Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T08:11:12.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening tests of the protein quality of grain legumes for poultry production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. G. Wiryawan  and
J. G. Dingle
K. G. Wiryawan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland, Gatton, 4343, Australia
J. G. Dingle
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland, Gatton, 4343, 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.

Three screening tests for protein quality, modified limiting amino acid score (MLAAS), net weight gain (NWG) and net protein ratio (NPR), were compared. Two experiments using young broiler chickens were conducted in a temperature-controlled room at 28·5 ± 0·5° with no adaptation to cages and diets, or at 31 ± 0·5° with 2 d adaptation to cages and diets. Nine isoenergetic diets containing nominally 100 g crude protein/kg supplied by legume meals and one isoenergetic N-free diet were randomly allocated to chicks in single cages in each side of a four-tier battery brooder. Each dietary treatment had eight replicates. The chickens had access ad lib. to diet and drinking water throughout a 14 d observation period. Body weight and feed were measured at the start on day 7 and at the end on day 21. The results indicated that keeping the chickens at 31 ± 0·5° and giving them a 2 d adaptation period decreased the variability of chickens' responses to each treatment. MLAAS, NWG and NPR methods could distinguish legume proteins of high, medium and low feed values. MLAAS correlated well with NWG (r 0·90; P < 0·001) and NPR (r 0·78; P < 0·01) in evaluating the protein quality of grain legumes used as sole sources of protein for meat chickens. However, MLAAS did not predict the exact order of NWG and NPR. Growth was limited because dietary methionine, the first limiting amino acid, provided only 27·6–55·2% of the recommended proportion in the protein. Although the results should be interpreted cautiously since a small sample size was used, it was concluded that the MLAAS calculation could be used as a reasonable estimate of the relative protein quality of most grain legumes, but that NWG and NPR were better methods as they detected limiting factors other than limiting amino acids in raw and processed legumes.

Keywords

Protein qualityAmino acid scoreLegumesBroiler chickens
Type
Protein quality of grain legumes for poultry
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 74 , Issue 5 , November 1995 , pp. 671 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1995

References

Anderson-Hafermann, J. C, Zhang, Y. & Parson, C. M. (1992). Effect of heating on nutritional quality of conventional and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor-free soyabeans. Poultry Science 71, 1700–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annison, G. (1991). The relationship between the level of soluble non-starch polysaccharides and the apparent metabolisable energy of wheat assayed in broiler chickens. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 39, 1252–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1984). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed. Washington, DC: AOAC.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E. (1958). The amino-acid standards for calculating chemical score. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 17, xxxix.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E. & Doell, B. H. (1957). Biological evaluation of proteins: a new aspect. British Journal of Nutrition 11, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bressani, R. (1977). Human assays and applications. In Evaluation of Proteins for Humans pp. 81–118 [Bodwell, C. E. editor]. Westport; Connecticut: AVI Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Davies, R. L. (1989). Advances in grain legume utilization for pig production. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia, pp. 123–130 [Farrell, D. J. editor]. Armidale, NSW: UNE.Google Scholar
Dingle, J. G. (1972). Method of measuring dietary protein quality for chicken. Proceedings 1972 Australian Poultry Science Convention, New Zealand Branch, World Poultry Science Association, Auckland, pp. 335–370.Google Scholar
Dingle, J. G. & Wiryawan, K. G. (1994). Protein value of grain legumes. Proceedings of the Queensland Poultry Science Symposium 3, 73–82.Google Scholar
Evans, M. (1985). Nutritional Composition of Feedstuffs for Pigs and Poultry, p. 92. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (1989). Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics, Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 51–53. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Gatel, F. (1994). Protein quality of legume seeds for non-ruminant animals: a literature review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 45, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irish, G. G. & Balnave, D. (1993). Soybean meal as the sole source protein concentrate in broiler diets and the effect of additional protein concentrates. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 5, 70.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. J. & Eason, P. J. (1990). Effect of dietary inclusion of field pea lupin, narbon beans and chickpea on the growth performance of broiler chickens. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2, 96–99.Google Scholar
Liener, I. E. (1994). Implication of anti-nutritional components of soybean foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 34, 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, J. (1990). Acides amines de 16 cereales et proteagineux: variations et cles du calcul de la composition en fonction du taux d'azote des grain(e)s. Consequences nutritionelles (Amino acids in sixteen cereals and protein grain: Variation and prediction of composition from nitrogen content of the grain. Nutritional consequences.) INRA Production Animale 3, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, pp. 20, 27. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Perez-Alba, L. M., Diaz-Area, L. F., Cejas-Molina, M. A. & Perez-Hernandez, M. (1990). Improving protein quality of maize-lupin diets with synthetic amino acids. Archivos de Zootecnia 39, 85–93.Google Scholar
Rani, N. & Hira, C. K. (1993). Effect of various treatments on nutritional quality of faba beans (Vicia faba). Journal of Food Science and Technology 30, 413–416.Google Scholar
Ravindran, V. & Blair, R. (1992). Feed resources for poultry production in Asia and the Pacific II. Plant protein sources. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 48, 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, N. R., Pierson, M. D., Sathe, S. K. & Salunkhe, D. K. (1984). Chemical nutritional and physiological aspects of dry beans carbohydrates: a review. Food Chemistry 13, 25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarwar, G., Sosulski, F. W., Bell, J. M. & Bowland, J. P. (1978). Nutritional evaluation of oilseeds and legumes as protein supplements to cereals. In Nutritional Improvement of Food and Feed Protein, pp. 415–441 [Mendel Friedman, editor]. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS, Institute Inc. (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide, version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Inc.Google Scholar
Singh, U., Rao, P. V., Subrahmanyam, N. & Saxena, K. (1993). Cooking characteristics, chemical composition and protein quality of newly developed genotypes of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan, L.) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 61, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
User Friendly Feed Formulation (1986). User Friendly Feed Formulation Program. User Friendly Feed Formulation Program. The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
van Barneveld, R. J., Batterham, E. S. & Norton, B. W. (1993). Nutritional implication of heating protein concentrates on the digestibility and metabolism of lysine in growing pigs. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia, pp. 201–212 [Farrell, D. J. editor]. Armidale, NSW: UNE.Google Scholar
van der Poel, A. F. B. (1990). Effect of processing on antinutritional factors and protein nutritional value of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 29, 179–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar