Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:17:39.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incorporating turn-over in whole body protein retention ef.ciency in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Z. Roux
Z. Roux
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, Republic of South Africa E-mail: lhermann@postino.up.ac.za
Get access

Abstract

The magnitude of the discrepancy between conventional regression estimates of protein retention efficiency and theoretical estimates of synthesis efficiency indicates a major contribution ascribable to protein turn-over in the generally accepted estimates. As protein turn-over is known to be influenced by diet, feeding level and degree of maturity, this suggests the development of an estimator of protein efficiency that can be adapted for such differences. Therefore, based on generally accepted formulas for growth description, a method of estimating protein retention efficiency was developed which is flexible enough to accommodate different diets, feeding levels and degrees of maturity. Moreover, a formula was derived to convert one type of estimate to the other by regarding constant efficiency as equivalent to variable efficiency at the mid point of the estimation interval. Increase in scientific depth to this descriptive approach is provided by a theoretical consideration of a possible mechanism of hormonal control of protein synthesis and breakdown, ultimately expressed as proportionalities to powers of whole body protein (P). Molecular considerations on cellular synthesis and breakdown indicate a difference between breakdown and synthesis powers equal to (2/9)Q. The factor (2/9) is indicated by an argument based on insulinlike growth factor derived activator diffusion attributes by nucleus and body tissue geometries, while Q is equal to the proportion of nuclei activated by insulin-like growth factor. This proportion is likely to be a function of the concentration of growth factor in the blood. Hence, a linear relationship between intake and blood insulin-like growth factor concentration suggests that Q can be represented by a scaled transformation of intake, 0 ≤ Q ≤ 1, such that a value of Q = 1 represents ad libitum intake on a suitable diet and Q = 0 intake at the maintenance requirement. The quantification of breakdown and synthesis power differences by (2/9)Q leads to kP = {1 + [1 − (P/α)(2/9)Q]−1/6}−1, for turn-over related protein retention efficiency (kP), with α the limit value of P at maturity, so that 0 ≤ (P/α) ≤ 1. Experimental estimates, derived from direct estimates of whole body protein synthesis and breakdown at predetermined levels of intake, are in excellent agreement with the theoretical (2/9)Q in the power associated with (P/α) in kP. Furthermore, conventional multiple regression retention efficiencies satisfactorily approximate the turn-over related retention efficiency that can be calculated at a given level of intake for the mid point of the interval covered by the regression estimates.

