Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:19:58.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of heat treatment in the processing of groundnut meal on the value of the protein for ruminants with some additional experiments on copra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Margaret I. Chalmers ,
J. B. Jayasinghe  and
S. B. M. Marshall
Margaret I. Chalmers
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
J. B. Jayasinghe
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
S. B. M. Marshall
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Groundnut meals subjected to different degrees of heat treatment during manufacture were fed to lactating goats on nitrogen-balance experiment. The ‘toasted’ groundnut meal was more effective than undenatured or air-dried meals in promoting nitrogen retention.

2. The heat treatment of the groundnut meals did not influence the digestibility of the protein.

3. The groundnut meals were typed by determining their salt-peptizability giving values ranging from 44% for the ‘toasted’ meal to 80% for the air-dried meal.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , October 1964 , pp. 283 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Allcroft, R. & Lewis, G. (1963). Vet. Rec. 75, 478.Google Scholar
Allcroft, R., Lewis, G. & Carnaghan, R. B. A. (1963). 6th Int. Congr. Nutr., Edinburgh, p. 82.Google Scholar
Annison, E. F., Chalmers, M. I., Marshall, S. B. M. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasundaram, S., Cama, H. R., Malik, D. A. & Venkateshan, C. (1958). J. Nutr. 66, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Better, E. & Davidsohn, A. (1958). Oleagineux, 13, 79.Google Scholar
Buss, L. W. & Goddard, V. R. (1948). Food Res. 13, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cama, H. R. & Morton, R. A. (1950). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, M. I., Cuthbertson, D. P. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, T. D., Samuels, C. & Irving, G. W. J. (1944). Industr. Engng Chem. 36, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, E. O., Morgan, A. F. & Loveen, M. K. (1938). J. Nutr. 16, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffpatuir, C. L. (1953). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 1, 668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayasinghe, J. B. (1961). Ceylon Vet. J. 9,128.Google Scholar
Jayasinghe, J. B. (1963). Ceylon Vet. J. 11, 87.Google Scholar
Loosli, J. K., Warner, R. G. & Hintz, H. F. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, J. W. & Wakelam, J. A. (1950). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, C. M., Kuiken, K. A. & Hale, F. (1956). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 4, 1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, J. & Baudoin, N. (1951). Oleagineux, 6, 11.Google Scholar
Tagari, H., Ascarelli, I. & Bondi, A. (1962). Brit. J. Nutr. 16, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, F. G., Preston, T. R. & Dawson, G. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 127.Google Scholar