Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:28:15.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vitamin A and protein interrelationships in the milk-fed lamb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

O. Faruque  and
D. M. Walker
O. Faruque
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
D. M. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
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 mean liver retinol reserve (retinal + retinyl esters, expressed as retinol) of six newborn lambs was 21±8 μg. The mean value for ten suckled lambs, aged 5–7 days, was 2655±472 μg retinol per liver.

2. Three unsuckled lambs were fed ad lib. from birth for 28 days on a high-protein diet, based on lard and skim milk, without supplementary vitamin A. The diet provided sufficient vitamin A for normal growth, but insufficient to permit substantial liver reserves (43±8 μg retinol per liver).

3. Thirty-six suckled lambs aged 5–7 days were given either a low-or a high-protein diet for 21 days, with or without graded levels of retinyl acetate or βcarotene. There were no significant differences in the live-weight gain or in liver retinol reserves between the low-and highprotein dietary treatments, or between the supplemented and unsupplemented groups.

4. Twelve lambs were pair-fed on either a low-or a high-protein diet from birth for 21 days. Six lambs that were given a large supplement of retinyl palmitate on the 1st day of life had stored significantly less retinol in the liver at 21 days (P > 0.01) than six lambs given a somewhat smaller total amount of retinyl palmitate in small daily doses. Lambs given the high-protein diet had significantly greater liver retinol reserves (P > 0.01) than lambs given the low-protein diet, with both methods of supplementation.

5. Twelve lambs were pair-fed from birth on a high-protein diet for 2 or 6 days. Lambs that were given retinyl palmitate dissolved in either a low-or a high-protein diet on the 1st day of life had significantly lower liver retinol reserves some 24 h later (P > 0.01) than lambs given similar treatments on the 5th day of life. Liver retinol reserves were positively correlated with the protein concentration of the diet at the time of supplementation.

6. Eighteen lambs were pair-fed from birth with either a low- or a high-protein diet. Six pairs were given retinyl palmitate daily and three pairs were given the supplement 48 h before slaughter. The source of protein was casein. Eight out of nine lambs given the low-protein diet would have died had they not been slaughtered at between 8 and 11 days of age. The time of supplementation had no significant effect on liver retinol reserves, which were very low, regardless of the dietary protein concentration. Lambs given the high-protein diet retained a significantly greater proportion (P > 0.05) of the dietary retinyl palmitate than lambs given the low-protein diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 11 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

Anderson, T. A., Hubbert, F., Roubicek, C. B. & Taylor, R. E. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amrich, L. & Pederson, D. J. (1956). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 15, 212.Google Scholar
Basu, N. M. & De, N. K. (1941). Sci. Cult. 6, 672.Google Scholar
Berger, S., Rechcigl, M., Loosli, J. K. & Williams, H. H. (1962). J. Nutr. 77, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessey, O. A., Lowry, O. H., Brock, M. J. & Lopez, J. A. (1946). J. biol. Chem. 166, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. (1958). Biol. Rev. 33, 488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshmukh, D. S., Malathi, P. & Ganguly, J. (1964). Biochem. J. 90, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, H. D., Boucher, W. B. & Shah, P. C. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esh, G. C., Bhattacharya, S. & Som, J. M. (1960). Ann. Biochem. exp. Med. 20, 15.Google Scholar
Fraps, G. S. (1946). Archs Biochem. 10, 485.Google Scholar
Friend, C. J., Heard, C. R. C., Platt, B. S., Stewart, R. J. C. & Turner, M. R. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausheer, W., Moor, H., Nobile, S., Mueller, P. B. & Wagner, H. (1964). In Schweiz. Lebensmittelbuch. Vol. 1, 5th ed., p. 655. Bern: Eidg Drucksachen-und Material Centrale.Google Scholar
Jagannathan, S. N. & Patwardhan, V. N. (1960 a). Indian J. med. Res. 48, 775.Google Scholar
Jagannathan, S. N. & Patwardhan, V. N. (1960 b). Indian J. med. Res. 48, 785.Google Scholar
James, W. H. & ElGindi, I. M. (1953). J. Nutr. 51, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, E. R., Kon, S. K. & Porter, J. W. G. (1961). In Milk: the Mammary Gland and its Secretion. Vol 2., p. 195. [Kon, S. K. and Cowie, A. T., editors.] New York: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1962). In Comparative Nutrition of Man and Domestic Animals. Vol. 1, p. 482. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Moore, T. (1957). Vitamin A. New York: Elsevier Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Nir, I. & Ascarelli, I. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, E. M., Harvey, J. D., Hill, D. C. & Branion, H. D. (1959). Poult. Sci. 38, 942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. B. & Mendel, L. B. (1916). J. biol. Chem. 26, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Vakil, U. K., Roels, O. A. & Trout, M. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M., Cook, L. J. & Jagusch, K. T. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 a). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 b). Br J. Nutr. 18, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar