Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T20:36:49.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestion, absorption and utilization of single-cell protein by the preruminant calf

Abomasal outflow and its composition from calves given milk-substitute diets containing varying amounts of either bacterial or yeast protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Cynthia A. Sedgman ,
J. H. B. Roy  and
Joanne Thomas
Cynthia A. Sedgman
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
J. H. B. Roy
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Joanne Thomas
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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 of Latin square design, with four Friesian bull calves fitted with re-entrant duodenal cannulas at 4–10 d of age, were made to study the effect of giving varying levels of single-cell protein on the abomasal outflow and composition of digesta.

2. In Expt 1, diets in which 0,220,440, and 660 g/kg milk protein were replaced by the bacterial protein Pruteen were compared from 14 d of age. In Expt 2, which began at about 61 d of age, a comparison was made of diets in which 0, 220, 440 and 660 g/kg milk protein were replaced by the yeast protein Toprina.

3. Collection of abomasal outflow was made for 8 h after feeding for 2 d within each 6 d period of the Latin square design experiment. The amount of diet offered daily was 50 g dry matter/kg body-weight0.75. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), which was used as an indigestible marker, total nitrogen (TN), protein-N (PN), fat, and potassium, sodium and chloride ion outflows were measured together with pepsin (EC 3.4.23.1) and chymosin (EC 3.4.23.4) activities, pH and titratable acidity.

4. In Expt 1 there was little difference in the outflow of liquid digesta between diets and about 0.9 of the dietary PEG was recovered within the 8 h collection period. With increasing amounts of Pruteen in the diet, outflows of TN, PN, fat and Na+ increased, and the pH of digesta increased. However, the volume of 'apparent secretion' into the abomasum (outflow - intake), pepsin activity, chymosin activity, titratable acidity, (outflow of C1--outflow of Na+) as a measure of outflow of HC1, and outflows of K+ and of C1- were reduced. All outflows decreased with the time interval after feeding, except (Cl--Na+) outflow.

5. In Expt 2, the same trends as in Expt 1 were apparent, but since one calf had to be slaughtered and the experiment had to be analysed as a randomized block, only PN and K+ outflows and pH were significantly affected by dietary treatment, with K+ outflow increasing, rather than decreasing, with increasing concentration of single- cell protein in the diet.

6. Reduced proteolysis in the abomasum, associated with a faster and greater outflow of protein as a result of poor or no coagulation of protein in the abomasum, and a reduction in secretion of enzymes and in acidity may partly explain the poor protein digestibility and growth rate obtained in other experiments when diets containing more than 100 g single-cell protein/kg diet (about 200 g protein/kg total protein) were given to young calves.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 673 - 689
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

British standards institution (1962). Specification no. 696: Gerber method for the determination of Fat in milk and milk products, part 2.Google Scholar
Colvin, B. M., Lowe, R. A. & Ramsey, H. A. (1969). Journal of Dairy Science 5, 687–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, A, & Munro, H. N. (1965). Clinica Chimica Acta 11, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnot, P., Toullec, R., Thapon, J. L., Martin, P., Hoang, M., Mathieu, C. M. & Ribadeau-dumas, B. (1977).Journal of Dairy Research 44, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnot, P., Valles, E., Thapon, J. L., Toullec, R., Tomassone, R. & Ribadeau-Dumas, B. (1974). Journal of Dairy Research 41, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. L., Thomas, J. W., Stewart, W. E. & Morrill, J. L. (1967). Journal of nutrition 92, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilloteau, P., Paruelle, J.-L., Toullec, R. & Mathieu, C. M. (1975). Annales de Zootechnie 24, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilloteau, P., Toullec, R., Sauvant, D. & Paruelle, J. L. (1979). Annales de Zootechnie 28, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henschel, M. J. (1973). British journal of nutrition 30, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. J., Noakes, D. E., & Lowe, R. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 166–179 [Phillipson, A. T. editor]. Newcastle upon tyne: Oriel press.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. E. (1977). Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinks, C. E. (1978). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T., Jacobson, N. L., Allen, R. S. & Hartman, P. A. (1961). Journal of Dairy Science 44, 1494–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. J. & Leibholz, J. (1976). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 27, 903–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgessner, M. & Roth, R. X. (1973). Zuchtungskunde 45, 208–211.Google Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1975). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, C. M. (1968). Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 8, 581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food (1973). Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Technical Bulletin no. 27. London: H. M. stationery office.Google Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 a). Research in Veterinary Science 7, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylrea, P. J. (1966 b). Research in Veterinary Science 7, 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paruelle, J.-L., Toullec, R., Frantzen, J.-F. & Mathieu, C. M. (1972). Annales de Zootechnie 21, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paruelle, J.-L., Toullec, R., Patureau-Mirand, P. (1975). Annales de Zootechnie 24, 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. X. & Kirchgessner, M. (1978). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 41, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. X., Kirchgessner, M. & Muller, H. L. (1979). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 41, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. J., Roy, J. H. B., Sears, H. J. & Thompson, S. Y. (1953). Journal of Dairy Research 20, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. & Stobo, I. J. F. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 30–48 [ Mcdonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. L. editors]. Armidale: University of new england publishing unit.Google Scholar
Sedgman, C. A. (1980). Studies on the digestion, absorption and utilisation of single-cell protein by the preruminant calf. PhD Thesis, University of reading.Google Scholar
Shacklady, C. A. & Gatumel, E. (1972). In Proteins from hydrocarbons, pp. 27–52 [de Pontanel, H. G. editor]. London and New York: Academic press.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. H. (1958). Nature 182, 260–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1962). Biochemical Journal 83, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spackman, D. H., Stein, W. H. & Moore, S. (1958). Analytical Chemistry 30, 1190–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stobo, I. J. F. & Roy, J. H. B. (1977). Animal Production 24, 143 Abstr.Google Scholar
Tagari, H. & Roy, J. H. B. (1969). British Journal of Nutrition 23, 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H. (1971). Studies of the role of the abomasum and pancreas in digestion in the young calf. PhD thesis University of Reading.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Shotton, S. M. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B. & Siddons, R. C. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B., Thompson, S. Y., Toothill, J., Gillies, C. M. & Edwards-Webb, J. D. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 33, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toullec, R., Frantzen, J. M. & Mathieu, C. M. (1974). Annales de Zootechnie 23, 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toullec, R., Guyon, R. & Thivend, P. (1979). Annales de Zootechnie 28, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toullec, R., Thivend, P. & Mathieu, C. M. (1971). Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie, Biophysique 11, 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Weerden, E. J. & Huisman, J. (1977). Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehorn, J. C. (1921). Journal of Biological Chemistry 45, 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V. J., Roy, J. H. B. & Gillies, C. M. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar