Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:42:49.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of the gut microflora in the utilization of dietary urea by the chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2017

J. Okumura ,
D. Hewitt ,
D. N. Salter  and
M. E. Coates
J. Okumura
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
D. N. Salter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
M. E. Coates
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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. In a preliminary experiment, growth of conventional chicks given a basal diet containing adequate amounts of all the essential but none of the non-essential amino acids was improved by supplements of 10·3 g urea or 50·4 g glutamic acid/kg diet or both.

2. In the main study the effects of supplementing the basal diet with 2·6 g urea/kg were compared in groups of sixteen germ-free and conventional chicks.

3. The germ-free chicks did not benefit from the urea supplement whereas the conventional birds showed improved food conversion efficiency and significantly better growth.

4. In both environments nitrogen retention ((mg N intake – mg N excreted) ÷g food intake) was higher in the birds given urea, but N utilization ((mg N intake – mg N excreted) ÷ mg N intake) was reduced. This reduction was greater in the germ-free birds.

5. There was a small increase in plasma ammonia concentration in the germ-free birds given urea but a significantly greater increase in the corresponding conventional group.

6. Plasma uric acid concentrations were variable in both groups, and much lower than the normal range. They followed a similar pattern to the plasma ammonia values.

7. More insoluble N was excreted by the conventional chicks given urea than by the corresponding germ-free group, or by either group given the basal diet.

8. It was concluded that the gut micro-organisms are responsible for the growth-promoting effect of urea, presumably through release of ammonia by bacterial urease (EC 3.5.1.5) and its consequent incorporation into amino acids.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , September 1976 , pp. 265 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1976

References

Coates, M. E., Fuller, R., Harrison, G. F., Lev, M. & Suffolk, S. F. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error, 4th ed., p. 120. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd. Google Scholar
Ferrari, A. (1960). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 87, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. J. W. & Blair, R. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. J. W., McNab, J. M., Shannon, D. W. F. & Blair, R. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, S., Flor, R. V., Kaufman, J. H. & Klein, B. (1966). Clin. Chem. 13, 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Fulford, R. J. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N., Coates, M. E. & Hewitt, D. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar