Adviso 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11. (phytic acid
12
13
(Barber et al, 1972 (Johnson et al, 1974,1985) (Nishizawa et al, 1990) Hayakawa (net protein utilization) Lys (Hayakawa, 1985) (1973), ( EPT) 14
15 36. 0% ( ) EPT 40. 8
Table 1.The compositon of the essiential amino acid in rice, and WHO think the best model that is the proportion of protein and amino acid 16
17 rate,nuu and efficiency of ) ( 100 ) ( ) ( 100 BV = = CD 100 100 ) ( ) ( 100 NPU = = =PER(
18 C << >> << >> << >> (,2003)
19 (,2003) E Kris-Etherton 21%(Penny M., 1990)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Table 5.General characteristics of phytase from various sources. 28
3-3-phytase(E.C. 3.1.3.8) 6-6-phytase(E.C. 3.1.3.26) (Wodiznski and Ullah,1996 3-phytas 6-phytase ( ) 29
30
1. (Simons et al., 1990 (,1998) (,1997)Cromwell 31
Figure 4. Predominant pathways for the hydrolysis of phytate by plant and fungal phytases. 32
34~54%(Cromwell, 1991) (,1998) (,199 ) 2. A. niger NRRL 3135 24 85% 70% (Han and Wiferd,1988 Verdoes 1995 33
(Verdoes et al., 1995) A. fumigatus 100 20 10% 9 Fungi A. niger A. ficuum 100U/mg protein ph 2.5 5 ph 5.5 (Howson and Davis, 1983) 2003 Escherichia coli appa Selenomas ruminantium SrPf6 (Oryza-sativa L. cv. Tainung 67)-amylase (Amy8) promoter SrPf6 appa ph 3.0-5.5 2.0-6.0 34
2500 6000 U/kg rice E. coli (Pandey et al., 2001.) 35
appa -amylase promoter 50,000 U/kg rice (Hong et al., 2003) 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 4. 2-5 50
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Figur 56
18% Lina Hiroo(2003)Rimbach(1995) 20% Wistar 28 0 116 28 29 57
rice peanut Rice milk powder % phytate 0.19 0.28 0.25 protein 24.5 8.93 14.12 oil 2.05 40.24 27.51 58
542 (Feed efficiency) 0.33% ( ) 1.75-2.10 0.38 10% 11% 15%( ) 2. 1.25-1.30 ( ) ( ) 5% 14% 16%( ) 59
Tabl a 179.23 31.15 Each value is the mean a-b Mean in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) 60
Table 12Effect of phytate and phytase on apparent absorption of iron and zinc Mineral Diet fecal Feed intake absorption mg/day % of intak 0.99 0.18 a 1.78 0.26 a 0.78 0.09 b 44.31 3.05 c 2 0.95 0.09 a 2.09 0.36 a 1.14 0.28 a 54.21 4.49 bc 3 0.83 0.14 a 1.85 0.3 a 1.02 0.17 ab 55.2 2.22 b 4 0.78 0.13 a 1.93 0.29 a 1.16 0.18 a 59.87 2.72 a 0.64 0.1 a 1.27 0.19 a 0.63 0.1 a 49.55 2.39 d 2 0.57 0.06 ab 1.26 0.19 a 0.69 0.13 a 54.43 2.79 c 3 0.46 0.06 bc 1.29 0.22 a 0.83 0.17 ab 63.91 2.79 b 4 0.44 0.08 c 1.27 0.19 a 0.83 0.12 b 65.52 2.37 a 1 2.3.4 % of intake = absorption / intake Each value is the mean a-b Mean in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) 61
Table 13Effect of phytate and phytase on apparent absorption of calcium and phosphorus Mineral Diet fecal Feed intake absorption mg/day % of Intak 130.21 20.02 a 567.86 73.94 a 437.65 59.34 a 77.04 2.24 c 2 125.81 19.85 a 590.87 86.01 a 465.06 70.89 a 78.67 1.94 bc 3 112.67 19.36 ab 542.6 82.03 a 429.93 69.24 a 79.06 2.47 b 4 92.06 13.63 b 590.35 87.58 a 498.3 76.94 a 84.35 1.38 a 59.53 9.56 a 66.33 9.86 b 6.81 2.31 b 10.32 3.17 c 2 60.57 10.8 a 72.74 13.05 a 12.17 3.66 a 16.71 3.45 bc 3 54.84 6.25 b 68.16 10.42 ab 13.32 4.17 a 19.21 3.29 ab 4 55.99 12.13 b 70.97 12.42 a 14.98 2.58 a 21.51 4.79 a 1 2.3.4 % of intake = absorption / intake Each value is the mean a-b Mean in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) 62
Table 14Effect of phytate and phytase on apparent absorption of magniesium Mg fecal Feed intake absorption mg/day % of intake 1* 8.09 1.13a 12.34 1.64 a 4.25 0.63 b 34.44 2.17 d 2* 7.55 0.99 a 13.77 1.62 a 6.22 0.94 a 45.16 3.58 c 3* 5.72 0.54 b 12.49 1.85 a 6.77 1.42 a 53.8 4.31 b 4* 5.71 1.33 b 12.91 1.91 a 7.19 1.05 a 55.95 5.83 a 1 2.3.4 feed efficiency = absorption / intake Each value is the mean a-b Mean in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) 63
64 5. 12-14 ( ) 1<2<3<4 11% 19% 21%
65
66
67
68 (CNS (CN (CN,,, 1998 (5):11
, 2003. :,13 :227-265,1995.. -,75(8):979-990 69
94010 2003. :,; 1-7,1998.,(15):12,. 70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Condition : Standard solution: Iron in 5% HNO 3 Injection volume : Concentration range:0-6 ppm Figure 1. Fe standard curve Condition : Standard solution: Zinc in 5% HNO 3 Injection volume : Concentration range: 0-2.5 ppm Figure 2. Zn standard curve 85
Condition : Standard solution: Calcium in 5% HNO 3 Injection volume : Concentration range:0-5 ppm Figure 3. Ca standard curve Condition : Standard solution: KH 2 PO 4 in H 2 O Concentration range: 0-4 ppm Figure 4. P standard curve 86
Condition : Injection volume : Concentration range : 0-0.3 Figure 5. Mg standard curve 87