Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:34:19.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of diet and microbial activity in the digestive tract on digestibility, and nitrogen and energy metabolism in rats and pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. O. Eggum ,
Grete Thorbek ,
R. M. Beames ,
A. Chwalibog  and
S. Henckel
B. O. Eggum
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark
Grete Thorbek
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark
R. M. Beames
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark
A. Chwalibog
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark
S. Henckel
Affiliation:
National Institute of Animal Science, Department of Animal Physiology and Chemistry, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958, Copenhagen, Denmark
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. Balance trials with respiration measurements were performed with twelve rats and twelve pigs given either low- or high-crude-fibre diets. There were six collection periods with the rats over a live-weight range of 86–264 g and three collection periods with the pigs over a live-weight range of 30–55 kg. Measurements were made on the influence of microbial activity in the digestive tract on digestibility and nitrogen and energy metabolism. Dietary inclusion of the antibiotic Nebacitin was the method used to reduce the microbial population.

2. The microbial activity in the hind-gut (μmol ATP/g air-dry contents) of antibiotic-treated rats was reduced to approximately one-tenth of that of untreated rats.

3. Live-weight gain was not significantly affected in either species by a reduction in the microbial activity, in spite of a reduction in dry matter digestibility in animals with reduced microflora.

4. For rats on low-crude-fibre diets, a reduction in microflora reduced digestibility of all nutrients and energy and metabolizability of digestible energy by approximately 5·4%. All differences were highly significant. On high-crude-fibre diets the decrease was approximately 5·9%. In pigs on both crude fibre levels, the digestibility was also influenced by the level of microflora, but the pattern was somewhat different from that obtained with rats, with the Nebacitin treatment increasing the digestibility of N slightly, and the digestibility of fat markedly.

5. Retained N in rats reached a maximum when the rats were approximately 60 d old and thereafter decreased with increasing age. However, for pigs daily N retention increased with age. The retained N:digested N value decreased linearly with age in the rats, but varied little with age over the range (104–146 d) studied in the pigs.

6. The metabolizability of gross energy (metabolizable energy (ME): gross energy) was significantly reduced with an increase in crude fibre level and by the addition of Nebacitin.

7. Retained energy (RE) in relation to ME (RE:ME), was not significantly affected either by level of microbial activity or by crude fibre.

8. The ratio, RE as fat (RF):RE as protein (RP) increased as the animals grew. In the rat experiment there was a tendency for RP to be higher for animals with normal microflora than for animals with reduced microflora for both crude fibre levels.

9. With rats, the regression analyses indicated that the energy requirement for maintenance could be influenced by both the level of microbial activity in the digestive tract and by the level of fibre in the diet. The net availability of ME for maintenance and growth by rats averaged 0·72 for all treatments.

10. The net availability of ME for growth in the pigs averaged 0·65 for all treatments.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 161 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Brouwer, E. (1965). 3rd Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. Symp. Energy Metabolism, Troon. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Charlet-Lery, G., Szylit, O. & Bewa, H. (1980). Publs. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. 26, 81.Google Scholar
Chwalibog, A., Lind, J. & Thorbek, G. (1979). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 41, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combe, E. & Sacquet, E. (1966). C. r. Acad. Sci. 262, 685.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1972). Z. Tierphysiol, Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 30, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. beretn 406.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Fekadu, M., Wolstrup, J., Sauer, W. C. & Just, A. (1979). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 30, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etienne, M. (1969). Journées de la Rech. Porcine en France. Paris. I.N.R.A., I.T.P. Ed. 131. Quoted by Rerat, A. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 1808.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. J. & Johnson, K. A. (1972). Anim. Prod. 14, 209.Google Scholar
Fauconneau, G. & Michel, M. (1970). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism [Munroe, H. N., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Friend, D. W., Cunningham, H. M. & Nicholson, J. W. G. (1963). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 34, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hald, A. (1952). Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications. New York-London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Henckel, S. (1976). Publs. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. Symp. Energy Metabolism, Vichy. 19, 145.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, L. & Schiemann, R. (1977). Arch. Tierernähr. 27, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. H. G., Bayley, H. S. & Horney, F. D. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H. & Heitmann, R. N. (1975). J. Nutr. 105, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A. (1980). Proc. Energy Metabolism. EAAP. Publ. 26, 27.Google Scholar
Just, A., Eggum, B. O., Jørgensen, H. H. & Jacobsen, I. (1977). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. Medd. 177.Google Scholar
Just, A., Sauer, W. C., Bech-Andersen, S., Jørgensen, H. H. & Eggum, B. O. (1980). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 43, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just Nielsen, A. (1970). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. beretn 381.Google Scholar
Kennelly, J. J. & Ahern, F. X. (1980). The 59th Annual Feeders' Day Report. Agriculture and Forestry Bulletin. Special Issue the University of Alberta. Canada: The University of Alberta.Google Scholar
McAtee, J. W., Little, C. O. & Mitchell, G. E. Jr (1967). J. Anim. Sci. 26, 215.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1980). In Current Concepts of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs [Low, A. G. and Patridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: NIRD.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. & Just, A. (1976). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 36, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C. (1966). Annls Biol. Anim. Biochim. Biophys. 6, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neergaard, L., Petersen, C. B. & Thorbek, G. (1969). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernähr. Futtermittelk. 25, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W. (1975). In Peptide Transport in Protein Nutrition, p. 283 [Mathews, D. M., editor]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rerat, A. (1978). J. Anim. Sci. 46, 1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, B. A., Turvey, A. & Coates, M. E. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambrook, I. E. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoldt, W. (1952). Fette Seifen, Anstrichm. 54, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1969). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. beretn 373.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G. (1975). Natl Inst. Anim. Sci. Copenhagen. beretn 424.Google Scholar
Thorbek, G. & Henckel, S. (1976). Publs. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. 19, 117.Google Scholar
Vermorel, M. (1968). Annls Biol. Anim. Biochim. Biophys. 8, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, K. & Jakobsen, P. E. (1962). Dyrefysiologi II. Øvelsesvejledning for landbrugs-mejeribrugs- oglicentiatstuderende ved Den kgl. Vet.- og Landbohøjskole. p. 118. K. V. L. Copenhagen: DSR-Forlag.Google Scholar
Wolstrup, J. & Jensen, K. J. (1976). J. appl. Bact. 41, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M. G., Manoharan, K. & Michelsen, O. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebrowska, T., Zebrowska, H. & Buraczewska, L. (1980). 3rd Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. Symp. Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, Braunschweig. 27, 222.Google Scholar