Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:19:09.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of the gut microflora and dietary fibre on energy utilization by the chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. N. Hegde ,
B. A. Rolls  and
Marie E. Coates
S. N. Hegde
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
B. A. Rolls
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Marie E. Coates
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. Groups of adult colostimized chickens were given diets with and without dietary fibre in the form of bagasse or wheat straw. The fibrous materials were analysed for their contents of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. The digestible energies (DE) and metabolizable energies (ME) of these diets were measured by a balance method.

2. Groups of germ-free and conventional chicks aged 4 weeks were given diets with and without penicillin or with and without graded levels of wheat straw as a source of fibre and the ME of these diets were determined.

3. The incorporation of the forms of dietary fibre tested reduced the DE and the ME of the diets in adult conventional chickens and the ME in young germ-free and conventional chicks. Both DE and ME were reduced in proportions that suggested that the dietary fibre present was acting largely as an inactive diluent of the dietary energy and was not affecting the absorption of other nutrients. In the young germ-free and conventional chicks, there was a linear relationship between the proportion of wheat straw in one diet and the reduction in me.

4. Dietary penicillin did not alter the ME of the diet in either the germ-free or the conventional environments.

5. The reduction of ME with incorporation of wheat straw was less in conventional than in germ-free chicks. It is suggested that this may be due to the ability of chicks with a gut flora to obtain a small amount of energy from wheat straw.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 73 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Albaum, H. G. & Umbriet, M. W. (1947). J. biol. Chem. 167, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitter, T. & Muir, H. M. (1962). Analyt. Biochem. 4, 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. O. (1964). High Energy Diets for Poultry. London: U.S. Food Grains Council.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research, p. 37 [Coates, M. E., editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, B. E. (1959). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 78, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. F. (1969). Lab. Anim. 3, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, K. W. (1973). Lancet ii, 1416.Google Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Anderson, D. L. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, S., Boorman, K. N., Lewis, D. & Shrimpton, D. H. (1977). Br. Poult. Sci. 18, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. A. & Eastwood, M. A. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okumura, J. (1976). Br. Poult. Sci. 17, 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payler, D. K., Pomare, E. W., Heaton, K. W. & Harvey, R. F. (1975). Gut 16, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, R. H. (1955). J. biol. Chem. 212, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C. J. & Gentle, M. J. (1976). Br. Poultry Sci. 17, 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R. (1975). Poult. Sci. 54, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1969). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 20, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar