Journal of Nutrition

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


     


Journal of Nutrition Vol. 51 No. 3 November 1953, pp. 413-422
Copyright © 1953 by American Society for Nutrition
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Price, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Price, W. A., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, W. C.

The Retention of Essential Amino Acids by the Growing Chick1, 2, 3,

William A. Price, Jr.4, M. Wight Taylor and Walter C. Russell

Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick

The percentage retentions of essential amino acids were determined for the growing chick when fed a chick starter ration (ration A) whose protein sources were largely of plant origin, and ration B, containing high percentages of animal proteins but partially deficient in certain essential amino acids.

On ration A, 24 to 43% of the essential amino acids consumed was retained by the body, 11 to 21% was excreted, and 36 to 58% was unaccounted for and considered to have been catabolized. Corresponding values for ration B were 39 to 71%, 9 to 15%, and 20 to 51%. Of the total nitrogen consumed, 56% was retained, 38% excreted and 6% unaccounted for.

There was a marked similarity in the patterns of the essential amino acids in the total protein of the chick carcasses and the rations. Also, the patterns for the two groups of chicks were essentially the same.


1 Journal Series paper of the Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.

2 This study was made possible by a grant from the Cooperative G.L.F. Exchange, Ithaca, New York.

3 Presented before the American Institute of Nutrition, New York, N. Y., April 14–18, 1952.

4 Present address: Grasselli Chemicals Department, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del.

Manuscript received 17 July 1953.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]