Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:38:26.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of the microflora of the alimentary tract on protein digestion in the chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. N. Salter  and
Marie E. Coates
D. N. Salter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Marie E. Coates
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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 course of digestion of freeze-dried and heat-damaged egg albumen labelled with 14C in all its constituent amino acids was compared in germ-free and conventional chicks. The albumen was given at a level of 10% in a test meal containing 28% protein. Samples of digesta were taken 5 h later and analysed for 14C and nitrogenous constituents.

2. After administration of unheated albumen, 11% of the 14C remained in the germ-free gut, compared with 23% in the conventional gut. The poorer digestibility of the heat-damaged albumen was shown by recovery of 42 and 47% of the 14C from the gut of germ-free and conventional birds respectively.

3. With both diets there was a higher 14C: nitrogen ratio in the contents of the lower gut of conventional birds. Most of the N remaining in the gut was composed of protein or the hydrolysis products of protein, the amounts of which tended to be higher in the germ-free environment; urea and uric acid formed only a small proportion of the total N. There was less urea and more uric acid in the lower gut and excreta of conventional chicks.

4. It was concluded that microbial activity did little to increase the availability of protein to the chick. However, its effect on the nitrogenous material in the lower part of the alimentary tract might result in low recovery of N in the faeces and thus lead to erroneously high estimates of protein quality in tests with conventional chicks.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , July 1971 , pp. 55 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Akester, A. R., Anderson, R. S., Hill, K. J. & Osbaldiston, G. W. (1967). Br. Poult. Sci. 8, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E. (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research p. 84 [Coates, M. E., editor]. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Combe, E., Penot, E., Charlier, H. & Sacquet, E. (1965). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 5, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. (1957). Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error 4th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Ducluzeau, R., Raibaud, P., Dickinson, A. B., Sacquet, E. & Mocquot, G. (1966). C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 262, 944.Google Scholar
Evrard, E., Hoet, P. P., Eyssen, H., Charlier, H. & Sacquet, E. (1964). Br. J. exp. Path. 45, 409.Google Scholar
Ferrari, A. (1960). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 87, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, D. J. & Coates, M. E. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 10A.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. & Salter, D. N. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R. (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research p. 37 [Coates, M. E., editor]. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. F. (1969). Lab. Anim. 3, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenson, S. M., Crowley, L. V., Horowitz, R. & Malm, O. J. (1959). J. biol. Chem. 234, 2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. & Miller, H. (1965). Clin. Chem. 11, 624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasset, E. S. & Ju, J. S. (1961). J. Nutr. 74, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S. & Stein, W. H. (1954). J. biol. Chem. 211, 907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesheim, M. C. & Carpenter, K. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, W. L., Combs, G. F., Kifer, R. R. & Snyder, D. G. (1968). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 27, 1199.Google Scholar
Praetorius, E. (1965). In Methods in Enzymatic Analysis p. 500 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. New York and London: Interscience Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1970). Proc. int. Congr. Nutr. VIII.Prague,1969 p. 425.Google Scholar
Salter, D. N., Coates, M. E. & Westgarth, D. R. (1971). Br. Poult. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar