Efficiency of utilization of essential amino acids in growing rats at different levels of intake | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

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. Nitrogen balance was studied in growing male SPF-rats fed on diets in which each essential amino acid was varied from zero to about 120% of optimum requirement. From the balance results, optimum and maintenance requirements were estimated as well as the efficiency of utilization of amino acids for growth and growth + maintenance.

2. N balance increased with increasing dietary level of the deficient amino acid; the response gradually diminished as the content of the amino acid approached optimum. At zero level of intake, negative N balance was found for all amino acids except histidine. The highest loss of body N was found in the sulphur-amino-acid-free diet and the lowest one in the lysine-free diet.

3. Maximal utilization of essential amino acids for growth was found at dietary levels corresponding to 30–60% of optimum requirement and ranged from about 0.65 to 0.85 except for S amino acids and histidine. The utilization of S amino acids was about 0.55 while that of histidine exceeded 1.0. The utilization of amino acids for growth-tmaintenance was maximal at the lowest levels of intake and gradually decreased as the dietary concentration of the limiting amino acid increased. At dietary levels near optimum the utilization was about 06–07, except for S amino acids where the utilization was less than 0.5.

References

Aguilar, T. S., Harper, A. E. & Benevenga, N. J. (1972). Journal of Nutrition 102, 1199–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ashida, A. & Yoshida, A. (1975). In Proceedings of the 9th Congress of Nutrition, vol. 3, pp. 321–331. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar

Associaton of Official Agricultural Chemists (1970). Official Methods of Analysis, pp. 800–801. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar

Benditt, E. P., Woolridge, C. H., Stefee, C. H. & Frazier, L. E. (1950). Journal of Nutrition 40, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burroughs, E. W., Burroughs, H. S. & Mitchell, H. H. (1940). Journal of Nutrition 19, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dawson, R. & Milne, G. (1976). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 81A.Google Scholar

Heger, J.Frydrych, Z. & Froněk, P. (1983). Animal Feed Science and Technology 8, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hegsted, D. M. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism, vol. 2, pp. 135–171 [Munro, H. N. editor]. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, K. W. (1963). Federation Proceedings 22, 1115–1121.Google Scholar

Mercer, L. P., Farnell, K. E., Morgan, P. H., Longenecker, H. E. & Lewis, J. R. (1977). Nutrition Reports International 15, 1–7.Google Scholar

Mitchell, H. H. (1964). In Protein and Amino Acid Metabolism, pp. 11–43 [Albanese, A. A. editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Morris, T. R. (1983). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition—1983, pp. 13–24 [Haresign, W editor]. London: Buttenvorths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

National Research Council (1978). Nutrient Requirements of the Laboratory Rat, pp. 13–26. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.Google Scholar

Nehring, K., Beyer, M. & Hoffmann, B. (1972). Futtermitteltabellenwerk. Berlin: VEB Deutsche Landwirtschaftsverlag.Google Scholar

Yokogoshi, H. & Yoshida, A. (1981). Nutrition Reports International 23, 517–523.Google Scholar

Yoshida, A. & Moritoki, K. (1974). Nutrition Reports International 9, 159–168.Google Scholar