Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T21:26:21.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization by pigs of methionine from five protein concentrates compared with synthetic methionine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Jane Leibholz  and
A. C. Kirby
Jane Leibholz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Camden, New South Wales, Sydney 2570, Australia
A. C. Kirby
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Biometry, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Sydney 2006, 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.

1. Pigs (n 100) between 28 and 56 d of age were given diets containing one of five protein concentrates ad lib.

2. The utilization of methionine from the protein concentrates was compared with synthetic methionine.

3. Increasing the methionine content of the diets from 1.5 to 2.2 g/kg diet increased the weight gains of the pigs from 61 g/d to 198–292 g/d. The feed conversion efficiencies decreased from 2.56 to 1.34– 1.56.

4. The utilization of methionine from the protein concentrates for weight gain, as compared with synthetic methionine, was meat meal A 0.89, meat meal B 0.97, soya-bean meal 1.02, cotton-seed meal 0.87 and dried skim milk 1.04.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 391 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Achinewhu, S. C. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1981). The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alimon, R. & Farrell, D. J. (1980). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 621–635.Google Scholar
Balugen, O. O. & Fetuga, B. L. A., (1981). Animal Production 33,305–312.Google Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batterham, E. S., Murison, R. D. & Lewis, C. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R. & Esnaola, M. A. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 30, 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. (1960). Biochemical Journal 77, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutteridge, D. G. A. & Lewis, D. (1964). British Poultry Science 5, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. & Stuart, A. (1977). The Advanced Theory of Statistics, vol. I. New York: Charles Griffin & Co.Google Scholar
Kroening, G. H., Pond, W. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1965). Journal of Animal Science 24, 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1984). Animal Production 39, 125–130.Google Scholar
Leibholz, J. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 53, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L., Carpenter, K. J., Morgan, C. B. & Boyne, A. W. (1965). British Journal of Nutrition 19, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1979). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, No. 2 Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 8th ed. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nwokolo, E. N., Bragg, D. B. & Kitts, W. D. (1976). Poultry Science 55, 2300–2304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles of Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Taverner, M. R., Hume, I. D. & Farrell, D. J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. H. & Leibholz, J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar