Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:22:15.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional value of lupin (Lupinus albus)-seed meal for growing pigs: availability of lysine, effect of autoclaving and net energy content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. S. Batterham ,
L. M. Andersen ,
R. F. Lowe  and
R. E. Darnell
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, North Coast Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
L. M. Andersen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, North Coast Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
R. F. Lowe
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, North Coast Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
R. E. Darnell
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, North Coast Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2480, Australia
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.Two experiments were conducted to assess the nutritional value of lupin (Lupinus albus)-seed meal for growing pigs. In the first, the availability of lysine was assessed using slope-ratio analysis. In the second, the effects of autoclaving lupin seeds and formulating the diets on the basis of estimated digestible or net energy were assessed.

2. In the first experiment, the availability of lysine in three samples of lupin-seed meal was compared with that in meat-and-bone meal and soya-bean meal. Availability of lysine in the five protein concentrates, using food conversion efficiency on a carcass basis as the criterion of response, was (proportion of total): lupin-seed meal no. 1 0.44, no. 2 0.57, no. 3 0.53, meat-and-bone meal 0.42, soya-bean meal 0.80.

3. Availability estimates, based on protein deposited:food intake, were: lupin-seed meal no. 1 0.82, no. 2 0.73, no. 3 0.70, meat-and-bone meal 0.27, soya-bean meal 0.77. These estimates had higher standard deviations than those based on carcass response.

4. Regressing the measures of response v. lysine intake resulted in estimates of availability similar to, or higher than, the slope-ratio analysis but was associated with greater statistical invalidity and higher standard deviations.

5. The proportion of energy retained in the carcasses was unaffected by the inclusion levels of lysine or soya-bean meal. Energy retention was depressed (P < 0.05) with the three lupin-seed meals and the meat-and-bone meal.

6. In the second experiment, the response of pigs given a diet containing lupin-seed meal was inferior, on a carcass basis (P < 0.05), to that of pigs given a diet containing soya-bean meal formulated to similar total lysine and digestible energy contents.

7. The addition of soya-bean oil to the diet containing lupin-seed meal, to equalize the estimated net energy of the diet to that of the diet containing soya-bean meal, depressed protein deposition (P < 0.05) and increased fat deposition (P < 0.05), indicating that energy was not limiting the growth of pigs given the lupin-seed-meal diet.

8. Autoclaving the lupin-seed at 121°for 5 min had no effect on the growth of pigs, indicating that the low availability of lysine was not due to the presence of heat-labile anti-nutritional factors.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , November 1986 , pp. 645 - 659
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 12th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S. (1979). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Andersen, L. M., Burnham, B. V. & Taylor, G. A. (1986 a). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Lowe, R. F., Darnell, R. E. & Major, E. J. (1986 b). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S. & Murison, R. D. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Andersen, L. M. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lowe, R. F. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnason, J. & Carpenter, K. J. (1969). British Journal of Nutrition 23, 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlacu, G., Baia, G., Ionila, D., Moisa, D., Tascenco, V., Visan, I. & Stoica, I. (1973). Journal of Agriculrural Science, Cambridge 81, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. C. (1966). Biometrics 22, 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1973). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 43, 423–451.Google Scholar
Cave, N. A. & Williams, C. J. (1980). Poultry Science 59, 799–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1964). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. W. & Brown, W. O. (1970). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, pp. 161–164 [Schurch, A. and Wenk, C., editors]. Zurich: Juris Druck and Verlag.Google Scholar
Just, A., Fernandez, J. A. & Jorgensen, H. (1983). Livestock Production Science 10, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. H. (1981). Animal Feed Science and Technology 6, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettinati, J. D. & Swift, C. E. (1975). Journal of the Associalion of Official Analytical Chemists 58, 1182–1187.Google Scholar
Priddis, C. R. (1983). Journal of Chromatography 261, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverner, M. R. (1982). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 667.Google Scholar
Taverner, M. R. & Curic, D. M. (1983). In Feed Information and Animal Production, pp. 295–298 [Robards, G.E. and Packham, R. G., editors]. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Taverner, M. R., Curic, D. M. & Rayner, C. J. (1983). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnish, S. A. & Carpenter, K. J. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar