, Reading RG2 9AT
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfeld, Reading RG2 9AT
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. Two preceding papers in this series describe the application of microbiological and other in vitro tests in the evaluation of sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.), field beans (Vicia faba L.) and barley, and in assessing the influence of polyethylene glycol (PEG 4000) on the nutritional availability of the methionine. The present paper gives for comparison the results of bioassays on some of the same test samples. Net protein utilization (NPU) in rats was measurd by the nitrogen balance method, and N digestibility in chickens by the ileal analysis procedure.

2. In rat tests on sorghum, N in grain of high-tannin varieties was poorly digested. Supplementation of the test diets with 0.1 g PEG 4000/g protein gave a large improvement, which was partly offset by an apparent decrease in biological value (BV). With chickens N digestibility was even lower, and was similarly improved with PEG 4000. Treatment of high-tannin grain with ammonia solution was also effective in improving N digestibility.

3. With low-tannin sorghum the amino acid digestibilities were uniformly high and were not affected by addition of PEG to the test diet. With high-tannin sorghums they were low and less uniform, and were much improved by PEG 4000.

4. With field beans, the influence of the seed-coat tannin on protein utilization was much less pronounced than with sorghum. In chickens there was a significant effect (P < 0.05) of PEG 4000 on N digestibility in a high-tannin variety. With rats the effect was smaller and not significant.

5. In four samples of barley, N digestibility was high (0.87–0.96) and was not further improved by PEG 4000. The BV of a high-lysine cultivar proved marginally inferior to that of a normal variety. Possible reasons for this are discussed.

6. Over all, the results were closely consistent with those from microbiological tests with Streptococcus zymogenes.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 325 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Achinewhu, S. C. & Hewitt, D. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 559.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E. (1965). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 24, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarnocki, J., Sibbald, I. R. & Evans, E. V. (1961). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 41, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Christensen, K. D. (1975). In Breeding for Seed Protein Improvement Using Nuclear Techniques (Proc. Res. Co-ord. Meeting, Ibadan, I973), p. 135. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Authority.Google Scholar
Fleck, A. & Munro, H. N. (1965). Clinica chim. Acta 11, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 125A.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. & Hewitt, D. (1979 a). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E. & Hewitt, D. (1979 b). Br. J. Nutr. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Gohl, B. & Thomke, S. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 2369.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 39.Google Scholar
Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 305.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. L., Carpenter, K. J., Hurrell, R. F., Miller, E. L. & Rhodes, A. P. (1978). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 29, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laboratory Animal Science AsSociation (1969). Laboratory Animal Handbooks 2. London: Laboratory Animals Ltd.Google Scholar
Marquardt, R. R., Ward, A. T., Campbell, L. D. & Cansfield, P. E. (1977). J. Nutr. 107, 1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Tanguy, J., Guillaume, J. & Kossa, A. (1977). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 28, 757.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1923–1924). J. biol. Chem. 58, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S. (1963). J. biol. Chem. 238, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. B., Mendel, L. B. & Ferry, E. L. (1919). J. biol. Chem. 37, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, M. L. & Butler, L. G. (1978). Nutr. Rep. int. 17, 229.Google Scholar
Rolls, B. A., Hegde, S. N. & Coates, M. E. (1976). Lab. Anim. 10, 291.Google Scholar
Smith, R. H. & McAllan, A. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 545.Google Scholar
Smith, W. C., Almond, M., Savage, G. & Lawrence, T. L. J. (1977). A Nutritional Evaluation of Sorghum in Pig Diets. London: US Feed Grains Council.Google Scholar
Spackman, D. H., Stein, W. H. & Moore, S. (1958). Analyt.Chem. 30, 1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Pharmacopeia (1965). US Pharmacopeia XVII.Google Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 339.Google Scholar