Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T15:34:12.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the use of the chicken to predict protein digestibility in the small intestine of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. H. Henning ,
J. H. F. Meyer  and
J. J. Prinsloo
P. H. Henning
Affiliation:
Animal and Dairy Science Research Institute, Private Bag X2, Irene, 1675, South Africa
J. H. F. Meyer
Affiliation:
Animal and Dairy Science Research Institute, Private Bag X2, Irene, 1675, South Africa
J. J. Prinsloo
Affiliation:
Animal and Dairy Science Research Institute, Private Bag X2, Irene, 1675, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

The true digestibility of protein from diets containing one of the protein-rich foodstuffs, sunflower oil cake, cottonseed oil cake, maize gluten meal and fish meal, was determined in chickens and in the small intestine of sheep. With the exception of maize gluten meal, a close correlation was found between digestibility in the two species (r = +0·98; P < 0·05) and in the sheep small intestine between the true digestibility of utilizable nitrogen and acid-detergent insoluble nitrogen content of the diet (r = -0·96; P < 0·05).

Type
Notes
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 475 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1987. AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients Report Number 2. Characterisation of feedstuffs: nitrogen. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B 57: 713–736.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. G. and Hutton, K. 1975. Fate of nitrogenous compounds entering the small intestine. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 432–447. The University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale.Google Scholar
Coombe, J. B. and Kay, R. N. B. 1965. Passage of digesta through the intestines of the sheep. Retention times in the small and large intestines. British Journal of Nutrition 19: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P. 1948. A new chemical method for separating faecal nitrogen from urinary nitrogen in poultry excreta. In Official Report of the 8th World Poultry Congress (ed. Baelum, J. and Neilsen, A.), pp. 220–224. Neilsen and Lydiche, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. 1975. The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. The University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. and White, G. A. 1983. Methods for the Analysis of Feeds Eaten by Ruminants. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, No. 379.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, T. 1985. Digestibility of rumen microbial protein and undegraded dietary protein estimated in the small intestine of sheep and by in sacco procedure. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Suppl. 25, pp. 132–144.Google Scholar
Janssen, W. M. M. A. 1985. Influence of fibre on digestibility of poultry feeds. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 71–86. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J. C. and Miller, E. L. 1980. A simple procedure using 35S incorporation for the measurement of microbial and undegraded food protein in ruminant digesta. British Journal of Nutrition 43: 503–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogerson, A. 1958. Diet and partial digestion in sections of the alimentary tract of the sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 12: 164–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, J. A. 1985. The nutritive value of feed proteins and feed protein residues resistant to degradation by rumen microorganisms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 36: 629–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R. 1979a. Passage of feed through the adult rooster. Poultry Science 58: 446–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sibbald, I. R. 1979b. A bioassay for available amino acids and true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poultry Science 58: 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R. 1986. The T.M.E. system of feed evaluation: methodology, feed composition data and bibliography. Technical Bulletin, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, No. 1986–4E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, E., Brown, D. S. and ørskov, E. R. 1983. The nutritive value of rumen micro-organisms in ruminants. 3. The digestion of microbial amino and nucleic acids in, and losses of endogenous nitrogen from, the small tintestine of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 50: 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturkie, P. D. 1965. Avian Physiology. 2nd ed. Comstock Publishing Associates, New York.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Kitcherside, M. A., Keirby, J. R. and Hall, P. A. 1984. Evaluation of protein foods for dairy cows. Animal Production 38: 548 (Abstr.).Google Scholar