Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:45:35.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The digestibility of amino acids in the small intestine of the sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. V. Tas ,
R. A. Evans  and
R. F. E. Axford
M. V. Tas
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Soil Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor, GwyneddLL57 2UW
R. A. Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Soil Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor, GwyneddLL57 2UW
R. F. E. Axford
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Soil Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor, GwyneddLL57 2UW
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 digestibilities of microbial and food proteins in the small intestine were studied in three sheep fitted with re-entrant cannulas in the proximal duodenum and terminal ileum.

2. The quantities of microbial and food proteins at the small intestine were varied by infusion of a microbial isolate or by dietary manipulation and the balance of amino acids along the small intestine was determined.

3. A mean value of 0.69 for the apparent digestibility and 0.86 for the true digestibility of total amino acids was obtained.

4. From the composition of digesta at the duodenum the daily flows of microbial and food proteins were estimated. Their true digestibilities in the small intestine were calculated by regression and found to be: microbial protein 0.87 and food protein 0.82. The mean endogenous loss of amino acids secreted into the small intestine was estimated to be 13.3 g/d.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Armstrong, D. G., Savage, G. P. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). Publ. Eur. Ass. Anim Prod. no. 22 p. 55.Google Scholar
Axford, R. F. E., Evans, R. A. & Offer, N. W. (1971). Res. vet. Sci. 12, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, P. R. (1972). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 25, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Mitchell, H. H. (1948). J. Anim Sci., Camb. 7, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, R. B. & Kassell, B. (1968). J. biol. Chem. 243, 1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R. & Little, D. A. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 37, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. A., Axford, R. F. E. & Offer, N. W. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 67A.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. K. & Scott, J. E. (1960). J. clin. Path. 13, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1964). Comparative Nutrition of Man and Domestic Animals, p. 405. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Offer, N. W., Axford, R. F. E. & Evans, R. A. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 40, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. & Smith, R. H. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siriwardine, J. A. de S., Thomas, A. J., Evans, R. A. & Axford, R. F. E. (1966). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 17, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, E. & Ørskov, E. R. (1979). Ann. Rech. Vet. 10, 294.Google Scholar
Tas, M. V., Axford, R. F. E. & Evans, R. A. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Sco. 36, 76A.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. J. (1970). Automation, Mechmisation and Data Harding in Microbiology, p. 107. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar