Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:35:45.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of force-feeding on enzymes of the liver, kidney, pancreas and digestive tract of chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Zafrira Nitsan ,
Y Dror ,
I. Nir  and
Niva Shapira
Zafrira Nitsan
Affiliation:
Division of Poultry Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rehovot, Israel
Y Dror
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
I. Nir
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Hygiene and Poultry Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Niva Shapira
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Hygiene and Poultry Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
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. Force-feeding of young chicks for 15 d increased kidney arginase (EC 3·5·3·1) activity threefold. Fasting for 30 h decreased this activity by 50%.

2. Liver xanthine dehydrogenase was slightly increased after force-feeding and decreased following fasting.

3. The specific activities of two pentose-phosphate-cycle enzymes were not significantly affected by force-feeding, but glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.49) decreased following fasting.

4. The over-all secretion of digestive enzymes increased parallel to the increase in food consumption. Therefore, despite an increased absolute weight of the pancreas and intestinal chyme, specific activities were the same in the force-fed and ad lib.-fed groups, except for a higher activity in intestinal amylase.

5. Fasting did not affect the pancreatic enzymic activities.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1974 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Austic, R. E. & Nesheim, M. C. (1971). J. Nutr. 101, 1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernfeld, P. (1955). Meth. Enzym. 1, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y. & Gertler, A. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y. & Nir, I. (1971). Nutr. Metab. 13, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y., Sassoon, H. F., Watson, J. J. & Johnson, B. C. (1970). Clinica chim. Acta 28, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. R., Curtis, J. L. & Woodward, W. D. (1967). Devl Biol. 15, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertler, A. & Nitsan, Z. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C. & Sassoon, H. T. (1968). Proc. 7th int. Congr. Nutr. p. 496.Google Scholar
Muramatsu, K. & Nakagawa, T. (1971). Agric. biol. Chem. J. 35, 1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, I., Nitsan, Z. & Vax, A. (1973). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 13, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, I., Shapira, N., Nitsan, Z. & Dror, Y. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z. & Gertler, A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z., Nir, I., Dror, Y. & Bruckental, I. (1973). Poult. Sci. 52, 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. (1972). Biochem. J. 130, 21P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarda, L. & Desnuelle, P. (1958). Biochim. biophys. Acta 30, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, R. W. & Featherston, W. R. (1969). J. Nutr. 98, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. L., Nesheim, M. C. & Youna, R. J. (1969). Nutrition of the Chicken. Ithaca, New York: M. L. Scott and Associates.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Strittmatter, C. F. (1965). J. biol. Chem. 240, 2557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szepesi, B. & Freedland, R. A. (1969). Life Sci. II 8, 1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed