Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:24:08.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modification of energy metabolism by the presence of the gut microflora in the chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. Muramatsu ,
S. Nakajima  and
J. Okumura
T. Muramatsu
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, School of Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–01, Japan
S. Nakajima
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, School of Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–01, Japan
J. Okumura
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, School of Agricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–01, Japan
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.

Whether the association with gut microflora modifies the energy metabolism of chickens was investigated by varying the metabolizable energy consumption level from zero to above the maintenance requirement in the germ-free and conventional states. Single comb White Leghorn chicks were either fasted for 3 d (Expt 1), or fed for 6 d at a fixed daily meal intake of 2, 5 or 8 g/d (Expt 2), or 5, 10 or 15 g/d (Expt 3). Changes in carcass energy deposition and heat production indicated that when no dietary energy was available the presence of the gut microflora could benefit the birds by reducing energy losses, whereas when dietary energy was supplied the efficiency of energy utilization was reduced by the presence of the gut microflora. It was concluded, therefore, that the heavy burden of the gut microflora modifies energy metabolism by exerting a buffering or a counter-productive action on the energy utilization of the chicken.

Keywords

Gut microfloraEnergy utilizationChickensCarcass energy depositionHeat production
Type
Gut microflora and energy metabolism in chicks
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 71 , Issue 5 , May 1994 , pp. 709 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1994

References

Aoyagi, Y., Tasaki, I., Okumura, J. & Muramatsu, T. (1989). Energy cost of whole-body protein synThesis measured in vivo in chicks. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 91A, 765–768.Google Scholar
Baker, D. H. (1977). Xylose and xylan utilization by the chick. Poultry Science 56, 2105–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. & Dewar, W. A. (1965). The digestibility of acetic, propionic and butyric acids by the fowl. British Poultry Science 6, 103–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, M. E., Fuller, R., Harrison, G.F., Lev, M. & Suffolk, S. F. (1963). A comparison of the growth of chicks in the Gustafsson germ-free apparatus and in a conventional environment, with and without dietary supplements of penicillin. British Journal of Nutrition 17, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O. & Chwalibog, A. (1983). A study on energy requirement for maintenance and growth in rats with normal or reduced gut flora. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 49, 104–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Furuse, M. & Okumura, J. (1989). Effects of acetic acid levels on protein and energy utilization in chicks. Poultry Science 68, 795–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furuse, M. & Yokota, H. (1984). Protein and energy utilization in germ-free and conventional chicks given diets containing different levels of dietary protein. British Journal of Nutrition 51, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, P. M. & Lobley, G. E. (1991). Amino acid and energy metabolism in the peripheral tissues of ruminants. In Physiological Aspects of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 201–230 [Tsuda, T., Y., Sasaki and Kawashima, R., editors]. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. F. & Hewitt, D. (1978). The influence of the conventional microflora on the body temperature of the chick. British Poultry Science 19, 273–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegde, S. N., Rolls, B. A. & Coates, M. E. (1982). The effects of the gut microflora and dietary fibre on energy utilization by the chick. British Journal of Nutrition 48, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, F. W. &Anderson, D. L. (1958). Comparisons of metabolizableenergy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. Journal of Nutrition 64, 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muramatsu, T., Coates, M. E., Hewitt, D., Salter, D. N. & Garlick, P. J. (1983). The influence of the gut microflora on protein synThesis in liver and jejunal mucosa in chicks. British Journal of Nutrition 49, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T., Kodama, H., Morishita, T., Furuse, M. & Okumura, J. (1991). Effect of intestinal microflora on digestible energy and fiber digestibility in chickens fed a high fiber diet. American Journal of Veterinary Research 52, 1178–1181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T., Nakajima, S., Furuse, M., Tasaki, I. & Okumura, J. (1988 a). Influence of the gut microflora on basal metabolic rate in chicks. British Poultry Science 29, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T. & Okumura, J. (1985). Whole-body protein turnover in chicks and early stages of growth. Journal of Nutrition 115, 483–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T., Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1985). Protein turnover of breast muscle in germ-free and conventional chicks. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T., Takasu, O., Furuse, M. & Okumura, J. (19886). Effect of diet type on enhanced intestinal protein synthesis by the gut microflora in the chick. Journal of Nutrition 118, 1069–1074.Google Scholar
Muramatsu, T., Takasu, O., Furuse, M., Tasaki, I. & Okumura, J. (1987). Influence of the gut microflora on protein synThesis in tissues and in the whole body of chicks. Biochemical Journal 246, 475–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, T., Takemura, J. & Okumura, J. (1993). Acetic acid is not involved in enhanced intestinal protein synThesis by the presence of the gut microflora in chickens. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 105A, 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okumura, J., Hewitt, D. & Coates, M. E. (1978). Nitrogen excretion in germ-free and conventional chickens: effects of an alkali load. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salter, D. N. & Coates, M. E. (1971). The influence of the gut microflora of the alimentary tract on protein digestion in the chick. British Journal of Nutrition 26, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N., Coates, M. E. & Hewitt, D. (1974). The utilization of protein and excretion of uric acid in germ- free and conventional chicks. British Journal of Nutrition 31, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1980). In Statistical Methods, 7th ed., pp. 298–333. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. (1985). In SAS User's Guide: Statistics, version 5. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Yen, J. T., Neinaber, J. A., Pond, W. G. & Varel, V. H. (1985). Effect of carabadox on growth, fasting metabolism, thyroid function and gastrointestinal tract in young pigs. Journal of Nutrition 115, 970–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yokota, H., Furuse, M., Okumura, J. & Tasaki, I. (1984). A simple method for production and rearing of the germ-free chick. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 55, 600–603.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Morimoto, H. & Oda, R. (1970). Availability of energy in aliphatic carboxylic acids by growing chicks. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 34, 1301–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar