Effect of the Composition and Autoclave Sterilization of Diets for Laboratory Animals on Pellet Hardness and Growth Performance of Mice

Open access

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of modifications of ingredient composition and autoclaving of feeds for laboratory animals on pellet hardness and growth performance of mice. Composition of two breeding diets, containing either casein or soybean meal as the main protein sources, was modified by a change of wheat to maize proportions, or by oil and/or fibre supplementation (in casein containing diets only). The diets were pelleted and autoclaved at 121°C for 20 min. Pellet hardness of nonautoclaved soya diets was smaller than of casein diets except for those supplemented with oil. Oil supplementation tended to reduce or reduced pellet hardness of nonautoclaved but not of autoclaved diets whereas change of cereal proportion and type of fibre had no effect. Autoclaving increased pellet hardness of all diets, cancelled softening effect of oil supplementation of nonautoclaved casein diets and reduced difference between casein and soya containing diets. Pellet hardness was correlated with fat, fibre, starch, ash and phosphorus content. In mice, total consumption of autoclaved diets was greater than of nonautoclaved diets. Body weight was not affected by diet whereas it was decreased by autoclaving only in the 3rd and 6th week of experiment, the differences being of a very small magnitude. Growth of male mice depended on nutrient content, especially fibre, ash, phosphorus and energy, whereas body weight of females was highly correlated with phosphorus content. The dependencies differed between weeks of experiment

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aarseth K.A. Sorensen M. Storebakken T. (2006). Effects of red yeast inclusion in diets for salmonids and extrusion temperature on pellet tensile strength: Weibull analysis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 126: 75-91.

  • Bielohuby M. Bodendorf K. Brandstetter H. Bidlingmaier M. Kienzle E. (2010). Predicting metabolisable energy in commercial rat diets: physiological fuel values may be misleading. Brit. J. Nutr. 103: 1525-1533.

  • Brown N.M. Setchell K.D.R. (2001). Animal models impacted by phytoestrogens in commercial chow: implications for pathways influenced by hormones. Lab. Invest. 81: 735-747.

  • Fell J.T. Newton J.M. (1970). Determination of tablet strength by the diametral-compression test. J. Pharm. Sci. 59: 688-691.

  • Ford D.J. (1976). The effect of methods of sterilization on the nutritive value of protein inacommercial rat diet. Brit. J. Nutr. 35: 267-276.

  • Nicklas W. Baneux P. Boot R. Decelle T. Deeny A.A. Fumanelli M. Illgen - - Wilcke B. (2002). Recommendations for the health monitoring of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Lab. Anim. 36: 20-42.

  • Ritskes- Hoitinga M. Chwalibog A. (2003). Nutrient requirements experimental design and feeding schedules in animal experimentation. In: Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science 2nd ed. Hau J. Hoosier G.L. (eds). CRC Press Boca Raton pp. 281-310.

  • Sørensen M. Stjepanovic N. Romarheim O.H. Krekling T. Storebakken T. (2009). Soybean meal improves the physical quality of extruded fish feed. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 149: 149-161.

  • Thomas M.vander Poel A.F.B. (1996). Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. 1. Criteria for pellet quality. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 61: 89-112.

  • Thomas M.van Zuilichem D.F.J.vander Poel A.F.B. (1997). Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. 2. Contribution of processes and its conditions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 64: 73-192.

  • Thomas M.van Vliet T.vander Poel A.F.B. (1998). Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. 3. Contribution of feedstuff components. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 70: 59-78.

  • Wood J.F. (1987). The functional properties of feed raw materials and their effect on the production and quality of feed pellets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.18: 1-17.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.515
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.246

CiteScore 2018: 1.4

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.509
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.869

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 542 268 3
PDF Downloads 220 111 2