4.7 Article

Starch but not protein digestibility is altered in pigs fed transgenic peas containing α-amylase inhibitor

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Volume 86, Issue 12, Pages 1894-1899

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2551

Keywords

transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.); alpha-amylase; pig nutrition; amino acid digestibility; starch digestibility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eighteen individually housed boars were randomly allocated to one of three dietary treatments, an experimental wheat diet containing 989.4 g kg(-1) of a basal wheat diet, or this experimental wheat diet with 500 g kg(-1) of the basal wheat diet replaced with 500 g kg(-1) of either transgenic or non-transgenic peas. The transgenic peas expressed the bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) alpha-amylase inhibitor 1 gene. Diets contained n-hexatriacontane (0.2 g kg(-1)) as an indigestible marker to allow the determination of nutrient digestibility at the terminal ileum. Pigs were offered 1.6 kg day(-1) for 15 days, after which they were anaesthetised, the Heal and faecal digesta collected and the pigs subsequently euthanased. The ileal dry matter and starch digestibilities of the experimental wheat, non-transgenic and transgenic pea diets were 78.3, 74.2 and 45.8% and 95.9, 95.2 and 42.4%, respectively. The apparent nutrient digestibilities of the non-transgenic and transgenic peas were determined by difference. The Real dry matter digestibility was significantly reduced in the transgenic peas compared with the non-transgenic peas (12.7 and 69.9%, respectively; P = 0.006), which was largely due to a reduced starch digestibility. The apparent crude protein digestibilities of the transgenic peas were similar to the non-transgenic, being 79.7 and 78.5%, respectively. The amino acid digestibilities of the transgenic and non-transgenic peas were also similar. (c) 2006 Society of Chemical Industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available