Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:38:24.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The protein-sparing effect of carbohydrate

1. Nitrogen retention of growing pigs in relation to diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. F. Fuller  and
R. M. J. Crofts
M. F. Fuller
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. M. J. Crofts
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Measurements were made of the losses of nitrogen in the faeces and urine of sixty pigs of approximately 33 kg, given dietary regimens comprising twenty-nine combinations of fish flour (0-800 g/d) and maize starch (0–1200 g/d).

2. The results were used to develop a generalized equation describing N retention as a joint function of N intake and starch intake.

3. The protein-sparing effect of starch was exerted in all circumstances. It was greatest when protein intake exceeded 220 g/d but some effect persisted with protein-free diets. With a high protein supply, the increase in N retention per unit increase in dietary starch decreased from 36 mg/g with the first increment to 3 mg/g with the highest attainable starch intake.

4. From the generalized equation the relationships between net protein utilization and protein concentration and food intake could be described as continuous functions. The equations may be of use in comparing the protein values of diets measured under non-standardized conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , November 1977 , pp. 479 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Blaxter, K. L. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 13, p. 9.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F., Weekes, T. E. C., Cadenhead, A. & Bruce, J. B. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kielanowski, J. (1976). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 16, p. 207.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961 a). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961 b). J. Nutr. 75, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, A. B., Sabry, Z. I., Gridgeman, N. T. & Campbell, J. A. (1963). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 41, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1951). Physiol. Rev. 31, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism, Vol. 1, p. 381 [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B., editors]. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. & Naismith, D. J. (1953). Biochem. J. 54, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Njaa, L. R. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, M. N. & Morrison, A. B. (1966). Can. J. Biochem. 44, 1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, H. L. & Allison, J. B. (1956). J. agric. Fd Chem. 4, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terroine, E. F. & Mahler-Mendler, A. M. (1927). Archs int. physiol. 28, 125.Google Scholar
Wimmer, M. (1911). Z. Biol. 57, 185.Google Scholar