Journal of Nutrition LabDiet, Your World of Nutritional Answers

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goyco, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Asenjo, C. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Goyco, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Asenjo, C. F.

Net Protein and Growth-Promoting Values of Three Different Types of Yeast Prepared under Identical Conditions

One Figure

José A. Goyco and Conrado F. Asenjo

Department of Chemistry and Nutrition, School of Tropical Medicine of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan

The nutritive value of the proteins of three different types of yeasts prepared under identical conditions was evaluated by means of the nitrogen balance and growth-promoting methods.

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bakers' No. 51 and Brewers' No. 52, and Torula utilis No. 1084 were found, respectively, to be 80.7, 79.9, and 84.8% digestible; to possess biological values of 58.9, 58.4, and 31.8; to have net protein values of 22.7, 22.2, and 14.9; and to possess a proteine fficiency of 1.4, 1.7, and 0.9.

With the exception of the coefficient of digestibility, the nutritive coefficients of S. cerevisiae strains were generally much higher than those of the Torula.

The protein of Torula utilis No. 1084, when supplemented by 0.5% methionine, gave the following nutritive coefficients: digestibility, 90.2; biological value, 88.3; net protein value, 44.1; and protein efficiency, 2.0.

The two strains of S. cerevisiae, Bakers' No. 51 and Brewers' No. 52, had similar nutritive coefficients with the exception of that for protein efficiency, which was higher in the case of strain 52.


Manuscript received 28 March 1949.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Copyright © 1949 by American Society for Nutrition