Keywords

pigsprotein retentionprotein turn-over
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 71 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirements of pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G. and Merkel, R. A. 1991. Protein accretion. In Growth regulation in farm animals(ed. Pearson, A. M. and Dutson, T. R.), pp. 169–198. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1960. Principles and theory of growth. In Fundamental aspects of normal and malignant growth(ed. Nowinski, W. W.), pp. 137–259. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. 1989. Energy metabolism in animals and man. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolze, M. S., Reeves, R. D., Lindbeck, F. E. and Elders, M. J. 1985. Influence of selected amino acid deficiencies on somatomedin, growth and glycosaminoglycan metabolism in weanling rats. Journal of Nutrition 115: 782–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czech, M. 1989. Signal transmission by the insulin-like growth factors. Cell 59: 235–238.Google Scholar
Danfaer, A. 2001. Model simulation of energy metabolism and utilization in growing pigs. In Energy metabolism in animals(ed. Chwalibog, A. and Jakobsen, K.) EAAP publication no. 103, pp. 293–296. Wageningen Pers.Google Scholar
Etherton, T. D. 1991. The role of insulin-like growth factors (IGF) and the IGF-binding proteins in growth and metabolism. In Growth regulation in farm animals(ed. Pearson, A. M. and Dutson, T. R.), pp.343–372. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Evers, B. 1989. Hormonal effects on protein turn-over. In Protein metabolism in farm animals(ed. Bock, H. D., Eggum, B. O., Low, A. G., Simon, O. and Zebrowska, T.), pp. 367–403. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldspink, D. F. and Kelly, F. J. 1984. Protein turn-over and growth in the whole body, liver and kidney of the rat from the foetus to senility. Biochemical Journal 217: 507–516.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. W., Christensen, R., Carr, J. R. and Pearson, G. 1980. Some aspects of the energy metabolism of growing pigs fed on diets containing different concentrations of protein. In Energy metabolism(ed. Mount, L. E.), pp. 97–100. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Kemm, E. H. 1980. The influence of dietary energy concentration on the growth efficiency of ad libitum fed pigs. In Energy metabolism(ed. Mount, L. E.), pp. 73–76. Butterworths. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemm, E. H., Siebrits, F. K., Ras, M. N. and Badenhorst, H. A. 1991. Feed intake, live mass grain, body composition and protein deposition in pigs fed three protein levels. South African Journal of Animal Science 21: 127–136.Google Scholar
Knap, P. W. 2000. Time trends of Gompertz growth parameters in ‘meat-typ’ pigs. Animal Science 70: 39–49.Google Scholar
Lewis, S.E. M., Kelly, F. J. and Goldspink, D. F. 1984 Pre-and post-natal growth and protein turn-over in smooth muscle, heart and slow- and fast-twitch skeletal muscles of the rat. Biochemical Journal 217: 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgen van, J. and Noblet, J. 1999. Energy partitioning in growing pigs: the use of a multivariate model as an alternative for the factorial analysis. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2154–2162.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Oltjen, J. W., Bywater, A. L. and Baldwin, R. L. 1985. Simulation of normal protein accretion in rats. Journal of Nutrition 115: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N., Dourmad, J.-Y. and Noblet, J. 1996. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pig from 45 to 100 kg body weight. 1. Protein and lipid deposition. Animal Science 63: 277–288.Google Scholar
Reeds, P. J., Cadenhead, A., Fuller, M. F., Lobley, G. E. and McDonald, J. D. 1980. Protein turn-over in growing pigs. Effects of age and food intake. British Journal of Nutrition 43: 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeds, P. J., Fuller, M. F., Cadenhead, A., Lobley, G. E. and McDonald, J. D. 1981. Effects of changes in the intakes of protein and non-protein energy on whole-body protein turn-over in growing pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 539–546.Google Scholar
Reiss, M. J. 1989. The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of Experimental Botany 10: 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, C. Z. 1999. Growth equations for skeletal muscle derived from the cytonuclear ratio and growth constraining supplementary functions. Animal Science 68: 129–140.Google Scholar
Roux, C. Z. 2002. Bivariate methods to estimate protein and lipid deposition efficiencies for breeding improvement. In Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier, vol. 31, pp. 205–208.Google Scholar
Roux, C. Z. and Kemm, E. H. 1981. The influence of dietary energy on a mathematical model for growth, body composition and feed utilization of pigs. South African Journal of Animal Science 11: 1255–268.Google Scholar
Siebrits, F. K. 1984. Some aspects of chemical and physical development of lean and obese pigs during growth. D. Sc. (Agric) thesis, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Siebrits, F. K., Kemm, E. H., Ras, M. N. and Barnes, P. M. 1986. Protein deposition in pigs as influenced by sex, type and livemass. 1. The pattern and composition of protein deposition. South African Journal of Animal Science 16: 23–27.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G., Chwalibog, A. and Henckel, S. 1984. Nitrogen and energy metabolism in pigs of Danish Landrace from 20 till 120 kg live weight. Norm for protein and energy requirements for maintenance and growth. Report from the National Institute of Animal Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. 1976. Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to simulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production 22: 87–96.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Green, D. M. and Knap, P. W. 2001. Technical review of the energy and protein requirements of growing pigs: energy. Animal Science 73: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. and Noble, A. 1965. Quantitative changes in DNA, RNA and protein during prenatal and postnatal growth in the rat. Developmental Biology 12: 451–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed