Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T04:08:39.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of caecectomy and source of dietary fibre or starch on excretion of endogenous amino acids by laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Carl M. Parsons
Carl M. Parsons
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
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 were conducted to evaluate the effects of caecectomy and source of dietary fibre and starch on excretion of amino acids by laying hens. In Expt 1, caecectomized hens excreted significantly higher levels of several amino acids than intact hens during a 24 h fasting period. These differences were greatest for threonine, proline and leucine.

2. In Expt 2, caecectomized and intact hens were given either a nitrogen-free diet containing 500 g cellulose/kg or one containing 400 g uncooked potato starch/kg and 100 g citrus pectin/kg. The potato starch-pectin (PSP) diet increased excretion of most amino acids by both caecectomized and intact hens compared with the cellulose diet, with this response being larger for intact hens. When compared across diets, caecectomized hens excreted more threonine and serine than intact hens.

3. Excreta voided by hens given PSP contained higher levels of alanine and valine and lower levels of aspartic acid, glutamic acid and methionine than excreta from the cellulose diet. When compared across diets, excreta from caecectomized hens contained more threonine, serine and isoleucine and less aspartic acid and alanine than excreta from intact hens.

4. Multiple regression analyses of excreta amino acid profiles on profiles of endogenous and microbial protein suggested that the intestinal microflora had greater influence on amino acids excreted by caecectomized hens than on those excreted by intact hens.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 541 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F., Hill, K. J. & Kenworthy, R. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition 22, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, E. M. (1972). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, 1475–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beames, R. M. & Eggum, B. O. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demigne, C. & Remesy, C. (1982). Journal of Nutrition 112, 2227–2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallsworth, E. G. & Coates, J. T. (1962). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. M. & Strasberg, S. M. (1978). Clinical and Investigative Medicine 1, 9–24.Google Scholar
Kessler, J. W., Nguyen, T. H. & Thomas, O. P. (1981). Poultry Science 60, 1576–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likuski, H. J. A. & Dorrell, H. G. (1978). Poultry Science 57, 1658–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, V. C. & Palmer, R. (1973). Acta Agriculture Scandinavica 23, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendes-Pereira, E., Pion, R. & Prugnaud, J. (1977). Annals for Biology of Animal Biochemistry and Biophysics 17, 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H. (1956). Journal of Nutrition 58, 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesheim, M. C. & Carpenter, K. J. (1967). British Journal of Nutrition 21, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z. & Alumot, E. (1963). Journal of Nutrition 80, 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. M., Potter, L. M. & Brown, R. D. Jr (1981). Poultry Science 60, 2687–2696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. M., Potter, L. M. & Brown, R. D. Jr (1982). Poultry Science 61, 939–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. M., Potter, L. M. & Brown, R. D. Jr (1983). Poultry Science 62, 483–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rérat, A. (1978). Journal of Animal Science 46, 1808–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotenburg, S., Eggum, B. O., Hegedus, M. & Jacobsen, I. (1982). Acta Agriculture Scandinavica 32, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R. (1979). Poultry Science 58, 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R. (1980). Poultry Science 59, 836–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Thornburn, C. C. & Willcox, J. S. (1965). British Poultry Science 6, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, F. & Bezeau, L. M. (1957). Canadian Journàl of Animal Science 37, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar