"1'7'MW"”'- . W' 171761: 1-...II ."7 'I.7I>7‘77"1I1 111 1'01 77777?“ 71 I'lJI‘II'I .I " '7 .171 7 _ ' 7717 1 171.111 7711 .7I 11,1177. 11.1'1I1I11‘1... . I 777.7717. 1 11.11711111'7' IIII11111777'.“ 3h 717'7 111'1I1 1 I 1 . "11"‘717777 II 1 1111 , 7 7 1 I II I 1 ' I . ., I1. ,,I . .. . II'I. 1"7".I7'77I"' I. 'Ir-I‘J'I'v r I.‘ FETCH“ I. I-I‘II', . .I'“II1~II.“""‘I7I1"111‘11111.7.1117“. -‘ -. 111111711 . I "' 37.77.7- I" I ‘ ' I. '2 139,111.11. 5311113 figféimééjzcihfl I‘ '1 'I II- I' 7‘1" 7"77117‘77'177177717171m'7.777717717.7.71 ‘1 ‘1 'IItI'I7II‘17lI'177I'II'7 III.11III!,’I,'II.'. I 1’..l'I 7773.291}. I. 7.7-7'7i 7 'I ,71'17Il 7'717'777I7 '77'7I7 7777.7 '7‘” "77I77'7II .7'1 17.1I1I'71 ' 77' 7I77|'771 7 7717777 77777 '77 7‘ 77 .771 7777 7777777717" 77777 1“. 71474771777717 77773777777777- k _ 1 I . I . I1I .‘7‘7‘I .' 1 .II 77171771 1-1 III,I‘II1II1 .I 1111 I11 171771 1'9 I\11 r119 1| 1711 “5 77177777“? 1: 77M '11,. 'h‘. 431:.“ ‘ I’ 77 7 '71 7 17I7'17777III77777717'11II17II7171 L7, II- 1 I I '7 ' 7' 7'77"'77177'7177 71777177 17117 77771777'I'.17“7.1771713711711777 17.77717 77 71717 '7 7771 ‘11:.717‘77771 77711117}? R1317? 77777777717627.7777 I I. 77.11 '. III’ '3'. . I1 1 . 1.1 ,I1II'7 77777.77 'I77'17 I- 71'1'11I77'7 \7'7 777717.77:7 7' " 7771'377.‘ 777077;.7777 I1 'I 71"1"'7'7777'7'7 7" ' .‘I"'7I.111"I'..I.7 7 ' 777I7717II77'I77'I177I1I771717711'777777'711701177777‘1 71777771177777” 17177771 ”7117717717717777"”!1'17!'7'II_-7:77.’.f7.7'7¢t'777 . I, ' 11 .I 7I' I. ' .'_:'. 7‘117111'717 1I17117111'77 1711 7171 717771777777 "‘ '41 111171 I171‘1 l1 73‘11I7I77-I7 1:71. 11:11? 111.315.1355.? 7'37: III '. I ' ‘“ 7 1'1 1711' I7 I 7 1'. 1711111'17'1 7'." 11":7 7'77 717171. I717: "77'11"1‘."I.$,71T'H‘d7‘71'1’."3"ut‘ . I I. I' I .11 . I11'111I I 1,17' 1 I «H 111. 'II 17717177772177. 1, 1L111'1 1. .I'1II71I'I'1'111 19:11; Iffiflifigfiln'“ 7 7 7 H 7I777I1 7 17.71 71II1I7'I717' I7177177177777717'771177' 171177117777 7177777777 71777 7 '7 7I777 '7 £77777 0 ‘ '5'77-7‘777 'I - ‘-‘. 7'I'77'7 .7777777' ‘I 1717-1771'1'1711 "7 '1:I7 'I17'II11I1'I771'I' I'I1‘7I77I71'177171I1I711111o.77717117707"77 111.11%“ 'I-IIg .75.?" 71' "7‘ "I'fl‘I'. 5'7"“? $1 .. I I . I... I‘I'I‘. III. I‘ II I.'. I. ."III III... II- ,I II I 77 7 I I1. 7".77 ' 77.77. 7 7 7 '7 7 K 77 7. 1 7.777171% 7 I 7.7 O 7 -‘ 77 77177.7 77 I "I 11171 7.11 171111 I II. .1 , 7.1171111 17.777 I 1111111111I71117177I771I1I1171I '1'711'I.1I1I'I71I1717I1 '11'717117'7177777771'11 “7 :1111‘11' 217%..711'1-11111 11.1,._.1111 1 717:;— 7." . 11311::L:,:_1 111 I_ . ,,.. . . 1., I .IIIII II'II.” I... III 11." .I II .I‘I ‘I‘ “77‘1”""I‘7‘7'17'7‘7'7 III-II“ 7 7 l' ' 7 'I7'I'I I'I '.7 1.77'7'I7II I 'II '111. ' i“. 7.17777"11 .I7" 77 1-111 1n I71'1777‘77 171 '1771717 7'11I7" ~ 7.717 ‘1 I11;"l:17’ t_I.II'1 $71,711.}!71.17113'Id77017r:s;:r7'::,‘~;‘7fi1 .II I. .I. I. IIIIIII. .11 III III . III III. .1: II III. .. «I I .IIIII'I III .I. .IIIIIIII-IIII .. III-I -..,..I..,. I. I I. ""1 I7"'I""‘I1I1I'7I"'I ""I IIIIII‘III ' I. I IIII1' 11.1 7"" '2'” I'I'III III II? I» 3;. III'I’I'I‘.‘.‘_"II‘I:I.IIII'II'~:'I I=.‘IIII.II21I.'I ' I IIIIIIuIIztt-I " 7 7 7 I 7 77.11.71 , I I7 '7 1 '7- 7 711'. 17,77‘111 I I I ~1111 117171 .1777}. K; 1777“" 1: 7:.7b‘ )7 4' “.7717: '7 ‘19“! .I".I .' 'I- II . 'I L11 F19 :W111-HI1.1 III 1117 "' 7"I7H1. '77'q 77 7 *1 7 7.1"2q1fl "As I “1"' V- 7ft'3hirfl7” 71.1- 7 . 1 7 77 7 7 77 1711 7 '7 777 1 77171177111 H 7.7171 1.7171777 171177 ' 71777 70.11111 0711777 7.77 7 717 7 '77 717. fl‘j-J7.7£ '7o7I: 1“ '. $17.7IT‘7 II I" , 7... 717 "71. 7'7"II77-'77'7' '177' '17'. 777771777777 I 17771771'1711'fi111"77777777777777“711172-7717777'.7777'Iz'777i7.'77_:;Ir 17' I7. 11'777'77IL-7J7d’iv" 7' '7 I ' 'E7111717"71171777I7177771717'717I7:I7'71717.7'1'77'1'17'711'1777'77171177771471'71171771I111717111 4% 17.71.71.177 I'L I711 II1111-.-1II111II 111.31 ' $517111 11,1110" '7' I 17.I7.I 7I.'I ',77 7 7 ".7 I. I. . ‘ '77 7' '77'11 . '17.:5'7777 a 1" 13.17 ! 7"7 '777‘ II. .1. ’I"I-.I1'II',177"17 . , V ‘ “tam. ..., .. ~"2.' '777I‘II1L'I7'7L' WI 2.19 ' "7 7 7 1 ' . _ ' ‘ . '1 .1'1 _'70 7 111'117'. “K1111!“ :7‘7 77.177177 47771711777 ”7'" :7-7 77 7 777.177 1" 7.777 7:11:57'13‘117037 7 I. I . . FI I'I‘I'. WWII?“ 'II'II'II: I... ""‘I‘.‘* I». I I . ‘ . 7‘ ‘ ' ' ' " I . . . II ' I .' I" 1 1 ' Gm 717'1I1 11MI7'1I'131 .1111} .1II'I,II-, 7371177177“ 1, u Ii ,11 1‘” 1117' 'I77I7I1'III; .‘ I". '... I- ‘..7' HIV-:7" 127,727.12 113-7537 7 7 ' I I . '1‘1 ‘11 , _7 ‘_ -1"11£I1I1§II ' . 1 17, .,...1.7I:7 J 49.1-5'1_' 1': f“; I'171' 2‘ 777 . '7 "7 7.117% 7' I I I"177I77'.I"‘I'1L\' ' .I.-T:71::“.7:°.‘77.%'L I7! I 1 II1I 1 1 1 1111 “'1'1‘.‘:61Io..1111.‘:21‘.'12:71:.‘.;..3777.I' 717*. 1'13} ' 7 7 ' oi M I... 'g-II'Ita‘I ‘ .éiIi'i'Ifgi' I 7'7'17777 12.17% 10721. 01 :1‘; ‘11177'717771777777777 7 771171777 :177177'77177I7‘t‘717'.177 I11171177f77771777777‘7 717477; 7‘17.“ _77_',7" 1; 777'"1 71', .. 1 1.11.2,,,.1‘71711III17}7311,1I1IIII'1I..I,II:I' .7'II‘I7 1 II 73.:77I779I' 1,1113“. 1' . .77 1' 'I 1 1 .171771 1 .1‘_ . 11111111113711”... I 11331. 71.7 7" 1.1411511; . . I . a 1 '1 7' I 7 71 51'7111',’ 1.. ’71.,- . qI'1t1:11 . '71'7t‘10 W77,I.-11":1 1‘7'1 '1k_ 111 'I1;‘ 1 1 1 1. I 17 1 I 1 11.11 “1011“ 1:1. L1." I111I77 - . 77717777777717 111,.1Ilr1111EI11‘II1 11141 1121,“? ‘ :11; 1.1‘1 . I. If. I . I '.'° ‘ I.I.1.I ,. -I» .‘ 'I‘.» ' - ="I-" ”7"‘7177'IL' III i'II ‘ III III ,. ._I.' I. 717 .7 1717711 1I ' '11 ."I 17. _ . ’717fz7'c77.7157.'7"77'_ 7.77:0. ’7777‘7-‘7‘0 1'. 7 7.77 I1 1 1 '11I ' 2 I I 12' I.1 _ _ . a“ ‘ , . I 1 I1 .1 1 1I11' I I 1101.11! 1 .11'.1v,.11- M} 11_ I 1'177"1 I‘1 1‘7'1‘17'1I1I"‘I ‘I 711.771".17.1‘I : ‘ .II-II.:-. I". 1.1.1I I717: "27.1 1.7171,. 1.‘.—'.J.’,t'7 ,, I". 1‘ 7:7’. ' . " I'II'III'II'III'-IIII'I.1I'I"‘1II1II'IIII"" I ' .. ‘1'i°"7""77.1771 ' 'I‘I“‘ '11-.5'.“ ‘I"2"I".2“""“' ‘= II .‘I 7| IIIII I' .. ' I I ”7 7 ' 'I 7 '7- 77 '7'7- 7 7 77' 77"7 '77 'I, .- . I.“ I'IIII'7'1‘1I1'7'17'7' 7"1'III 7111. '1 777771 '2 .55 7‘ 7"7'" 2‘ 77' '17I7"II I "'I'I- 7" '7'7'-‘27‘-77"7"'é7,7 """ 33'" "’7 1I7I I1-'I 7'71 717 71II1 1'1‘1111.11111.7.711111 11'171111I7 111' 1.7. 57771 1111W11111%111111 111:1'71 1 1 17' 10 I1112111JI 1. 11.111171I1‘111 .77» . 1 .1?1.7 1111; $1 !" 1 I,‘ . II.I'I "7:717:7'7'1'71'17II11 I I ..'--II “'I‘ I" . I11I:I '7 I....:'.I'I:.‘ 7 ' 7 7 " '77 77 7 7 7 7717'71771' 7777177 7' 71 777 77777777777177'717'7777277171777717111717"171711171777777777“ 1717777'77‘1777777'77 77. 1771' .'_' 1.17:7 .‘L', 211 11 '1'I117'11711771I1l1 I I. I. -* "'7 '- '7 '» 71'1"77 I1II 771' "1' I7 I I".u1~° . .II " ' 1.. 7 ' 1. I" I' 1- 1.1 ' 710:7". 717 I 7"777'77771727'1I I ' 7177'77 7777771’ :"7 7 ' 77' ' 7 "7 - '17 "7 '"7" 7 7 7 77717717I77,17'771717'II17I711771777 7 177777777171171'7'111I717'17771'771'177'"77I7117§7,1‘77777III7"I77"711111 777117 .7771" 77117 ‘ '. . 'I'-'.III7III 71'II7I""""77"71'1717'7'7I""1'7' 2'7‘71'7'1 I'II'I'I" 717.77‘777"7‘7.71II77 W1 1'77" 7 7'77 .Iz. . 7 '1" 7'-"‘"'7I'II7I'I"I'7' '77'.""7"1177717'7'777'717'1' "I"7""'1""7I'77'77771 1'" 117.71 I, '71II' I; “I'M-11771711. "1'77 I 'I 1 1I‘ ‘ .777 II', 11111.: I I .I 1 ' ‘ 70'. I;1 7 T1~1III111771111111'7‘1'7777771171117771'7'7'7711717‘177777171s 'I'1I1"1.1 1'1 7771”7 II. I:7'1'.'7'-'-'III",-'I7: ' 111'1 —.- . 7.‘ 7:777'7777'7177‘717671777777717777777" 77! .. . 1r! 1' 'I . I ""111 .- '3'711 7 II .7 7.117 I 11'1717111'133677‘1'717717'7577 i77I77I1'1111II,77.7.7‘7:'17: 7I.;'.I' 7'177."' 7717177177 .1111 "".'17J"'7' '7 7.7 I . 777777177. .71.,1'I-11I'n '7‘7IEE711172171121373.7911 I' 1'31" 1177.. '7 .. 121.1121 .' '27" "'I"'I1'7' 1717171711777 "I7II'II: '71- 7'77I 7' 77777777177777'77777'7177"7'77 7.11%..." II' 11' .'I." '1'- I 7'11'1'1 77 7"7‘ "‘ .. ;' 7 7:""-7II1I17I'7I ": . . I... . I I II. .. "1"“ 7'7'277’7711771'777'7777' . 2 III'IIIIIIIIIzsm 2"‘1119 1 .' :1 I11111L1' ‘ '1111 I11” I 1I1 1117} 1‘12"? I11 7111.7 '171 7111‘: 7.11-7.17 11'1'1 . 7.; ' .1111111112Q‘1’3 . 111-. :7“? _ III». III . III 'III: .,I :7‘".I1Ii7‘II'.'°"7 . "7".7' '1 .. ,. 3' I ".III 'I. I. ' 71.1 IIIIII;II_I.I'II.II'.7I-I'II- " 7111.21. III. 1 - II“ I‘I‘1""'1 1'7.1‘I'Ii'7M-."-‘.IIII‘11'I1II- . 2 11. 111.. III. .112. :I: : IIIII‘I'I‘I'I‘II ‘II'II'I' I: I III IIIIIIIIIIIII‘IIIIIII'I" . _ . . . III‘IIIIIIIIII‘I. I... _ 17' -- 7' 7 7.77I11717 I 111 1 1.3111111 '1'1:111171171171:71.17737111717171.' . i - 7777. .71 '..11;17111I7371,7I T .1117, I I‘ III I III :I'II‘17‘1" . '7I‘. I 1311111111, IIIIIIII1'II'I'I1I'II". 7111'. 33311 ..I,'. - I’ .11 111": - I’E'I. 7II77I'I17II . '7'7,.7,I'I '. 1"11 .' '12,... ,_ 1. ' 57E 77I7I71'71-"77177'711' I. 7'7'7"7"".711717777771717.- . 7 7 'I 9711171 '77'11-77‘7 "777771 3.1"! 1I7"""""2"I7'7*1 . ' '. 17111117111 .3 1117117727 1 3.111131111111111. , .' 7’IIII7II, '1. .71': 3:1'1'11111' :1, ": 711 II III. I1 111:}: " ' 1 I' I}, 7‘711'71711I1717'.127'I _ 11111111111111 I 7 - 77 ’1; 1.: " .. '7‘1 17177177'7' 7 7‘ ' I . 7"1717 7717 '. 7' 7 7 I 1 7" III '1" ‘I III ' III 1.1 ~- _ .r~.‘ _ _:-d -. 2 " 3—— '7“ '-.-I ‘ 1m gu. .‘w SEW - A . .‘ fl -. _ _\_T“h '—-—.-:—____'- --: w -. " -- -' ._. nf—‘W .c..." I h 1- w .ou-v" p.— .—- I . 01". a ,.I' ‘- | - ¢-~" ‘. ~ g 7 1‘ .-r'- -7 "‘ f: D _ V # .. ., -r, r-"OF ‘ o . . C_ “1:! out“, N u.'0~‘l K' < . -* ’M 5— 4 E} :52. PLACE N RETURN BOXto monthl- chockoutfrom your mood. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU IoAn Affirmative Action/Equal Oppommuy Inflation “”394 THE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF MUNG BEANS AND THE EFFECT OF GRAIN AND SUNFLOWER SEED SUPPLEMENTATION BY Felicitas Florendo fliedad A THESIS Submitted to the College of Home Economics of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Foods and Nutrition College of Home Economics ' ‘ \ Year 1956 THESIS TABLE OF CONTENTS IN 'I’RODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 REVIEW OF LI TERATURE . C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth, Protein Intake and Protein Efficiency Ratios of Rats During the First Diet Series. Growth Responses . . . . . . . . . . . Protein Intake . . . . . . . . . . . Protein Efficiency Responses . . . . . . Nitrogen Metabolism of Experimental Animals . Nitrogen Metabolism During the First Balance Period 0 e o e e e e o. o Nitrogen Metabolism During the Second Balance Period . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Apparent Nitrogen Added to Tissues . . . . . . First Balance Period . . . . . . . . . . Second Balance Period . . . . . . . . . . Growth Responses and Protein Efficiency During the Second Diet Series . . . . . . . . . . . Growth Responses . . . . . . . . . Protein Intake and Protein Efficiency . . Evaluation of the Essential Amino Acids in the Experimental Diets . . . . . . . . . . . . Amino Acid Composition of Diets . . . . . Gross Changes in EXperimental Animals . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O BI BLI OGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O APPmDIX O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 18 18 21 23 27 28 NO 50 51 51 51+ 55 a; 59 61 65 68 71 77 FIGURE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. LIST OF FIGURES Growth curves showing mean weights of eight groups of rats fed the experimental diets during the first and second diet series . . . . Mean weight changes of eight groups of rats fed experimental diets during the second diet series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed ten percent protein from defatted dried whole egg during the first diet series (ul days) and the second diet series (21 days) . . . . . Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 10 percent mung bean protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2 percent sunflower seed protein during the second diet series . . . Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, u percent rice protein, during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2. percent barley protein for the second diet Series oeeeeoeeoeeeoeeeeeee Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, A percent corn protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, and 2 percent millet protein during the second diet Series C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, A percent wheat protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2 percent sudan grass protein during the second diet series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent corn protein during the first diet series; A percent mung bean protein, 2 per- cent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein, 2 percent barley protein during the second diet series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 103 10h lOS 106 107 108 109 110 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) IX. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent wheat protein during the first diet series; h percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein, 2 percent millet protein during the second diet series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 X. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 5 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent corn protein, 1 percent wheat protein during the first diet series; A percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein and 2 percent sudan grass protein during the second diet series. . . . . 112 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Diets for the first diet series . . . . . . . . . 77 2. ‘Diets for the second diet series . . . . . . . . 78 3. Mean growth responses and protein efficiency ratios of rats fed egg diet, mung bean diet and mung bean diets supplemented with other plant seeds . . . 79 A. Mean nitrogen intakes, excretion, absorption and retention of eight groups of rats . . . . . . . 8O 5. Mean relationships of weight changes to nitrogen intakes, absorptions and retentions (First balance period) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6. Mean relationships of weight changes to nitrogen intakes, absor tions and retentions (Second balance period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 7. Mean nitrogen absorption and nitrogen retention of rats fed mung beans and mung beans supplemented with grains as related to responses of rats fed theeggdlet eeeoeoooeeoeeeeoo 814» 8. Grams essential amino acid present in 100 grams or fOOd e e e o e e e e e e o e e e e e o o o 85 Grams essential amino acid present in the different diets fed the rats as calculated from above data 86 9. Percent of essential amino acid present in the ‘ different diets fed the rats . . . . . . . . . 87 10. Growth responses of individual rats fed different diets during the first experimental period . . . 88 11. Growth responses of individual rats fed different diets during the second experimental period . . 9O 12. Mean nitrogen absorption and retention of rats during the ten-day balance on diets using fat extracted whole dried egg and vegetable seeds as sources of proteins (First balance period) . 92 LIST OF TABLES (Cont.) Page 13. Mean nitrogen absorption and retention of rats during the second ten-day balance on diets using fat extracted whole dried egg and vegetable seeds as sources of protein (Second balance periOd o o e o e e o e o o e e o e o o o e o e 0 92+ 1h. The relationship of weight changes to nitrogen intakes, nitrogen absorptions and nitrogen retentions of rats fed whole dried egg, mung beans and other plant sources of dietary protein (FII‘SD balallce pePiOd) o o o o e o o o o o e o o ()6 15. The relationship of weight changes to nitrogen intakes, nitrogen absorptions and nitrogen retentions of rats fed whole dried egg, mung beans and other plant sources of dietary protein - (Second balance period) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 16. Apparent changes of individual rats during the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOO II III ‘1: .1 (ill! III!" I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Anna Louise Kelley under whose inspiration, patient guidance, tireless and unfaltering help this study was undertaken. She is greatly indebted to Dr. Margaret A. Ohlson, Professor and Head, Department of Foods and Nutrition, for her interest, encouragement and helpful suggestions. She extends her sincere thanks to Dr. Selma Bandemer for deter- mining amino acid composition of the protein sources. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Mrs. Joan Miller, Mrs. Deloris Kereluk, Miss Amelia Cruz, and Mr. Ricardo Anselmo for their invaluable assistance and to those Who have helped one way or another in the completion of this study. The writer deeply appreciates the financial assistance and scholarship provided by Michigan State University which made it possible for her to finish the investigation. I .I i I i I: l INTiODUCTION The Mung Bean Tne mung bean is a native of India and is cultivated in all parts of the country either as a second crop after the rice has been harvested or as a subordinate crop with other cereals like corn, millet or sorghum. It is also cultivated in the Malay Peninsula, eastern portions of East Africa, southern half of Asia, the Philippines and in parts of America and Greece. It is a three month crop and can stand prolonged periods of drought and extremely hot weather. It thrives on rather thin upland soil hence it is grown quite extensively in many sections of Oklahoma as an emer- gency hay crop (Kuhlman, gt‘gl, 1937). It is becoming popu- lar in the United States as a forage crOp and as a legume for human consumption in the form.of sprouted beans. In countries where the mung bean is cultivated widely, it is regarded as one of the most nutritious and economical of the pulses. People of India are vegetarians and it is the proteins of these pulses that furnish the necessary proteins for life. In Java, they are consumed more for their value to prevent disease than for their food value. Mung bean milk is used as an adjunct in infant feeding in the Philippines but its extensive use is hampered by the difficulty of its preparation and the lack of data on its biological qualities. Although many babies can tolerate mung bean milk, there are some who develop diarrhea. Tenmatay (1952) has found that the extract has good whipping qualities. The beans are eaten as a gruel with chopped vege- tables or meat (usually pork) all cooked together (Aalsmeer, 195h). Rodriguez (1936) found that mung meal is fairly satis- factory for poultry in combination with shrimp meal to supply a part of the protein requirement. Santos (1952) showed that as much as 25 percent of the fish meal could be substituted with mung meal when 1 percent of animal factor protein was supplemented in the chick ration. Mung meal contains a good amount of protein but is insufficient for chick ration when used as the sole source of protein (Lagman, 1952). According to Embrey (1921) green bean hulls when ground to a pulp are applied to small pox, ulcers and excoriation produced by the urine in Chinese children. The bean is used as a carminative, antifebrant, counterpoisonous remedy and the bean meal is used for poultices in boils and abcesses. The bruised leaves are used for snake bites and the pods are used in dysentery. The flowers counteract the effects of wine and the leaves steeped in vinegar is a cure for cholera. More than half of the beans grown in the Philippines are classified under the genus phaseolus, locally known as l'illllllll‘l "mungo" (Aalsmeer, 195M. The mung bean plant belongs to the family Leguminosae. It is an erect or scandent plant that grows to a height of from.one to three feet. It has pubescent leaflets that are acute, obtuse or slightly acuminate. Its tiny flowers, usually 12 to 16 mm. in diameter are of differ- ent shades of yellow. The pods contain 10 to 15 seeds that are small, globose, green, yellow, or black in color. There has been some confusion in the nomenclature of the mung bean. Roxburgh transposed the original names given by Linnaeus but Prain made changes in the nomenclature given by Roxburgh. According to Bose (1932), the changes made by Prain are now recognized to represent the true species for mung. There are no types of mung beans that have been iso- lated and bred through. The most important characteristics differentiating one from the others are the seed, color of the flower and color of the ripe pod. There are three leading varieties at present: var. typica, var. aureus, and var. grandis. The type used in this experiment was Oklahoma Jumbol. The Grains Half of the people of the world derive their calories chiefly from cereals, rice and wheat, ranking first and second respectively. Cereals are the main source of nourishment for those in the low income levels. In the United States, about 1Purchased from.Johnson Seed Co., Enid, Oklahoma. one-third of the total protein in the diet is supplied by cereals; chiefly wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley and rice (Jones, 19h8). The Near East consumes essentially a cereal diet with wheat as the principal cereal. Rice is considered to be the most important cereal of the world since more than half of the human race consumes rice as the basic daily diet. Corn is used by low income groups not only for its calories but also for its vitamin and protein content in the Southern States (Sure, l9u8) and in different areas of the world. The cereals are called ”the backbone of the nutrition of most of the races of the earth" (Gunderson, 1935). Barley is raised for bread making in the northern coun- tries of Europe and for melting in the temperate zones. Millet is used for poultry feed in Britain. It is among the oldest of all cultivated crops and was a part of Chinese religious ceremonies conducted by the emperors long before the birth of Christ (Ahlgren, 19u9). Sudan grass was introduced in-the United States from Africa as a result of the search for a species of wild Andro- pogon which did not possess rootstalks as does Johnson grass. It has proved to be valuable for hay, silage, pasture and grain. It is chiefly a hay and pasture crop. The Sunflower Seed Sunflower seed, because of its high protein content, interested Bricker and Smith (1951) in testing for its biological value for humans. Sunflower seed meal is used as a feed for poultry. It was shown in the Food Research Labora- tory of the Foods and Nutrition Department, University of Illinois, that replacement of as much as 20 percent of wheat flour in certain baked goods with sunflower seed flour re- sulted in palatable products. Sunflower seed contains h6.7 percent crude protein and 3.9 percent methionine (Grau and ALmquist, l9h5). According to Alexander (1952), lysine seems to be the principal amino acid deficiency. Justification of the Problem The table below which was compiled from several recent dietary surveys, points to the fact that many population groups still live almost entirely on foods of vegetable origin. . Geographical Area Recommended Ratio Foods USA NearEast FarEast (Percent calories from food) Cereals, fruits, 50 85 91 50 vegetables Meat, milk, eggs 30 5 7 37 Fats, oils, sweets 20 10 2 13 The right hand column of this table gives the recommended ratios of calories supplied by foods of animal and vegetable origin. Very low income families in most parts of the western world can hardly adhere to the recommended ratios and for many people of the eastern countries it is almost impossible be- cause of socio-economic and religious factors. The diets of these people are inadequate in some minerals and vitamins and charitain very poor quality protein. The improvement of the ntrtritional quality of the diet they can obtain and will so- cept is a practical approach to their problem. Enriching cereals with some vitamins and minerals has been found nutritionally and economically practical but en- r1 chment with protein constituents, amino acids, is difficult because the quantitative relationship of amino acids in the diet largely determines protein availability. Most of the Protein for people in the Eastern countries and much of the Protein for the poorer population groups in the United States is supplied by grains and legumes. The staple food of the Filipinos is rice. Corn is also Eirown in the Philippines but not as extensively as rice. It 11s not as popular as rice for cereal (Carrasco, 1955). How- €3ver, because of the rice shortage, there has been a proposal ‘to use a rice-corn mixture as a staple cereal in the propor- tion of two parts rice and one part corn. This mixture does not give protein of high quality but if animal protein is included in the diet, the nutritional value will be improved. It is suggested by Deshpande, Harper, Quiros-Perez and Elvehjem (1955) that the most practical way of improving the nutritive value of rice diets is by supplementation with foods contain- ing nutritionally well-balanced proteins. As has been mentioned earlier in this paper, the mung bean is regarded as one of the most nourishing and economical pulses of the Far East, Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East. The Philippines produced hl,OOO tons of beans in the years 19h9-1950, the greater bulk of which was mung (Tenmatay, 1952). Therefore, to alleviate the protein deficiency in the diet of the people, one of the proposed solutions to this problem.is to increase the production and consumption of locally grown legumes and nuts, especially that of mung beans. One of the purposes of this experbment is to investigate quantitative relationships of the mung beans, grains (wheat, rice, corn, barley, millet and sudan grass) and sunflower seeds that might give physiologically satisfactory amino acid mixtures. Although barley, millet, sudan grass and sunflower seeds are not at present popular for human consumption, they are of some value for animal feeds. If positive supplemen- tary relationships between the protein of these seeds and those of more widely accepted types are found, their use as human and animal food could be promoted. There is very little data on the nutritional quality of mung bean proteins. There is a need for more information as to its nutritional quality especially in countries where rice is the staple food and where socio-economic as well as religious factors limit the use of animal protein. It was therefore the main purpose of the work described herein to investigate the nutritional quality of the unsupplemented and supplemented protein of the mung bean. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mung Beans Literature on the analytical data and biological value of mung bean proteins is scanty. Some research has been directed toward the determination of the vitamin content of this legume but there is little data on the nutritional quality of its protein. Hermano (193R) found mung beans (Ehaseglus aureus) to be high in vitamin B1. Yeh (1939) reported that after the beans were sprouted vitamin C content of mung beans was increased 5-8 times and the vitamin B1 content increased about twice. Miller and Hiar (1928) have reported the vita- min content of sprouted mung beans. Sreenivasan and Wandrekar (1950), Rochanapenanda (Tenmatay, 1952) and Simpson, gt 5; (1953) have reported the biosynthesis of vitamin C in ger- minating mung beans and the changes that occur during ger- mination. Heller (1927) found that cystine seemed to be the limiting essential amino acid in mung beans. She also found that cooking seemed to aid the nutritional value whereas prolonged cooking was detrimental. Sherman (1929) showed that a diet consisting of mung beans as the sole 10 protein source gave normal weight for white mice but noticed that there was subnormal reproduction. Basu, gt‘gl (1936) have reported the biological value of green gram.(Eh§3§glns mungg) at 5, 11 and 15 percent protein levels as 63, 52 and AS percent respectively. They found that the biological value decreased with an increase in the concentration of protein in the diet. They also re- ported the protein efficiency ratio of green gram.(ghaseolus muggg) to be 1.23 at 15 percent protein level in the diet and 1.16 at 10 percent protein level after 8 weeks of feeding. Esh and Som (1952) reported that methionine supplementation and heat processing at 15 pounds pressure for thirty minutes improved the quality of the protein of Phageolus radiatus. Cereal Grains and Sunflower Seeds There are quite a few references to the nutritive value of cereal grains but many of them cannot be compared because of variations in the composition of basal diets and presence of other deficiency symptoms which might have been due to lack of vitamin and mineral supplements. Data on the nutritive value of millet, barley, sudan grass and sunflower seeds are scarce. Steenbock, Kent and Cross (1918) reported that barley alone was unable to meet the demands of the growing animal and that its protein was too low for continued growth at normal rate. The National 11 Research Council Report No. 25 (1933) of the Dominion of Canada stated that barley and corn may be taken as substi- tute for one another for dairy cattlefeed. Murray (l9h8) demonstrated that the protein efficiency of peas could be improved by adding corn, wheat or barley at a 5 percent level of protein. The nutritional values of the cereals may be affected by their environment. Sreenivasan (19h2b) reported that dry cultivated rice was less nutritious than wet cultivated transplanted rice. Miller, 23 g; (1950) stated that the nutritional value of wheat protein may be affected by en- vironment due to variation in cystine and methionine con- tent in the protein. Mitchell, Hamilton and Beadles (1952) have shown that the protein content of corn varied by I selective breeding, weather conditions, crop and soil management. This makes it quite difficult to compare re- sults from different laboratories. The author found no recorded data on the protein supplements that would improve the biological value of barley, oats, wheat, rye and corn protein. Willcock and Gowland (1906) reported that zein was unable to maintain growth in young mice. Addition of tryptophane did not make it capable of maintaining growth. Sherman (1918) in his experiment with humans found maize protein deficient in lysine and tryptophane. Maynard, Fronds and Chen (1923) found corn to have a low protein efficiency. Mitchell and Smuts (1932) reported that the first amino acid deficiency 12 of corn protein was in lysine while the second deficiency was in tryptophane. In 1952, Mitchell and Beadles claimed that supplementing lysine and tryptophane would raise the biological value of corn. Kligler and Krehl (1952) found that zein was poorly digested by growing rats and that large amounts of nitrogen were lost in the, feces. Several research workers have reported that the growth promoting value of the protein of rice is comparable, if not superior, to that of corn and wheat. McCollum.and Simmonds (1917) demonstrated that protein of rice was comp parable to that of wheat and corn. Osborne and Mendel (1918) recognized the superior growth promoting value of protein of rice compared to that of corn. Sure (l9h6a) demonstrated that whole rice was superior to corn and oats in protein value, and in 19h? he reported that polished rice was superior in growth promoting quality over that of wheat flour. Mitchell (192hb) showed that rice protein had a higher biological value than that of corn and oats. Sulphur containing amino acids seem to be the limiting factor in rice. Kik (l9u0) reported that whole and polished rice have a high digestibility and that cystine, methionine, and lysine supplemented the protein of whole rice and polished rice. Tryptophane did not have any effect when added as a 13 supplement to the diet. He also showed that polished rice and brown rice have essentially the same growth value but that brown rice protein was better utilized with a biological value of 72.7 compared to 66.6 for polished rice. (Kik, 1939). Pecora and Hundley (1951) demonstrated that addition of lysine alone did not improve the nutritional value of rice but addition of lysine and threonine produced growth response in white rats three times that obtained with unsupplemented rice diet. Jones (l9h8) demonstrated that at the h.5 percent protein level, protein values of corn, barley, hard and, soft wheat showed about the same value but were lower than oats, rye, polished rice and brown rice. At 7.5 percent level, brown rice surpassed all the others in protein value. At 9.5 percent protein level, hard and soft wheat gave prac- tically the same values. He reported that rice was superior to wheat and corn at the protein levels at which they could be compared. Beeson, Lehrer and Woods (l9h7) reported that wheat germ was a better supplement for Alaska peas than corn germ. Mitchell and Smuts (1932) found that lysine supple- mented wheat while cystine did not. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Forty Sprague Dawley male albino rats weighing be- tween 55 and 65 grams were used as experimental animals in this study. The rats were separated into eight groups of five rate each, housed in individual cages and offered diets with approximately ten percent protein and distilled water fig libitum.for a period of 72 days. During the first hl days on experiment, control animals received fat extracted dried whole egg as a source of dietary protein.’ Protein for experimental animals was supplied by mung beans or mung beans supplemented with wheat, corn or rice or by mixtures of these grains. Detailed records of weight change and food intake of individual rats were kept during the first and second diet series. Data for total nitrogen intake and fecal and urinary nitrogen of individual animals were obtained for two ten-day balance periods. The first balance period started on the eighth day and the second balance period on the thirty-first day of the experiment. 0n the fifty-second day, diets for each group of rats except the group fed the reference diet were changed. These new diets were fed to the rats for twenty one days to determine the supplementary effect of other vegetable sources of protein; namely, mil- let, barley, sudan grass and sunflower seeds. 15 Composition and Kjeldahl nitrogen values of experimental <1iets are given in Table l. Powdered whole egg which had ‘been fat extracted was the source of protein for the group ‘of control rats (Group R). Animals in Group A received mung 'beans as the only source of dietary protein for the first hl days of the study. During this time three groups of rats ‘were fed diets with six percent protein from mung beans and four percent protein from rice (Group B), corn (Group C), and wheat (Group D); two groups were fed diets with six percent protein supplied by mung beans, two percent by rice and two percent by corn (Group E), or wheat (Group F); and Group G was fed a diet with five percent protein supplied by mung beans, two percent by rice, two percent by corn and one percent by wheat. Mung beans were coarsely ground, placed in aluminum trays in approximately one-fourth inch layers and heated in an autoclave at 15 lbs.pressure for thirty minutes. One— fourth inch layer of coarsely ground corn and wheat and whole grains of polished rice were autoclaved at 15 lbs. pressure for 15 minutes. These materials were vacuum.dried in the autoclave for thirty minutes, spread in thin layers on cellophane, air dried at room temperature overnight, and ground. Perishable diet components and prepared rat diets were stored in air tight containers and refrigerated. Rats were maintained on the diets described above for the two balance periods. During the balance periods the 16 rats were placed in standard metabolic cages. Feces, urine and spilled food were collected every 2h-36 hours. Filter paper, previously treated with dilute acid,was placed over the mouth of the cage funnel and an inverted watch glass was used to hold the filter paper in place. This prevented dropping of food and fecal material into urinary collections. Urine was collected in 125 cc.erlenmeyer flasks containing about 25 m1. of dilute hydrochloric acid. Cotton was packed loosely between the mouth of the flask and the funnel stem to prevent any outside contamination. The funnel and watch glass were washed with dilute acid and water. All washings were collected in a 500 cc. erlenmeyer flask. Urine composites were filtered through glass wool, and the filter paper, freed from.feces and spilled food, was added to the urine composite before acid digesting. Feces were freed of hair and scattered food with a camel's hair brush and daily fecal collection for individual rats were added to flasks containing twenty percent hydrochloric acid and stored in the refrigerator until di- gested. Separate ten-day composites of urine and fecal excretions for individual rats were wet digested with twenty percent hydrochloric acid by weight and made to volume. Suitable aliquots of these digests and weighed quantities of mixed diets were used for nitrogen analyses. Nitrogen was deter- mined by the Keldjhal method. 17 After the second balance period, rats were kept on the same diets for an additional ten days. For the following three-week period, (second diet series), mung beans and rice supplemented with barley, millet, sudan grass and sunflower seeds which had been oven-heated (15 minutes at 250° F) were used for vegetable protein sources in rat diets. The composi- tion of these diets and the rat feeding pattern are given in Table 2. Four groups of rats were fed diets supplied with six percent protein from mung beans, two percent from rice and two percent from sunflower seeds (Group A), barley (Group B), mil- let (Group C), and sudan grass (Group D). The other three groups were fed diets ~with four percent protein supplied by fining beans, two percent by rice, twopercent by sunflower seeds, two percent by barley (Group E), millet (Group F), and sudan grass (Group G). Due to the high fat content of sunflower seeds, it was necessary to adjust the amount of fat in the diets (Groups A, E, F, and G) that contained sunflower seeds 88 part of the protein source (Winton, 1932). The reference Ciiet (Group R) supplied ten percent protein from defatted Whole dried egg. Protein values based on Kjeldahl nitrogen for protein Sources are presented in Table 8. All animals were autopsied at the end of the experiment. The internal organs were examined for gross pathological conditions and any abnormal changes in appearance were re- corded. 18 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This discussion is concerned with two experimental phases of the study. The first, and major part of the di scussion, deals with growth and nitrogen metabolism responses of the experimental rats to diets containing 10 percent total protein for which mung bean or mung beans supplemented with wheat, corn or rice furnished the only Sources of protein. The second part of the discussion Covers work which was supplementary in nature and is con- Cerned with growth responses of rats when mung beans were fed in conjunction with rice and other plant proteins, namely, sunflower seeds, millet, barley and sudan grass. Growth, Protein Intake and Protein Efficiency Ratios of Rats) During the First Diet Series C“tr'owth Responses Figure I shows periodic mean weight changes of the eight groups of rats used in this study and Table 3 presents mean weight gains of these groups of animals for the Ill—day experiment. Rats fed the reference diet, with defatted dried whole egg diet as the protein source, showed rapid gain in weight Wh116 those fed mung beans as sole source of protein showed 19 very little change in weight during the forty one days on this diet. The average weight gain of rats fed the reference diet was 188 grams; the average for rats fed mung beans was 21 grams. Mung bean diets supplemented with wheat, corn and rice, alone or in combination, promoted higher growth rates than the unsupplemented mung bean diet. None of the sup- plemented diets, however, produced growth responses that equaled or approached rat growth responses to the reference diet. Rats fed diets containing 6 percent protein from mung beans and supplemented with Li percent wheat protein showed better growth responses than rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein supplemented with LL percent corn protein or )4. per- cent rice protein. Rats fed mung and wheat gained an average 01‘ 87 grams; those fed mung and corn, 71 grams; those fed mung and rice, 59 grams. These results indicate that among the three grains used for supplementing mung beans, wheat Produced the greatest growth response, corn ranked next and 1Nice, the least. The growth responses of rats fed 6 percent mung beans and 2 percent rice supplemented with either wheat or corn indicate a superiority of wheat over corn for supplementing a mung bean and rice protein mixture. Rats fed mung beans and rice supplemented with 2 percent wheat protein gained an average of 72 grams; those fed mung bean and rice protein 20 supplemented with 2 percent corn protein gained an average of 61 grams. However, neither of these mung bean and rice protein mixtures produced as great a growth response as did the mung bean supplemented with either wheat or corn. Rats on the mung, wheat and rice diet gained 13 grams more than those fed 6 percent mung and )1 percent rice protein but 15 grams less than those fed 6 percent mung and 1+ percent wheat protein. Those on mung, corn, and rice diet gained two grams more than those fed 6 percent mung and )1 percent rice protein, but 10 grams less than those on 6 percent mung beans and 11 percent corn protein. Rats fed a mixture of the four plant proteins showed an aVerage growth response higher than that for any of the sup- plemented mung bean diets except the diet which contained 6 percent mung bean protein and )4. percent wheat protein. Rats fed this diet gained an average of 711 grams, two grams more than those fed mung, wheat and rice; 3 grams more than those fed mung and corn; 13 grams more than those fed mung, rice and corn; and 15 grams more than those fed mung and rice. Weight changes of individual rats on each diet (Figures III - X) followed similar patterns. Rats BL; and D1 showed Sharp decreases in weight at one or two weighings; however, this may have been due to dehydration since water jars were upset and weight losses were recovered rapidly when water was supplied. An analysis of variance of total weight changes of the five groups of animals used for replications in this 21 experiment and the gains in weight produced by the eight diets fed, indicated that the differences in weight changes due to diets were highly significant (P = .01) while those due to replications were not significant at the five percent level. Protein Intake Mean protein intakes and protein efficiency ratios based on the Lil-day experiment for the eight groups of rats are also given in Table 3. The mean protein intake was )15 grams for rats fed the egg diet and 19 grams for rats fed the mung be an diet. Protein intakes of rats given supplemented mung be an diets ranged from 26 to 3h grams. Rats fed 6 percent Mung bean and )4 percent wheat protein had a mean protein intake of 314. grams; those fed 6 percent mung bean and )1 Percent corn protein consumed 30 grams protein and those fed 6 percent mung and )4 percent rice protein consumed 26 grams protein. All diets were fed ad libitum; and since protein was always introduced into experimental diets at a 10 per- cGnt level, the protein intakes of these animals are in direct relation to total food intake. Thus, these results may indicate a marked difference in appetite or preference 91' rats for the various diets fed. Rats offered diets that contained mung beans and wheat consumed considerably more food than did those that received mung beans with corn or rice. 22 When mung bean diets with 2 percent each of wheat and rice proteins were given to rats, mean protein intake was 31 grams; when rice and corn proteins at these same levels were given, mean protein intake was 27 grams. Protein in- take was 29 grams for the group of rats given 5 percent mung bean protein supplemented with 1 percent wheat, 2 percent corn and 2 percent rice protein. Again, rats showed a larger appetite for diets containing wheat than for diets to which no wheat had been added. It is of interest to note that for diets in which the -q‘llantity of mung bean protein was held constant, there is a direct relationship between mean protein intake and weight change in the group of animals studied. When the ratio of Mg beans in the diet containing 6 percent mung beans, 2 percent rice and 2 percent corn was altered by replacing one percent of the mung bean protein with wheat protein, the growth response of rats on the diet was relatively greater t3han those on the 6 percent mung protein. The rats offered dlets without added wheat ate only two grams less protein than those which had wheat in their diet mixture; however, there was a 13 gram difference in mean weight gains of the so two groups of rats. Differences as large as these cannot be explained on the basis of appetite alone and may 11'ldicate the presence of some intrinsic differences in bi<>logical responses to these diets that cannot be explained on the basis of total protein or food intake. 23 Pro te in Effi ciency Re sponse s The efficiency of proteins for promoting weight gains in animals has been widely used as a means of eXpressing biological availability or effectiveness of the proteins. The method deve10ped by Osborne aand associates (1919) uses the grams gain in weight per grams of protein eaten by young rats to express the comparative nutritive value of different proteins. According to Mitchell (191111), "method of measuring protein quallity by an efficiency ratio of growth to protein eaten implies that the protein content of the gains in body weight 01’ growing animals is constant regardless of age or size of ahimsl, quality of protein or rate of growth. To the extent that the gains differ in their content of protein, fat and water, they do not represent equal nutritive effects and hence are not comparable. There is a distinct tendency for more rapid gains in body weight to have the greater content of fat and the smaller content of protein." Limitations for 15111s method are that when the dietary protein is capable of Promoting growth only at a very slow rate, the amount of pro- t’Iein eaten per gram of weight gain will approach infinity as the gain approaches zero. Age, weight and possibly sex also influence the ratio. Boas-Fixsen (19314.) states that higher Values are obtained when the eXperiment-is short and that 60 days duration is the minimum for accuracy. However, this method has proved useful and has been widely used (Cahill, 1916). 2’4 Protein efficiency ratios of the animals on this study do not completely parallel weight change and protein intake responses. For the following diet series, there were direct rela- tions between mean weight gains, total mean protein intakes and mean protein efficiency ratios: Weight Gain Protein Intake Protein Efficiency Egg diet 188 14.5 hull; . Mung, wheat 87 3b, 2.52 Mung, wheat, rice 72 31 2.32 , rice 59 26 2.21 This same relationship holds true not only for mung diets that were supplemented with wheat or wheat and rice, but also for diets with corn or corn and rice: Egg diet 188 as Lulu Mung. corn 71 30 2.3L; Mulls, corn, rice 61 27 2.23 M‘mg, rice 59 26 2.21 Mung 21 19 1.1a HOWever, for the diet in which 1 percent wheat protein re— Placed 1 percent of tne mung bean protein, weight change, mean protein intake and mean protein efficiency show three different relationships to corresponding values for other diets (Table 3). Here it will be noted that in the series, mean weight gains of these animals ranked third, mean pro- tsin intake fifth, and protein efficiency ratio first. The efficiency ratio obtained with rats fed 2 percent wheat protein and 2 percent rice protein was 7.9 percent lower than that obtained with rats fed Lg. percent wheat pro- tein. Rats fed 2 percent corn and 2 percent rice gave a mean efficiency ratio only 11.7 percent lower than rats fed LL percent corn. However, as far as growth promoting ratio is concerned, wheat appears to be a better supplement than corn or rice for mung and mung-rice mixtures. The amount 01' quantity of growth attained for a given amount of protein is higher for the mung-wheat mixture than for the mung-wheat- I‘ice mixture, and the greatest response was obtained with t he diet which contained a mixture of the four plant pro- teins. Thus, in protein efficiency response, this last group of animals more closely approaches those on the refer- el’lvzze diet than any other group studied even though food intake was lower. Weight changes, protein intakes and protein efficiency ratios of individual rats are given in Table 10. The range or individual weight changes of rats fed egg diet was 163 to 210 grams; those fed mung bean diet was 18 to 27 grams. Weight changes of rats on mung and wheat ranged from 67 to 129 grams; thOse on mung, wheat, corn and rice, 61 to 106 grams; those on mung and corn, 58 to 95 grams; those on mung, wheat, and rice, 61 to 93 grams and those on mung and rice, 58 to 76 grams. 26 Protein intakes for individual rats ranged from Al to 119 grams for rats fed egg diet; those fed mung diet, 16 to 21 grams. Protein intakes of rats fed mung diets supplemented with wheat ranged from 27 to L414 grams; corn, 26 to 3h grams; rice, 21 to 31 grams. Animals given rice and corn protein at 2 percent level had protein intakes that ranged from 23 to 314 grams; those fed wheat and rice, 28-39 grams and those fed wheat, corn and rice, 26 to 33 grams. Protein efficiency ratios ranged from 3.78 to h.30 for rats on egg diet and .99 to 1.50 for rats on mung diet. Pro- tein efficiency of mung diets supplemented with Li percent Wheat ranged from 2.15 to 2.71; corn, 2.12 to 2.76; rice, 1.78 to 2.14.2; wheat and rice, 2.15 to 2.71; corn and rice, 1.94 to 2.55; wheat, corn and rice, 2.35 to 2.77. While there appears to be considerable overlapping of results obtained with the individual rats in the groups of an imals used, an analysis of variance of protein efficiency Patios of the five groups of animals used for replications in this experiment and the protein efficiency ratios for the eight diets fed, indicated that the differences in protein efficiency ratios due to diets were highly significant (P = '01); and differences due to replications were not significant at the five percent level. 27 Nitrogen Metabolism of EXperimental Animals While growth and protein efficiency ratios have been widely used as indices of biological values of various pro- to in, much criticism has been directed toward using this method alone to investigate biological availability of Proteins. The suggestion has been made that more useful in- formation concerning availability of proteins might be de- rived from studies which make use of combinations of two or more methods for determining the biological values of pro- teins (Mitchell and Block, 19146; Murray, 1914.8; Howe, 19145). To supplement data on growth promoting quality of the diets fed in this experiment, nitrogen metabolism data were ob- talined for two ten-day periods, one starting on the eighth day and the other on the thirty-first day of the study. At the beginning of the experiment, mean weights of the eight groups of animals were similar so that data per- taiming to protein intakes and weight changes of rats over the entire experiment were comparable. However, differences in mean weights of animals at the beginning of the nitrogen metabolism periods differed widely. It, therefore, seemed reasible to compare nitrogen metabolism data on the basis or unit weight at the beginning of the balance period as well as on absolute nitrogen metabolism values. 28 Nitrogen Metabolism During the First Balance Period yitrogen intake. Mean nitrogen intakes of rats for the first balance period are shown in Table 14. Rats on the egg diet ingested an average of 1870 mg. nitrogen while those fed the mung bean diet ingested an average of 8014. mg. Rats fed mung beans supplemented with other plant proteins had mean nitrogen intakes which ranged from 1126 mg. to 1386 mg. 01' the groups of animals fed mung bean protein supplemented With 14. percent wheat, corn or rice protein, rats with the Wheat supplement had the highest mean nitrogen intake, rats with the corn supplement ranked second, and those with the P1 ca supplement ranked third. Mean nitrogen intake of tne animals on wheat, rice or corn supplements were 1386 mg., 1214-7 mg. and 1126 mg., respectively. For the diet mixtures “hi ch contained 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice pr‘Otein and 2 percent wheat or corn protein, results show that the group of rats with the wheat protein had a mean nitro- gen intake of 1312 mg. while those fed the corn protein had an average intake of only 1138 mg. nitrogen. Mean nitrogen 11"Utake of rats fed the diet which contained 5 percent mung bean, 1 percent wheat, 2 percent corn and 2 percent rice protein, was 1279 mg. This represented a nitrogen intake hiSher than that of rats fed the mung bean, rice, corn mixture but lower than the mean nitrogen intake of animals fed the mung bean, rice, wheat mixture. 29 Both nitrogen intakes of rats during the ten—day balance periods and protein intakes of these same rats during the entire Lil-day growth study are indicative of total food con— .stunption. Except for one case, the ranks of total food in- take of the 8 groups of rats studied are the same for the e; 111 days and the first balance period as shown below. Mean Protein Intake ' 1 Determined tgorriod First Balancg, 10 days 3 Egg 11.7 11.01 Mung, wheat 8.7 8.3 Mung, wheat, corn, rice 8.0 7.1 Mung, wheat, rice 8.2 7.6 Mung, corn 7.8 7.3 Mung, corn, rice 7.1 6.6 Mung, rice 7.0 6.3 Mung 5.0 k.6 The group of animals fed the mung and corn mixture ranked fourth in total food intake for the 14.1 days and fifth for tries first 10 day balance; however, there was only a one gram difference in the 141 day mean protein intake of this group of rats and the mean protein intake of the group of rats which ranked fifth in protein intake. Thus these re alllsts indicate that relative quantities of food eaten by these 8 groups of rats probably changed little during the course of the experiment. Mean nitrogen intake of the 8 groups of rats based on the weight of individual animals at the start of the balance :Piod are shown in Table 5. The nitrogen intake P6P gram 1 As calculated from total food intake for hl days. \ 30 of starting weight for rats fed the egg diet was 21.0 mg. while that for rats fed mung beans as the only source of pro- tein was 12.2 mg. Although absolute nitrogen intakes varied of the three groups of rats fed diets which contained wheat, the mean nitrogen intake per gram starting weight approximated 18.0 mg. for all three groups of rats. Similarly, mean total nitrogen intakes for rat groups fed mung and rice and those fed mung and corn were different; but for both these groups Of rats the mean nitrogen intake per gram of starting weight was 16.0 mg. Rats on a 2 percent corn and 2 percent rice pro tein supplement ingested 16.8 mg. of nitrogen per gram 0 f s tarting weight . Nitrogen absorption and apparent digestibility of ingested w. Ten day nitrogen intake and fecal nitrogen values for 11'lciividual rats were used to calculate total nitrogen absorbed and to estimate apparent digestibility of diets consumed. The mean nitrogen absorbed and apparent digestibilities of the rats on the reference and seven experimental diets are given in Tables 14 and 5 respectively. Rats fed the egg diet absorbed 1585 mg. nitrogen while tho se on the mung diet absorbed 609 mg. Mean nitrogen ab- sorption values for the groups of rats that were fed mung be8.11s supplemented with wheat ranged from 969 to 1080 mg. The se values were higher than the mean nitrogen absorptions r01“ groups of animals that were fed corn or rice or a mixture 31 of these two grains. Absorption values for rats fed mung beans supplemented with corn or rice or a mixture of these two grains ranged from 8111 to 931+ mg, The apparent digestibility (Lingaiah, 1952) of diets for individual rats was estimated as percent of ingested nitrogen absorbed by the intestinal tract. True digestibility was not obtained since the validity of assuming constant endogenous excretion values is questionable (Kelley, 1952). The mean apparent digestibility of the reference diet was 86-9 percent. This figure is comparable to that obtained by Lingaiah (1952) who reported the apparent digestibility- 01‘ whole egg to be 85.0 percent. The apparent digestibility 01' mung beans was found to be 77.5 percent. True digestibility as reported by Basu (1936) was 86 percent for Phaseolus mungo. Apparent digestibilities of the supplemented mung diets ranged from 73.7 percent to 78.0 percent. Only the mung bean diets supplemented with 14. percent wheat protein or 11 percent rice Protein had apparent digestibilities as high as that of the unsupplemented mung bean diet. These two diets both had an apparent digestibility of 78.0 percent. The apparent digest- ibility of the protein mixture containing 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent wheat protein and 2 percent rice protein was only 73.7 percent, while the apparent digestibility of the mixture of all four vegetable proteins was 76.11 percent. The se results indicate that while replacing part of the mung beans in rat diets with either wheat or rice has little or no effect on the apparent digestibility of the protein mixture; replacing part of the mung bean with a mixture of these two grains appears to lower the apparent digestibility of the protein mixture. The apparent digestibility of the 6 percent mung bean and 14 percent corn protein mixture was 711.8 percent. Thus Whi 1e a mixture of wheat, rice and mung beans is apparently less digested than mixtures of either wheat or rice with ruling beans, a mixture of corn, rice and mung beans is more d18estible than a mixture of corn and mung beans alone but less digestible than a mixture of rice and mung beans. When the four plant proteins were combined in a single experimental diet, the resulting apparent digestibility was 76.1.4. percent. This value is similar to the apparent digest- 1billity value of a mung, corn, rice mixture (76.3) but higher than that of a’mung, wheat, rice mixture (73.7). Relative protein absorption of rats fed mung bean and supplemented mung bean diets were calculated using egg diet as the reference standard. The relative absorption values or rats on the diets used are presented in Table 7. Rela- tive absorptions of rats fed the mung bean diet was 89.2 pe’I‘c:ent; rats fed mung and rice and those fed mung and wheat C1lets both gave relative absorptions of 89.7 percent; those fed mung and corn, 86.1 percent. The mung, corn, rice diet 33 and mung, wheat, corn and rice mixtures gave relative absorp- tions of 87.9 percent and mung, wheat, rice mixtures gave relative absorption values of 811.8 percent. These values are in the range of the 86 percent true digestibility of mung beans reported by Basu (1936). Fecal nitrogen per gram of food eaten for both the Mung bean diet and the mung and wheat diet was 3.63 mg. (Table 5). Although the apparent digestibility of the murig-rice diet was the same as the mung bean and mung and wheat diets,’feca1 nitrogen per gram of food eaten was only 3.36 mg. for the group of rats fed mung and rice. Rats fed the mung, rice, and wheat diet excreted 11.20 mg. fecal nitro- gen, the highest value of the mung bean'an'd mung supplemented diets and its apparent digestibility, 73.7 percent was the 1°West of the mung bean and mung supplemented diets. A1- thouSh fecal nitrogen for mung, rice, corn fed rats di-ffered from those fed mung, rice, wheat and corn, the apparent di- 8eStibilities of the diets were approximately the same. Mtroggn retention. Table 14 presents mean nitrogen re- tentions of the eight groups of rats studied based on total nitrogen retention of individual rats and Table 5 presents mean nitrogen retentions expressed as nitrogen retained per gram starting weight. when mean nitrogen retention values were based on total 111 tI‘Qgen retentions of individual rats, the group of rats fed 3A the reference diet showed the highest mean nitrogen retention .and those fed unsupplemented mung beans the lowest. Rats fed diets which contained wheat averaged higher in nitrogen re- tention than rats fed mung beans supplemented with either rice or corn or with a mixture of rice and corn. Rats fed nnuu; beans and rice showed a lower mean nitrogen retention than those fed a mung bean and corn mixture. The mean nitrogen retention for rats fed the egg diet ‘was lZOh mg. For those fed mung beans as the only source of dietary protein, the mean nitrogen retention was only 327 mg. Rats fed 6 percent mung and h percent wheat protein retained an average of 679 mg. nitrogen while those fed 6 percent mung and h percent corn protein retained only an average of 560 mg.nitrogen. While animals fed rice as the only supplement for mung beans retained an average of #86 mg. nitrogen, those on a rice and corn supplement retained an average of 570 mg. nitrogen and those on wheat and rice supplement retained an average of 581 mg. nitrogen, the group of animals fed a mixture of the four plant proteins retained an average of 672 mg. of nitrogen. When total nitrogen retentions of the seven groups of animals on experimental rations were compared to the egg diet (Table 7), relative retention of rats fed mung bean diet was the lowest (63.3 percent) and rats fed the mung, 35 wheat, corn and rice mixture gave the highest relative re- tenticm1(79.8 percent). Relative retention of rats fed mung and wheat was 75.9 percent; for those fed mung and corn relative retention was 69.6 percent and for those fed mung and rice the relative retention was 66.7 percent. Animals which.received a mixture of mung, wheat and rice gave a rela- tive retention of 68.6 percent. Rats fed mung, corn and rice gave a relative retention of 77.7 percent, which is higher than the value obtained for rats fed mung and wheat. When these results are expressed as milligrams nitrogen retained per gram of starting weight (Table 5), the egg diet still gives the highest mean nitrogen retention, the mung and rice mixture is still the seventh in order, and mung beans fed alone ranks the lowest. For other diets calculated this way, the mixture of the four plant proteins ranks second or next to the egg diet, the mung and wheat mixture third, the mung, rice and corn mixture fourth, the mung,wheat,rice mixture fifth, and the mung, corn mixture sixth. Nitrogen retained per gram starting weight for rats given the egg diet was 13.2 mg. and for those given the mung bean diet, 5.2 mg. Nitrogen retentions per gram of starting weight for rats fed on the mung bean supplemented diets ranged from 6.8 to 9.h mg. Animals on mung bean diet supplemented With A percent wheat protein retained 8.6 mg. per gram of 36 starting weight; those fed corn, 7.2 mg. and those fed rice, 6.8 mg. This indicates that rats which received the diet containing wheat were able to retain a larger quantity of nitrogen than rats which received either rice or corn as the only supplement for mung beans. Animals fed mung, rice and corn retained 8.h mg. nitrogen per gram of starting weight; this was 1.2 mg. more than the retention of rats fed a com- bination of mung and corn. On the other hand rats fed mung, rice and wheat retained an average of 0.6 mg. nitrogen per gram starting weight less than those fed only mung and wheat. The group of experimental rats which received a combination of the four plant proteins retained an average of 9.u mg. nitrogen per gram of starting weight. This represents the highest mean nitrogen retention for animals on the experi- mental diets. When nitrogen retention values are expressed as percent of total ingested nitrogen retained, the egg diet ranks the highest and the mung bean diet the lowest, with mean percen- tage values of 6h.2 percent and no.6 percent respectively. The mixture of mung beans, wheat, rice and corn ranked next to the egg diet with an average of 51.2 percent nitrogen retention. The mung, rice, corn mixture was third in order with mean retention of h9.8 percent and the mung, wheat mixture ranked fourth with a retention value of h8.7 percent. The mung, corn diet ranked fifth with uh.6 percent retention and mung, wheat, rice, sixth with a retention value of hh.0 37 percent. The mung, rice mixture ranked second to the lowest 'with.a retention value of h2.8 percent. Rats on the egg diet showed the highest average percent (If absorbed nitrogen retained and those on the mung diet th lowest. Mean absorbed nitrogen retained was 73.8 percent for rats on the egg diet and 52.h percent for the mung bean diet. Rats fed mung and wheat protein retained 62.h percent; those fed mung and corn, 59.7 percent and those fed mung and rice, 5h.9 percent absorbed nitrogen. A mixture of rice and corn again gave a higher percent retention than one of mung and corn. Percent retention for rats fed mung, rice and corn was 65.3 percent as compared to 59.7 percent for those fed only mung and corn. The mean absorbed nitrogen retained by rats fed mung, wheat and rice was 59.8 percent; this value is lower than the retention value of rats on the mung and wheat mixture. Of the seven groups of rats fed mung beans and supplemented mung bean diets, the rats that were fed a mixture of four plant proteins ranked highest in mean ab- sorbed nitrogen retained. The animals on this diet retained an average of 66.8 percent absorbed nitrogen. Protein efficiency. In this ten-day balance period, the protein efficiency of egg diet was 5.02 and that of the mung diet, 1.18. Mung and rice as well as mung, wheat and rice diets had protein efficiency ratios of 3.0M; that of mung and wheat, 3.07; and that of mung, wheat, corn and rice, 3.58. 38 This was the highest of the supplemented mung diets. Mung and corn diet had a protein efficiency of 2.78 and that of mung, corn and rice, 2.83. However, this efficiency ratio 'was obtained only for a period of 10 days so that it is not as accurate as the ratio obtained over a longer period of time o Summagy of results for first balance period. From the results obtained from the first balance period, it is appar- ent that animals on the egg diet and those on the mung diet presented two extremes. Rats fed the egg diet had high nitrogen intake and high retention values, and those on the mung diet had low nitrogen intake, and retention values. In the case of the mung supplemented diets, nitrogen intakes and retentions were greater than those on the mung bean diet but none of them approached the values obtained from the rats on the egg diet. Although the apparent digestibility of the mung bean diet was higher than some of the supple- mented mung diets, it is obvious that the protein of the mung beans was not as well utilized as was the mung bean supplemented with wheat, corn or rice as shown by the per- centage of retained nitrogen that was absorbed and the rela- tive retention data. Absorption value was relatively high for rats fed the mung diet but relative retention value was low. Of the mung supplemented diets, that at the u percent level of grain supplementation, mung and wheat proteins were 39 best utilized as determined from the percent of absorbed nitrogen retained; mung and corn, next, and mung and rice, the least. With mung-rice mixtures, the mung-rice-corn mixture was better utilized than the mung-rice-wheat mixture. However, the mung-rice-corn wheat mixture was the best of the mung bean supplemented diets. There is a possibility that amino acid imbalance may be a factor for the non- utilization of the protein in mung beans. liO Nitrogen Metabolism During the Second Balance Period It will be noted that the first balance period was carried at the start of the growth study and the second balance period was carried towards the end of the study. It is said that protein efficiency decreases as the experi- mental period lengthens and that the need for protein in the growing rat is not the same as the needs of the more mature rat. This second balance period was carried for the purpose of supplementing results obtained from the first balance period and to determine differences in nitrogen metabolism for the two balance periods. Nitrogen intake. Table A presents mean nitrogen intakes for the second balance period. The average amount of nitrogen ingested during this balance period was greater than the amount ingested during the first balance period for all groups of rats except the group that was fed mung beans and the group that received mung and rice. Rats on the egg diet ingested an average of 2035 mg. nitrogen while those fed mung bean diet had a mean nitrogen intake of 76h mg. Groups of animals given supplemented mung bean diets had mean nitro- gen intakes that ranged from 1126 mg. to lh35 mg. Although the total nitrogen intake varied for each of these groups of rats, the mean nitrogen intake per gram.of start- ing weight was approximately 10 mg. for five groups oframs,namely, Al the egg diet (9.8 mg.), the mung bean diet (10.0 mg.), the mung, rice diet (10.1 mg.), the mung, rice, wheat, corn diet (10.1 mg.), and the mung, corn diet (10.2 mg.). Rats on mung, rice and corn ingested 10.5 mg. of nitrogen per gram.starting weight; those on mung, wheat diet ingested an average of 11.0 mg.; and those on the mung, rice, wheat diets had a mean intake of 11.6 mg. of nitrogen per gram of starting weight. A comparison of average daily protein intake of rats during the first and second balance periods and during the hl-day growth study indicates little difference in total protein or food intake of these animals (Table 3). However, when results were expressed as milligrams nitrogen eaten per gram starting weight, differences in relative quantities of nitrOgen consumed were relatively large for all diets except the mung bean diet. During the second balance period, rats on the egg diet consumed 11.2 mg. less nitrogen per gram of starting weight than during the first balance period. The comparable difference for the mung bean diet was only 2.2 mg. For the other experimental diets these differences ranged from 5.8 to 7.9 mg. per gram starting weight. These differences are related to weight changes of rats; so with these results it appears that the type of available protein in rat diets exercised a greater control over total food intake of these experimental animals than did the size or total weight of the animals. L12 Nitrogen absorption and apparent digestibility of food studied. Mean absorption values are given in Table 1;. 0f the eight groups of rats studied, again, those fed egg diet absorbed the most nitrogen (1790 mg.) while those on the mung bean diet absorbed the least amount of nitrogen (553 mg.), Rats fed diets supplemented with b, or 2 percent wheat pro- tein had mean absorption values of 101;.8 and 1126 mg. nitrogen respectively. These were higher than the mean nitrogen ab- sorption for groups of animals that were fed corn or rice, 01’ a mixture of these two grains. Mean absorption values for rats fed mung beans supplemented with corn or rice or a mixture of grains ranged from 813 to 992mg. Rats fed 5 Percent mung beans, 1 percent wheat, 2 percent rice and 2 Percent corn proteins had a mean absorption value of 983 mg. nitrogen. The apparent digestibility of egg diet was 88.0 per- cent and that of the mung diet was 72.5 percent (Table 6)- APpax‘oent digestibility of mung and 14, percent wheat protein We: 78.1; and that of mung and LL percent rice was 76.9 percent. However, with mung, wheat and rice protein at the 2 percent level, apparent digestibility was 711.9 percent which is less than diets supplemented with LL percent wheat or rice. Appar- ent digestibility of mung and corn diet was 73.9 percent w hile that of mung, corn and rice was 70.5 percent. The diet W1 . th a mixture of four plant proteins had an apparent 1+3 digestibility of 76.0 percent. The apparent digestibility Values for the egg, the mung and wheat, and the mung, wheat and rice diets showed an increase over the values for the first balance period while values for the other diets de- creased. It is also noted that for diets showing a decreased (3188 stibility for the second balance period, there is an increase in the quantity of nitrogen excreted per gram food ingested; while for diets showing increased digesti- bility, there is a decrease in nitrogen excreted per gram I‘Ood eaten. Mean relative absorption values are given in Table 7. There was a decrease in relative absorption for all groups Of Fate except the group fed mung, rice and wheat wherein there was a slight increase over that of the first balance period. Relative absorption for rats fed mung beans was 82.3 percent. Those fed supplemented mung bean diets are,’ in descending order, as follows: mung and wheat, 89.1 per‘cent; mung and rice, 87.3 percent; mung, rice, corn and wheat, 86.3 percent; mung, rice and wheat, 85.0 percent; In . an?) and corn, 83.9 percent; mung, rice and corn, 80.0 per‘cht. The range of values for results relating to digestibility a nd relative absorption of experimental diets for the two be 1aTlce periods are relatively small. A comparison of the iresualts obtained for the two balance perious show certain inxxonsistencies. Those two factors make it difficult to FHDiIlt to specific differences in the digestibility of the dierts fed. However, the proteins of the mung, corn diet shed, the mung, rice,corn diet appear to be less completely diguasted than those of the other five experimental diets. The: diet which contained mung and wheat was, apparently, the; nmst completely digested of the supplemented mung diets. For the second balance period, fecal nitrogen of rats feud. egg diet was 1.87 mg. per gram of fooo eaten (Table 6). 7mfl£>se on the mung, rice and corn diet had a fecal excretion 0:7 Li.u8 mg. per gram food eaten. The indirect relationship between apparent digestibility and fecal nitrogen values is Shown below: Apparent Mg. Fecal Nitrogen Digestibility per gm. Food Eaten % Mung, wheat 78Ji 3.60 Mung, rice 7609 3072 JMung, rice, corn, wheat 76.0 3.82 NMng, rice, wheat 7h.9 h.l2 IMung, corn 73.9 h.h% NMng, rice 72.5 h.h NMng, rice, corn 70.5 h.62 liitrogen retention. The mean absolute nitrogen reten- ti <311.‘Va1ues (Table h) for rats on the egg diet was l3h3 mg. Nil . 1Sl€3 those on the mung diet was 234 mg. Rats on mung and #5 14» percent wheat protein retained an average of 652.3 mg. nitrogen; those on mung and corn, 628 mg., and those on mung and rice, 14.53 mg. The mean nitrogen retention values for rats on mung, wheat and rice was 571+ mg. and for those On mung, corn and rice 1115 mg. These values obtained from rats on the mung-rice mixtures were lower than the values Obtained from rats on mung and 14. percent wheat, corn or rice protein. Rats given a mixture of the four proteins retained 63h mg. nitrogen, the highest value obtained among the groups of animals fed supplemented mung diets except for the group fed mung and LL percent wheat. When these results are expressed as milligrams nitro- gen retained per gram of starting weight (Table 6), the egg diet still gives the highest mean nitrogen retention, and the mung beans fed alone ranks the lowest. However, for the supplemented mung diets the order did not remain the same. For the first balance period the rank was the same for mean nitrogen intakes expressed in these two ways. Average nitrogen retained per gram starting weight for Pats on the egg diet was 6.5 mg. and for those on the mung bean diet, 3.1 mg. The average number of milligrams of nitrogen retained per gram starting weight for rats given SnlpF‘lemented mung diets are as follows: mung, corn, 5M3 "lung" rice, corn, wheat, 5.2; mung, wheat, 5.0; mung, rice, W us The average percent nitrogen retained (Table 6) by rats during the second balance period was lower than that of the first balance period for all the groups fed mung beans and supplemented mung bean diets except for the group that received mung and h percent corn protein. Rats given the egg diet retained 65.8 percent of ingested nitrogen and those on the mung diet retained 30.0 percent. Percentage retention for rats fed mung and rice was 39.8; those fed mung and wheat, uh.7; and those fed mung and corn, h6.8. Rats fed mung, corn and rice retained 35.9 percent of the nitrogen they ingested; those fed mung, wheat, and rice, retained hl.0 percent. Results indicate that percentage retention is greater for diets in which grains supplement mung beans than for a diet in which mung beans furnishes the only source of protein. The percent ingested nitrogen appears to be greatest (h7.9) for animals which received a mixture or the three grain supplements with mung beans. The amount of absorbed nitrogen retained was 7h.7 percent for animals on the egg diet and al.38 percent for rats on the mung diet. Rats on mung and corn diet retained more or the nitrogen they absorbed than any of the other groups fed the mung supplemented diets. The percent of ab- sorbed nitrogen retained for this group was 63.3 percent; for those on mung and wheat, 56.8 percent, and for those on mung and rice, 51.7 percent. In the case of mung-rice #7 mixtures, rats fed mung, wheat and rice retained 5h.7 per- cent of absorbed nitrogen and those fed mung, corn and rice retained 51.2 percent. These are lower than the per- centage of absorbed nitrogen retained by rats on either mung and corn or mung and wheat. The percentage absorbed nitrogen retained by rats fed the four protein mixture was 62.7 percent. Relative retention values are given in Table 7. For the second balance period,there was a decrease in the rela- tive retention in all groups of rats except the group of rats fed mung and corn wherein there was an increase of about 1.5 percent relative nitrogen retention over the first balance period. Rats fed mung showed a relative retention of h5.6 percent. Those fed supplemented mung diets were as follows: mung, rice, corn and wheat, 72.8 percent; mung and corn, 71.1 percent; mung and wheat, 68.9 percent; mung, rice and wheat,62.2 percent; mung and rice, 60.5 percent; mung, rice and corn, 5h.6 percent. Protein efficiency. Protein efficiency ratios (Table 6) for the second balance period were lower than that of the first balance period. The protein efficiency of egg was 3.37 and that of mung bean diet, 1.08. Protein efficiency ratios of supplemented mung diets ranged from 1.u7 to 2.22. They were 2.18 for mung beans supplemented with u percent wheat; 2.11 for the diet containing h percent corn; l.h7 for the A8 diet containing h percent rice. Mung, wheat and rice mixture had a protein efficiency of 2.08 while mung, corn, rice mix- ture had an efficiency ratio of 2.02. A mixture of the four proteins had the highest protein efficiency, 2.22. Barnes (l9h6) states that the fraction of protein utilized for growth rises to a maximum and then declines thus resulting in a fall in the biological value. The decrease in the pro- tein efficiency in the second balance period may have been due to the fact that the animals were more mature. The order or rank of the diets according to protein efficiency in this second balance period is approximately the same as the rank of the diets for the first balance period and is the same for the hl days growth study. Summarygof results for second balance period. Values for nitrogen metabolism in the second balance period were generally lower than those obtained in the first balance period except for a few cases wherein there were slight increases. Diets ranked according to apparent digestibility showed egg diet to be the highest, followed by the mung, wheat diet. The mung, rice diet ranked third and the mung, rice, corn, wheat diet ranked fourth in the series. Mung, rice, wheat diet ranked fifth; mung, corn, sixth; the mung bean diet, seventh; and mung, rice, corn diet, last. However, if experimental diets were ranked according to the percent of M9 absorbed nitrogen retained, there is a difference in the order of rank among the mung bean and supplemented mung bean diets. The diets compare according to rank for per- cent absorbed nitrogen retained as follows and the rank according to digestibility is shown in parenthesis: 1. Egg (1) 2. Mung, corn (8) 3. Mung, wheat, corn, rice (h) h. Mung, wheat (2) 5. Mung, wheat, rice (5) . Mung, rice (3) . 7. Mung, rice, corn (6) 8. Mung (7) When these diets are ranked according to protein efficiency ratios, egg and mung bean diets retain their ranks as first and last in the order. This time, mung, wheat, corn and rice diet rank next to egg, mung and wheat diet, third; mung, corn, fourth; mung, wheat and rice, fifth; mung, corn and rice, sixth; and mung, rice, seventh. There is some agreement in the ranking of the diets according to apparent digestibilities, percent absorbed nitrogen retained and protein efficiency ratios in that the egg diet always ranked first and mung beans ranked the second to the lowest or the lowest for these three types of protein evaluation. It also appears that wheat-containing diets tended to rank higher than diets with rice or corn alone or mixtures containing rice and corn. According to Mitchell (l9uh), "nitrogen metabolism studies directly deter- mines the storage of protein in growth rather than assumes So that this storage is proportional to body weight gains and can detect differences in digestibility and biological value of proteins of a magnitude of 2 or 3 percentage units." Thus changes in body weights of animals fed different protein mixtures may not parallel relative quan- tities of protein digested or of nitrogen retained in the animal tissue. Statistical Analysis An analysis of variance of the percentage of absorbed nitrogen retained for both the first and second balance per- iods for the five groups of animals used for replications and the differences in percent of nitrogen retained produced by the eight diets fed, indicated that the differences in nitrogen retained due to diets were highly significant (P = .01) while those due to replications were not significant at the 5 percent level. Analysis of variance of the apparent digestibility of the first balance period for the five groups of animals used for replications and the apparent digestibility produced by the eight diets fed, indicated that the differences in ap- parent digestibility was highly significant (P = .01) while those due to replications was significant at the five percent level. In the second balance period, however, differences in apparent digestibility due to replications was not signifi- cant at the 5 percent level. 51 Apparent Nitrogen Added to Tissues Another suggested method for evaluating protein availability, is to determine actual increases in nitrogen stores of animal tissues. McCollum and Shukers (Cahill, 1914.5) suggested a method which involves the determination of amino acid in the animal tissues. However, since animals were not sacrificed at the end of the first growth study, this method of assessing nitrogen uptake of body tissues could not be used. Metabolism data obtained in this study, have been used to estimate relative increases in nitrogen stores of animal tissues. Various factors such as method 01‘ feeding (gd libitum versus paired feeding) non-determina- tion of endogenous excretions, experimental errors, and pro- tein factor may influence these values. However, some of the differences observed vary widely enough to appear to giVe these results some significance. FiI‘St Balance Period Table 5 presents nitrogen intake per gram of weight change. Rats fed defatted whole egg diet had a nitrogen intake of 32.1; mg. for each gram of weight change while rats fed the mung bean diet ingested 139.0 mg. of nitrogen in Order to gain a gram of weight. When the rats were sacri- ficed, layers of fat were noticed around the kidneys and in tea‘-‘l:ines of the rats fed on egg while those on mung beans 52 did not have as ."I'LLICh fat as those fed the reference diet. NitrOgen intake of rats fed mung and rice diet and mung wheat and rice was 53.0 mg. Mung beans and corn-1m. rats ingested 60.6 mg. of nitrogen per gram of added weight. There was a very slight difference observed in the nitrogen intake of rats fed mung beans and wheat over the nitrogen intake of rats fed mung and rice and mung, wheat and rice diets. The rats fed mung and wheat ingested 52.6 mg. nitro- gen for each gram of added weight. Rats fed mung, corn and rice ingested 57.8 mg. nitrogen. This was less than the amount ingested by rats fed mung and 1.; percent corn protein but; more than the amount ingested by rats that were fed mung and rice diet. Of the groups of rats fed mung bean and ,. mung; beansupplemented diets, those that were fed 5 percent mung bean protein, 1 percent wheat, 2 percent corn, and 2 Percent rice protein ingested the least amount of nitrogen per gram of weight gain 016.0 mg.). Rats on the egg diet apparently retained an average of 20- 8 mg. of nitrogen per gram of weight change or added 2.08 per"Chant of nitrogen to their tissues and body fluids while thOSe fed mung beans added 5.60 percent nitrogen to tissues and body fluids and retained 56.0 mg. of nitrogen for each gram of added weight. Animals fed mung and 1;, percent corn protein retained 264 mg. nitrogen per gram of weight change; t hOSe fed L, percent wheat protein, 25,8 mg. and those fed b, 53 percent rice protein, 22.LL mg. nitrogen. While animals fed rice and corn supplement retained 28.2 mg. nitrogen per gram of weight change, those fed rice and wheat supplement retained 23.6 mg. nitrogen. Rats fed a mixture of h proteins retained 23.0 mg. nitrogen. Nitrogen intake and nitrogen retention per gram of weight gain of rats fed mung bean diets was the highest of the experimental diets. It would seem that the protein of mung beans was not well utilized because in spite of high relative nitrogen intakes and retentions, weight gain was very low compared to the other groups. Very low weight'gains can- not be due to lack of dietary minerals or vitamins be- cause the diets were adequate in these nutrients. If the pro- t311'1 was being metabolized for energy, there would be an ex- PeCted increase in urinary nitrogen. Such is not the case With the rats fed the mung bean diet. helley (1952) found that 150 gram rats fed Michelete pea been needed 83.1 mg. or ni trogen for maintaining nitrogen equilibrium while those on the egg diet needed only 37.3 mg. of nitrogen. Arnrich (1951) suggested that part of the nitrogen is probably re- tained in the non-tissue components of the animal. The physiological reason for the failure of these relatively high nitrogen retentions to produce growth in animals receiving poor quality protein has not, as far as th e a"—l‘thor ascertained, been investigated. However, it might be speculated that here a deficiency of methionine is re- lated to an inability or decreased ability of animals to convert ingested food to body fat. Second Balance Period Nitrogen intake per gram of weight gain (Table 6) in- creased considerably for all groups of rats over that of the first balance period. Rats fed egg diet ingested h8 mg. of nitrogen to gain a gram of weight while rats fed mung beans ingested 163.2 mg. to gain one gram. Rats that were on mung and h percent rice ingested llO.h mg. of nitrogen; those fed mung and h percent wheat, ingested 87.0 mg, and those that were on mung and h percent corn protein had a nitrogen intake of 76.8 mg. While rats fed rice and corn supplements ingested 80.h mg. of nitrogen, 30 mg. less than those fed mung and rice, rats fed rice and wheat supplements ingested 79.8 mg. These amounts are approximately the same. Rats that were fed a combination of four proteins ingested 81.2 mg. nitrogen. The increased intake per gram of weight gain may in part be attributed to the greater need for main- tenance of the rats since these animals were more mature. Although there was an increase in nitrogen intake per gram of weight gain, the percent of nitrogen added to the tissue and the amount of nitrogen retained per gram of weight change decreased in the case of rats fed mung bean diet. 55 However, nitrogen retained per gram weight change for all the rats fed supplemented mung bean diets as well as those fed the egg diet increased during the second balance period. Growth Responses and Protein Efficiency During the Second Diet Series Other plant sources of protein were given to the experimental groups of rats during the last twenty one days Of the whole study. This was done to supplement the first diet series. For this diet series a mixture of 6 percent mung and 2 percent rice protein was supplemented with 2 per- cent protein from millet, barley, sudan grass or sunflower Seeds for four diets in the series. For the other three diets a mixture of L; percent mung, 2 percent rice, and 2 percent annflower seed protein was supplemented with 2 percent pro- tein from millet, barley or sudan grass. GI‘O‘nrth Responses A comparison of mean growth responses of rats during the second diet series is shown in Figure II. Figures III to X present the growth responses of individual rats. Table 3 ShOWS the mean weight gains and Table 11 gives the individual weight changes. Rats fed mung, rice and millet gained more weight than those in the reference diet during the 51813 to t he 57th day of the study. Rats fed mung, rice and millet S6 gained more weight than those in the reference diet but later, the group of rats fed mung, rice, millet and sunflower seeds showed greater weight gains than those fed mung, rice and sunflower seeds. Rats fed mung, rice and sudan grass gave a negative response at the beginning of the second study but they gradually gained weight although weight gain was not comparable to the other groups. Rats on the mung bean, rice and millet diet showed the best growth response among the groups of rats that were fed diets that did not contain sunflower seeds. Addition of sunflower seeds to the diets promoted better growth in all groups. Rats on the egg diet gained 65 grams. Animals that were receiving 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice and 2 percent sunflower seed protein gained 36 grams; those receiving 6 percent mung, 2 percent rice and 2 percent millet pI'Oteins, gained 314. grams; those on 6 percent mung, 2 percent rice: and 2 percent barley gained 21;. grams and those fed 6 percent mung, 2 percent rice and 2 percent sudan grass gained only 3 grams. These results indicate that rats on the diet containing sunflower seed gave the best growth response among the groups that were fed mung-rice mixtures that were supple"lented with other plant sources of protein. or the three grainS, millet, barley and sudan grass, millet gave ro g ”th- responses closest to that of sunflower supplemented mun .. g I’llee diet, barley ranked next and sudan grass last. S7 The millet, barley and sudan grass diets mentioned in the preceeding paragraph contained 6 percent mung beans. When 2 percent of the mung bean protein was replaced by sunflower seeds, in the diets, rats fed mung, rice, millet and sunflower seeds gained h6 grams; those fed mung, rice, barley and sunflower seeds gained 38 grams and those fed mung, rice, sudan grass and sunflower seeds, 25 grams. Re- sults show that sunflower seeds with millet or" barley gave growth responses better than those fed mung, rice and sun- flower seeds. The growth response of rats that received mung, rice, sudan grass and sunflower seed diet was better than the growth response of the rats that were fed mung, rice and barley. An analysis of variance of the weight Changes of the five groups of animals used for replications in the second diet series and the gains in weight produced by the eight diets fed, indicated that the differences in Weight changes due to diets were highly significant (P = .01) While those due to replications were not significant at the five pe rcent level. Protein Intake and Protein Efficiency Mean protein intakes and protein efficiency ratios for these diets are given in Table 3. Mean protein intake or Pats 01': the egg. diet was 28 aramS- Rats fed mung’ rice’ mi llet and sunflower seeds had a protein intake of 21+ grams; 58 those on mung, rice, barley and sunflower seeds, 22 grams; and those on mung, rice, sudan grass and sunflower seeds, 20 grams. When only a mixture of three proteins were given to the rats, protein intake was lower than when a mixture of four proteins were fed. Rats on mung, rice and millet ingested 20 grams of protein; those on mung, rice and sun- flower seeds ingested 18 grams; those on mung, rice and barley, 16 grams and those on mung, rice, and sudan grass, 114 grams. From these results, it is noted that rats which received diets to which sunflower seeds had been added, consumed more food. The mean' protein efficiency of the egg diet during this growth experiment was 2.142. The mung, Pics and sunflower seed approached this value with a mean PPOtein efficiency ratio of 2.07. Although mean protein ih‘tzake and mean weight gain of rats on mung, rice, sudan and sunflower seeds were higher than those fed mung, rice and barley, the protein efficiency was lower than that of the mung, rice, barley diet. The protein efficiency of mung, rice, sudan and sunflower seeds was 1.36 while that of mung, rice, barley diet was 1.58. There were direct relations between mean weight gains, pr‘Gtein intake and protein efficiency in the following digts: 59 Protein Weight Gain Intake Efficiengy Egg 65 28 2.h2 Mung, rice, millet, ~ sunflower h6 2h 1.89 Mung, rice, barley, sunflower 38 22 1.70 Mung, rice, millet 3h 20 1.68 Mung, rice, barley 2h ‘ 16 1.58 Mung, rice, sudan 3 1h .23 There is also a direct relationship for diets in which Palét of'the mung protein was substituted by sunflower seed. Weight Gain Intake Effigigngy Mung, rice, millet, sunflower MS 2h 1.89 Mung, rice, millet 3h 20 1.36 Mung, rice, barley, sunflower 38 22 1.70 Mung, rice, barley 2h l6 1.58 Mung, rice, sudan, sunflower 25 20 1.36 Mung, rice, sudan 3 14 -- .23 It appears from the results as indicated above that sun- flIDMner seed provides a protein which supplements that of ””318: and rice,and mung and rice supplemented with other grains.. It was also noted that the protein efficiency of mung, ri<3€*, sunflower seed diet gave the highestprotein efficiency or 'tl1is series of eXperimental diets. evaluation of the essential Amino Acids in the Experimental Diets One of the factors that limit the utilization of r . p.c>t43in is its amino acid make—up. Mitchell and Block ( . , 159LL€>) have suggested correlating the essential amino aCids with the growth promoting quality of certain food products. According to the authors, exact amino acid requirements for rat growth are unknown hence a comparison of the propor- tions of essential amino acids present in a certain food With the proportions existing in the amino acid requirements for rat growth cannot be made. However, whole egg protein has been found to contain an amino acid mixture that is very highly digestible and almost perfectly utilizable so that proteins of certain foods can be compared to whole egg pro- tein. Deshpande, gt 5;} (1955) states that before any attempt to determine the limiting amino acids in diets composed large 1y of cereals from chemical data is done, there is a need for increased knowledge of the availability of amino “ids from proteins. It is significant that analytical data Show the order of amino acid deficiency but they have found that this does not come in the same order as results of growth $1“dies. In this study, the amino acids present in mung beans and SupPlerriented mung bean diets were compared to the recommended qu"antities of essential amino acid for rat growth as reported by Albanese_(1950). Calculations were based on amino acid values taken from Block and Bolling (1951) and the laboratory “\Mies available for the mung beans, corn and wheat used in is StUdyo Np C/ilUnplsiEliehgdj-dataiiupplied by Selma L. Bandemer, Agr. Chem.: . 10h gan a e n vers y. 61 Amino Acid Composition of Diets Table 8 presents the calculated quantities of amino acid and the percent of amino acid present in the diets as compared to the recommended quantity. 0f the nine ex- perimental diets for which amino acid content was calculated, the whole egg diet came closest to the recommended quantity in the amounts of amino acids present. It was a little low in tryptophane, phenylalanine, methionine, lysine and histi- dine. The egg diet almost equaled the reommended quantity in threonine and supplied more than the recommended quantity of'leucine, isoleucine and valine. The mung bean diet was generally the lowest in all essential amino acids except for leucine and valine where there was an excess of 71 percent and 19 percent, respectively OVer that of the recommended quantity. When part of the mung bean protein was replaced with wheat, corn, rice, sunflower Seed, alone or in combination, there was a slight increase in the amount of methionine, threonine and histidine over that of the ten percent mung bean diet. In all of the mung bean supplemented diets, except mung and corn diet, leucine Value was lower than the mung bean diet. Lysine content of mung, rice and mung, rice and sunflower seed diets was higher than the lysine content of mung bean diet by 2 percent. Me thionine was the amino acid present in the least amounts in all mung bean and supplemented mung bean diets, but of 62 these diets, the mung bean diet contained only 18 percent of methionine compared to that of the recommended quantity. On the other hand, sunflower supplemented diet contained 28 percent of methionine, the highest percentage obtained of the supplemented mung diets. Mung, wheat, rice and corn diet and mung, rice, corn diet contained 2h percent methi- onine. Mung, corn diet contained 27 percent mung, wheat; mung, rice, wheat and mung, rice diets contained 22, 21 and 20 percent respectively. All of the experimental diets, ex- cept the egg diet, were very low in tryptophane, methionine, lysine'and histidine and threonine. In evaluating these diets for amino acid content, it should be recalled that the pro- tein level was kept at 10 percent. For this reason, amino acid values of all diets, including the egg diet, may be low when compared with growth standards. . 1x113 almost impossible to bring up the methionine con- tent,of mung beans and supplemented mung bean diets without the addition of sunflower seeds. To raise the methionine content of mung bean diet to recommended levels would require about 223 grams of mung beans. It is impossible to include this amount in mixed diets. Methionine content may be in- CPeasedby the addition of methionine or perhaps by another we ll-ba lanced protein. Zhutchell and Block (l9u6) reported that the extent to whicln food porteins will supplement each other in a ration 6h 6 improvement of the mung diets when supplemented with these grains. Heller (1927) reported that cystine seemed to be the limiting amino acid in mung beans. Esh and Som (1952) demonstrated that methionine supplementation of mung beans (Phaseolus radiatus) improved the nutritional value of its protein. . No studies have been reported on the supplementary effect of wheat, corn or rice on mung bean protein. A few studies on the nutritive value of mung beans when used as sole source of dietary protein or in conjunction with other lentils have been reported. Basu (1936) reported that as the period of experiment increased from four to eight weeks growth per gram of protein intake of rats on mung bean diets diminished. Basu (1936) reported the biological value of mung beans (Phaseolus mung) to be 63, 52, and AS at S, 11, and 15 per- cent protein level, respectively. Protein efficiency in— creased from 1.16 to 1.23 as the concentration of the mung bean protein increases from 10 to 15 percent level for a Period of eight weeks. In 1952, Esh and Som, reported the true digestibility of mung beans variety, Phaseolus radiatus, to be 90.80 and variety, Phaseolus mung to be 90.67. Bio- logical values obtained were A7 and 6h respectively over a period of twenty one days. Arnrich, Hunt, Axelrod and Morgan (1951) reported a PPUMiin.efficiency of 2.h grams per gram of protein intake 61+ J improvement of the mung diets when supplemented with these grains. Heller (1927) reported that cystine seemed to be the limiting amino acid in mung beans. Esh and Sam (1952) demonstrated that methionine supplementation of mung beans (Ifllseolus radiatus) improved the nutritional value of its prOte in. 190 studies have been reported on the supplementary effect 01' Wheat, corn or rice on mung bean protein. A few studies on the nutritive value of mung beans when used as sole source 01' dietary protein or in conjunction with other lentils have been reported. Basu (1936) reported that as the period of eXPeriment increased from four to eight weeks growth per gram of protein intake of rats on mung bean diets diminished. Basu (1936) reported the biological value of mung beans (Maolus mung) to be 63, 52, and 15 at 5, 11, and 15 per— cent protein level, respectively. Protein efficiency in- cPeased from 1.16 to 1.23 as the concentration of the mung bean protein increases from 10 to 15 percent level for a Period of eight weeks. In 1952, Esh and Som, reported the ““16 digestibility of mung beans variety, Phaseolus radiatus, to be 90.80 and variety, Phaseolus I_n_u_ng to be 90.67. Bio- logical values obtained were 1+7 and 61; respectively over a period of twenty one days. Arnrich, Hunt, Axelrod and Morgan (1951) reported a Protein efficiency of 2.14. grams per gram of protein intake 65 on diets containing 9.5 to 10 percent protein derived from powdered whole egg. Kelley (1952) found that the average protein efficiency of whole egg for 150 gm. rats on a diet containing 6.8 percent protein was 3.0 grams per gram of Protein ingested. In this study, a protein efficiency of 3.37 was obtained for the second balance period and after a period of nine weeks, protein efficiency of whole egg was found to be 2.L|. grams per gram of protein intake. Iiik (l9h0) reported a protein efficiency of 1.80 grams 'on a diet containing 5.5 percent protein derived solely from rice. Sure (l9h6b) reported the protein efficiency of Polished rice as 1.86 grams at 5.8 percent protein level. In this study, a protein efficiency of 2.21 was obtained with a diet consisting of 6 percent mung bean protein and Li percent rice protein. In making these comparisons, it is noted that the studies reported were diets whose sole Sou-Pee of protein was rice whereas in this study, rice was ufiled as a supplement to mung bean protein. Gross Changes in Experimental Animals All the rats appeared normal until about the end of the Second week on experiment. Consumption of food by rats fed Inung beans was low. This could not be due to vitamin deficiency because the diet was adequate in vitamins. Poor appetite may have been due to lack of one or more amino acids 66 since amino acid deficiency has been found to produce inanition (Rose and Epstein, 1939). Rats fed mung b88118 as sole source of dietary protein were irritable. They failed to shed their baby fur as they grew. At about the third week of the experiment, Rats A3, A5 (mung diet), 03 (mung, corn diet), and GS (mung, rice, corn, wheat diet) started to lose fur on their hind legs. This loss of hair gradually extended to the front legs and then to the abdomen. Also, about the third week of the study, three rats fed mung and wheat developed a coarse Peddl'Lsh hair toward the tail end of the back. There has been no report found as to the cause of the color change. Gert 1y , Slinger and Hill (1950) found that when lysine was lacking in the diet of poults, there was irregular pig- mentation in the feathers. 0n the fourth week, several rats in each group developed a reddish tinge on their back. At the end of the experiment eVen those on the reference diet had a slight reddish dis- coloration on their fur. This may be attributed to the heat of the summer months as the temperature and humidity of the room was not regulated, or may be related to the relatively 10" level of protein feeding. At the end of the second diet series there was growth of hair and the reddish color of the fur became lighter. E'sh and Som (1952) reported that methionine supplementation 67 in rats fed mung beans (Phaseolus radiatus) recovered their loss of fur when 0.6 percent methionine was added to the diet. There was insufficient data on the amino acid composition of some of the grains used in this study to permit estimation of dietary amino acid levels. However, the quantity of those of methionine in these diets may be greater than that in diets where hair loss occurred during the first 50 days on SXperiment. Livers of rats fed the mung bean diet were paler than the rats in the other groups. There were no subcutaneous fat Pads around the kidneys of rats fed the mung bean diets. Rats A2 (mung diet) and F2 (mung, rice, wheat diet) had mottled livers but were not abscessed. V A detailed record of changes in rats during the experi- ment are presented in Table .16. 68 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The nutritive value of mung bean protein and mung bean protein supplemented with grains and sunflower seed W518 studied by the rat growth and the nitrogen metabolism methods using young male albino rats weighing between 55-65 grams. Essential amino acids present in the diet were cal- culated and correlated with growth responses. Experimental diets contained approximately ten percent protein. Protein efficiency ratios of a series of diets fed over a ul-day period were found to be, in decreasing order, as follows: defatted whole egg,lhlh; mung, wheat, corn and rice, 2.56; mung and wheat, 2.52; mung and corn, 2.3M; mung, rice and wheat, 2.32; mung, corn and rice, 2.23; mung and rice, 2.21; and mung beans, 1.1h. ‘Ten-day balanced period near the beginning of this ex- periment indicated the apparent digestibility for whole egg diet as 86.9 percent and for mung bean diet, 77.5 percent. Supplemented mung bean diets had apparent digestibilities that ranged from 7h.7 percent to 78.0 percent. A second balance study which was carried toward the end of this diet series showed the apparent digestibility of whole egg to be 88.0 percent and that of mung bean diet, 72.5 percent. A..range of 70.5 percent to 78.h percent was obtained for the ceareal supplemented mung bean diets. The amount of nitrogen added to the tissues for rats ori the egg diet during the first balance period was 20.8 mg. £381? gram of weight gain and for those on the mung bean diet, E56..O mg. Nitrogen added to the tissues of rats fed the sup- plxenented mung bean diets ranged from 22.h to 28.2 mg. Animals on the egg diet during the second balance period adtied.31.6 mg. of nitrogen to their tissues per gram.of weight EaiJl while those on the mung bean diet added h7.6 mg. nitro- geri. Nitrogen added to tissues of rats fed supplemented mung bean diets ranged from 28.8 to h3.7 mg. Protein efficiency ratios for a period during which anilnélls received millet, sudan grass, barley and sunflower seeu3_ as supplements to mung beans and rice follow: defatted 'whcfiiea egg, 2.h&3mung, rice and sunflower seed, 2.07; mung, rice, millet and sunflower seed, 1.89; mung, rice, barley and mfllfflcmflnaseed, 1.70; mung, rice and millet, 1.68; mung, rice Enid“ IDarley, 1.58; mung, rice, sunflower seed and sudan grass, l'iiefl; and mung, rice and sudan grass, 0.23. 'When essential amino acids present in mung bean and SupE’lemented mung bean diets were compared to the recommended Clueirl‘tities for rat growth, methionine was found to be the e{as‘ehtial amino acid that was present in the least amount. ‘1 e i l O ‘| 1 '\ .tkl sources of nitrogen used in tnese eXperimental diets, 70 it would be impossible to bring the methionine content of nnlng bean diet and supplemented mung bean diets to recom- mended quantities without using sunflower seed as one of the dietary component 3 . It was demonstrated in this study that rats on mung bean diet at a ten percent level of protein showed very poor growth responses. Supplementing mung with wheat, corn and rice gave a definite improvement in growth responses. Wheat seemed to be the best supplement, corn ranked next and rice, last. Sunflower seed appeared to be the best supple- ment among the plant sources used to supplement a mixture of mung beans and rice in the second protein efficiency Study. Although cereals have a definite supplementary effect for mung bean diets, there is a need for determining com- binations of inexpensive and available food proteins that would be most effective in furnishing a good quality of pro- tein for people whose food supplies are limited. Since the mung bean is one of the most economical legumes from which dietary protein could be obtained in countries where many peop 1e depend largely on vegetable protein rather than on animal protein, it might be well to investigate the extent 1: 0 Which sunflower seed and grain proteins, other than rice, {-1 be Used or could be used in diets of people. 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aeilsmeer, W. C., K. Mitra, I. A. Simpson and N. Obando. 195k. Rice Enrichment in the Philippines. FAO, Rome, Italy. Albanese, O. 0. Ed. 1950. Protein and Amino Acid Requirement _ of Mammals. Academic Press Inc., N. Y. p. u5. Adolph, William. 19514. Nutrition in the Near East. J. Amer. Diet. A330. 30: 753. Ahlgren, Gilbert H. Ed. 19149. Forage Crops. McGraw Hill Book Co. lst ed. pp. 198-212. Alexxander, J. C. and D. G. Hill. 1952. The effect of heat on the lysine and methionine in sunflower seed oil meal. J. Nutrition, A8: 1&9. ‘Iunzrioh, L., c. N. Hunt, E. H. Axelrod and A. F. Morgan. 1951. Evaluation of six partially purified proteins by rat growth nitrogen retention and liver generation. J. Nutrition, A3: 101. Baéitl. Pada Kali and Chandra Madhab Nath. 1936. Biological value of the proteins of green gram (Phaseolus mungo) and lentil (Lens esculenta). Indian J. Medical Research, 23: 777-8. Barnes, R., Mary Bates and Jean Maack. 1946. The growth and maintenance utilization of dietary protein.' J. Nutrition, 32: 535. B i Seagubn, W. M., W. P. Lehrer Jr. and Ella Woods. 19h7. Peas supplemented with wheat germ or corn germ as a source of protein for growth. J. Nutrition, 3h: 593. .B 1091:, R. J. and Bolling, D. 1951. The Amino Acid Composition of Protein and Foods.. Charles Thomas, Publisher, Spring- field, Illinois. 2nd ed. ‘8 0aS~Fixsen, M. A., J. C. D. Hutchinson and H. M. Jackson. 193A. The biological values of proteins. V. The com- parative biological values of the proteins of whole wheat, whole maize and maize gluten, measured by the growth of young rats. Biochem. J. 28: 592. 72 1932. Studies in Indian pulses. No. h. IBose, Rakhal Das. Indian ming or green gram (Phasgolus radigtus Linn). J. Agri. Science, 2:107. Iiricker, L. M. and J. M. Smith. 1951. A study of the endo- genous nitrogen output of college women with particular reference to use of the creatinine output in the calcula- tion of the biological values of the protein of egg and of sunflower seed flour. J. Nutrition, hl: 553. Methods for the determination of the C ahill , William. 191i5 . J. Amer. Diet. Asso., 21: nutritive value of proteins. #33- Ceirrasco, Fufronio.. 195h-55. The Magsaysay mix - an evgluation. Nutrition News (Phil. Asso. Nutrition) 7- : 1600 (3ruampton, Earle w. Ed. 1933. The comparative values for livestock of barley, oats, wheat, rye and corn. National Research Council Report no. 28. Dominion of Canada. Oytawa J. O. Patenarde, Acting King's printer. D€9Shpande, P. D., A. E. Harper, Felipe Quiros-Perez and C. H. Elvehjem. 1955. Further observations on the improve- ment of polished rice with protein and amino acid sup- plements. J. Nutrition, 57: h15. Enfl31?ey, Hartley and Tsan Ching Wang. 1921. Analyses of some Chinese foods. China Medical J., 35: 2A7. lEsk1,_ G. C. and J. M. Som. 1952. Nutritional survey on available food materials. Nutritive value of pulses. Indian J. Physiological and Applied Sciences, 6: 61. G . apt1y, h. M.. S. J. Slingersnd D. C. Hill. 1950. Further obser- vations on the use of sunflower seed oil meal in turkey started rations. Poultry Science,-29: 312. G- Lunxierson, F. L. 1935. Cereals in nutrition today. Cereal Chemistry, 12: h73. G- I‘EWJ, C. R. and H. J. Almquist. 19h5. The methionine con- tent of foodstuff proteins. Arch. Biochem., 6: 287. fi . €51Cler, V. G. 1927. Nutritive properties of the mung bean. J. Biol. Chem., 75: A35. Ii €31“mane, A. J. and G. Sepulveda Jr. 193A. The vitamin con- tent of Philippine foods. III. Phil. J. Science, 5h: 61. 73 Pkywe, E. L., L. E. Carpenter and C. G. Harrel. 19h5. The nutritive quality of some plant proteins and the supple- mental effect of some protein concentrates on patent flour and wnole wheat. Cereal Chemistry, 22: 287. cjcnfies, Breese D., A. Caldwell and h. D. Widness. 19h8. Comparative growth promoting values of the proteins of cereal grains. J. Nutrition, 35: 639. Iie:lley, A. L. 1952. Use of the balance technique for es- timating protein requirement for nitrogen balance and weight maintenance in the laboratory rat. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing. Iiili, M. C. 1939. The biological value of the proteins of rice and its by-product. Cereal Chemistry, 16: hhl. ___ . 19h0. The nutritive value of the proteins of rice and its by-products. II. Effect of amino acid additions on growth. Ibid., 17: 173. Pin-itgler, D. and W. A. Krehl. 1952. Lysine deficiency in rats. J. Nutrition, A6: 61. rillflfiLman, A. H., A. Nalrander and E. Weaver. 1937. Mung bean silage for milk production. J. Dairy Science, 20, M23. P: . n . . w - 1 i . Llliliman, A. n., W. D. Gallup and H. a. Cave. 19h6. Ground mung beans as a protein supplement in rations for dairy cows. J. Dairy Science, 29: 537. ILEiESInan, Alfonso M. 1952. Animal protein factor as a supple- ment to a growing ration for chicks with roasted mungo meal as the principal protein ingredient. The Phil. Agriculturist, 36: 210. ‘tfiirlgaiah, Sushela. 1952. The nutritional evaluation of certain nut proteins. Unpublished Ph D. thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing. Linton, 3. G. 1927. Animal Nutrition and Veterinary Dietetics. Edinburgh w. Green and Son. Ltd. Publishers, p 62, 72. \n . *‘aynard, L. A., F. M. Fronda and T. 0. Chen. 1923. The protein efficiency of combinations of corn-meal and certain other feeding stuffs, notably rice bran. J. biol. Chem., 55: 1&5. Neeollum, E. V. and N. Simmonds. 1917. A biological analysis of pellagra-producing diets. III. The values of some seed proteins for maintenance. J. Biol. Chem., 32: 3A7. 7h bchIQllum, E. B., E. Keiles and H. Day. 1939. The Rewer Knowledge of Nutrition. 5th ed. The Machillan 60., N. Y. p. 78. Diileer, Byron 8., J. Y. Seiffe, J. A. Shellenberger and G. D. Miller. 1950. Amino acid content of various wheat varieties. I. Cystine, lysine, methionine and glutamic acid. Cereal Chemistry, 27: 96. I"filler, Carey and D. Hair. 1923. The vitamin content of mung bean Sprouts. J. Home Eco., 20: 263. 3fli.t<1hell, H. H. 19hh. Determination of the nutritive value of proteins of food products. Industrial Eng. Chem. (Anal. Ed.), 16: 696. .__h. . 192ha. A method of determining the bio- logical value of proteins. J. Biol. Chem., 58: 873. . 192hb. The biological value of proteins at different levels of intake. Ibid., 58: 905. MitChen, H. H. and R. J. Block. 19146. Some relationships between the amino acid contents of proteins and their nutritive values for the rat. J. Biol. Chem., 163: E99. . 19u6-19h7. The correlation of the amino acid composition of proteins with their nutritive value. Nutrition Abs. Rev., 16: 2h. 1 _ Mi‘tC-‘ol'iell, H. H., T. S. Hami1ton and J. R.Beadles. 19h5. The importance of commercial processing for the protein value of food products. I. Soybean, coconut and sun- flower seed. J. Nutrition, 29: 13. \ o 1952 o The relationship between the protein content of corn and the nutritional value of the protein. Ibid., as: h61. Dd it(lihell, H. H. and D. B. Smuts. 1932. The amino acid deficiencies of beef, wheat, corn, oats and soybeans fa" growth in the white rat. J. Biol. Chem., 95: 263. () Skacxrne, T. B., L. B. Mendel and E. L. Ferry. 1919. A Method of Expressing Numerically the Growth-Promoting Value of Proteins. J. Biol. Chem., 37: 223. Gaborone, T. B. and L. B. Mendel. 1918. Nutritive factors in plant tissues. I. The protein factor in the seeds of cereals. J. Biol. Chem., 3h: 521. -4.‘E ,1 ‘4.’ mx'AFm-xoxm‘z ;- b 75 ()slaorne, T. B. and L. B. Mendel. 1920. Nutritive value of the proteins of barley, oat, rye and wheat kernels. lbid., A1: 275. thrray, Hazel C. 19A8. The biological value of the protein of field pea products with a comparison of several methods used for this determination. J. Nutrition, 35: 257. Pecora, L. J. and J. M. Hundley. 1951. Nutritional improve- ment of white polished rice by the addition of lysine and threonine. J. Nutrition, AA: 101. Iiomtriguez, F. L. 1936. Protein supplements in poultry ration. VIII. Studies to determine the optimum amount of mungo that may be used in a normal ration for growing chicks. The Phil. Agriculturist, 5A1. €26.54. Rose, w. c. and s. H. Eppstein. 1939. The dietary indispens- ibility of valine. J. Biol. Chem., 127: 677. Santos, Severino R. Jr. 1952. The influence of animal protein factor as a supplement to growing chick rations con- taining varying amounts of fish and mungo meals. The Phil. Agriculturist, 36: 83. Sherman, Hartley C. 1929. Certain proteins added to mung beans or to white or red sorghum vulgare, increase the fertility of mice. Phil. J. Science, 38: A7. Sherman, H. C. and J. C. Winters. 1918. Efficiency of maize protein in adult human nutrition. J. Biol. Chem., 35: 301. Sirnl3£30n, I. A., A. Y. Chow and C. C. Sch. 1953. The distribu- tion of thiamine and riboflavin in the mung bean and the changes that occur during germination. Cereal Chemistry,30: 222. S mith, Allan K. and v. L. Johnsen. 19A8. Sunflower seed protein. Cereal Chemistry, 25: 399. Sr~ eehlvasan, A. 19A23. Nutritive value of the protein and mineral constituents of rice varieties. Cereal Chem- istry, 17: 36. Ekr eellivasan, A. and V. Sadasivan. 19A2. Nutritive value of the protein and mineral constituents of dry and wet cultivated rice. lbid., 19: A7. Sq> GEEhivasan, A. and S. D. Wandrekar. 1950. Biosynthesis of vitamin C in germinating legumes. Nature, 165: 765. 76 Stearns, Genevieve. 1928-1929. A rapid method for the prepara- tion of fecal digests suitable for use in nitrogen and mineral analyses. J. Lab. and Clinical Med., 1A: 95A. Steenbock, H. H., E. Kent and E. G. Gross. 1918. The dietary qualities of barley. J. Biol. Chem., 35: 61. Sure, B. 19A6a. Nutritional improvement of cereal flours and cereal grain. J. Amer. Diet. Asso., 22: A9A. ___ . 19A6b. Relative efficiency of the proteins in polished rice and in enriched wheat flour. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 61: 3A2. ___ . 19A7. Further studies on nutritional improvement of cereal flours and cereal grains with yeast. Ibid., 23: 113. SLlI‘EB, B. and F. House. 19A8. The relative biological values of the proteins in cereal grains. J. Nutrition, 36: 595. I'el’n‘natay, A. L. and F. Tan. 1952. A preliminary study on the extraction of protein from mungo bean (Phaseolus aureus, Roxb). Reprint from Natural and Applied Science Bulletin v. 12, College of Liberal Arts, Univ. of the Phil. Dili- man, Quezon City, Phil. “illcock, E. and F. Gowland. 1906. The importance of indi- vidual amino acids in metabolism. J. Amer. Physiology: 35: 88. wlnton, A. L. and K. Barker. 1932. Structure and Composition of Foods. Vol. 1. Cereals, nuts, oil, seeds. John Wiley and Sons, London, Chapmann 6 Hall, Ltd. p. 613. APPENDIX TABLE 1 DIETS FOR THE FIRST DIET SERIES Reference Mung Mung Mung Mung Mung Mung Mung Bean Rice Corn Wheat Rice Rice Rice Control Corn Whom; Corn Wheat Diet Ingredients per 100 Grams Diet Whole Dried Egg 1 15 Mung2 A3 26 26 26 26 26 21 Rice3 St 27 27 27 CornlL 38 19 19 Wheat“ A0 20 10 Wesson SaltsS A a a ., a a A a A Vit. Sup.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Corn 011 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Sucrose 10 10 3.8 10 10 10 10 10 Roughage7 2 Corn Starch 58.8 30.8 9.8 7.8 1.8 .8 Total Protein8 9.0 10.16 9.7A 10.18 10.32 10.07 10.08 9.98 Diet Composition - Protein Source Approximately 10 Percent Whole Dried Egg lO Mung 10 6 6 6 6 5 Rice A 2 Corn A 2 2 Wheat A 2 l l-Fat extracted in the laboratory. 2-Ok1ahoma Jumbo type, Johnston Co., Enid, Oklahoma. 3-Obtained from local grocery. A-Supplied by MSU Farm Crops. -Salt mixture W. modification of Osborne and Mendel. 6-Vit. Diet Fortification in Dextrose, Nutritional Biochemicals Co. 7-Alphace1. 8-N x 6.25 - analyzed in laboratory. Yin-0:: (M marl. 1"ch ['1 1.37112): \1 CD TABLE 2 DIETS FOR THE SECOND'DIET SERIES Refer-TMung iMung Mung Mung :Mung Mung Munv ence Rice Rice Rice Rice Rice Rice Ric ,Sun- Barley Millet Sudan Barley Millet Sudan ‘flower Grass Sun- S _ Grass flower f ower Sun- ___ [ flower Diet Ingredients per 100 Grams Diet Wholta Dried Egg 15 Mung 26 26 26 26 17 17 17 Rice 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Sunflowver Seed 7 7 7 7 Barley 17 17 Millet 17 17 Sudan Grass 17 17 Wesson Saltsh A b. ’4 1+ LL 1+ 1+ Vit. Sup. 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Sucro s e 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Corn 011 10 7 10 10 10 7 7 7 Roughaégea 2 Cornstarch 58.8 16.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 8.8 8.8 8-8 Total Protein2 9.74 10.03 9.55 10.25 9.611, 9.50 10.23 9.59 -— ‘ -——---—-—-———----——_ Diet Composition - Protein Source Approximately 10 Percent Whole Dried Egg 10 Mung 6 6 6 6 a A A Rice Sunfl Seed Ower Barley' Millet Sudan Grass 2 2 l-Furn 2-N x 181’led by Farm Crops, MSU. 2‘5 - analyzed in laboratory. 79 .oosdmcoo swepond .Em\dawm unwaoz .Sm n candy hocoHOHHHMI: .uoao map 0» popdnahpsoo Campomd .mmwc avnm pnooaod omeHKOAQQm map pcomoadoa momozpcohdm Ga maobSdznm .mhmo HJIH 7 m mm. fl ofiwdwwafiowemfim an; m m 3 am 33 was: . : ooam 34 ea 6133 eiamawamw. 8am . an N a a on em Mew mesa . m oowm me toaoauaam mm.m a N am He WNW at o . . an m dd m w on a om o mmwvoshmfle wmwz M 52 Spec . . . me no 32 and m w om Q was we a ON 0 dmfloowaiov as: . WWW was” a m. “0. mo.m ma odfimkhflfiammwmmm mm m m w a ma. :bvuwcmm Amv.aozoamcfim m oowm o o h 0 CH demand a a a $4 em 6.6: M e E mm.m a a an 5 2: its: lvmesz Abv was: ma.m mm o.mo AOHV men :a.: ma NH m: mwa . “OHS wmm , .me , .me .msw .mEm .mEm .me a . emerge eoaaom coated 2 e e a moumflWwwmw amwmwmw unmaoz com moan honodwwwmm ooandm oocmamm E mth Mammmw mach noun ncflmpoam ado: ado: inaopoam ocooom pmaam H: Geo: w oxwch Campoam ewes . l NOSE 222203 28% 1635 35523 3.5 i woman azeqe amuse maHz amazmzmammem memaa_z F ”£11318 ( ) 1396 3A7 A71 822 10118 578 1 Ce Wheat( %) G £15118 ( ) 1288 305 31.9 653 983 638 co Wheat 1) Corn ( ) \ l-Numbera :in parentheses represents the approximate percent prOtGZLrI contributed to the diet. 82 ,h'... I.\‘. ..l‘ullln|.u T...l Sit . .Qopmm z .Ew\omnuomnw z .mEmnd .mopmm voow .Ew\z Hwomw .mzam .mmsmmfip on emcee z .waum .pmfio on» on cmpSQaMpCOo cflopomd uncommd opwEHKoanw map pcomohqmm mommflmehdm CH mumnadZIH ANV G900 Adv puma: va moam mm.m m.oe m.am j.em on.m o.mm 0.6: :.o o.ma my mafia o Amy amen: Amy 63m do.m m.om 0.3: n.mm om.: o.m~ o.mm o.w o.ma hey was: a my choc NV 66am mm.m m.me m.6: :.6N mm.m m.@m . m.am :.m n.6a on mass m 2: 666g: ao.m m.m6 m.®: o.ma me.m m.mm 6.mm 6.m m.aa hey was: a . Adv Shoo ma.m c.0m 6.3: 2.3“. ma.m 2.6N . 6.06 m.a 6.6H 16V mass 6 Adv mafia do.m 0.3m m.m: o.ma 6m.m :.mm o.mm m.6 6.6H 16v 66:: m mH.H n.mm 6.0: m.NN m6.m 0.6m o.mma m.m m.mH Aoav was: a mo.m m.m~ m.:o 0.63 mo.m m.om :.mm :.ma o.Hm Aoav mmm m w.\o o\b nR ogm\omg 0950\0? QEU\OwCH cam\\OMWCH ogm\\omwc.u .mocflodhu. Bfiflmm z emfiflmm baflnflmmma mz mmcmnoébmgeufiz .63 .paflm £23.83 656.3 per. maoponm donhomn¢ z dpsmhwaa< H 0mm mGHMpom z oxmch z oocfimpom z oxwch 2 H r 1 ooahmm oocmamm pmafim . p mZOHBmflHHm QzHCD Opwpm .EOHE ..Em£o uw< .moemocmm NEHOm hp docHSquOo mm mmus> a mm.0 N Zam .pcofiaamdxo :H owns mmopSom GHmpOLa no dump GoSmHHQSQQS Una AHmOHV mGHHHom ocw xOOHm Song UmpwHSQHGOUH 0.00 0000 umzoacasm W m.m m.m m.0 m.: m.0 m.s mafiam> m.OH mmmnw cmodm w N.H H.N m.H H.m 0.0 H.N ocHuHumHm 0.0H hOHpam W m.m N.m m.m ~.N N.m w.0 mnfimhq m.:H pmaaflz w 0.0 ~.m 3.0 0.m 0.m m.: 600260009 0.5 060m s.m :.m :.H 0.H H.H N.m oBaRoaspoz 5.0H :noo m.m 0.m m.m m.: o.m m.m OcHosOHowH H.0H 00003 0.0 0.:H m.0 0.0 ~.ma 0.0 mcfiosmq 0.11m .930 052 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: m.m 0.0 655310600 H.00 mwm m.a 0.0 H.H m.a s.o :.H mgdBaouahpe NcouhHaad ma Gamuonm pcoonom 1 noonmcsm Shoo OOHm 90033 mmmm mmm HUMMMpMMMMM LNNIIIIIIIM moom mo m2 0. HH. mH. NH. NH. HH. 0H. - :H. 00. Hm. 00H0H00Hm 0.H 00. 00. mm. H0. :0. mm. 00. mm. 00. mnHmRH m.0 00. 00. mm. 00. 00. 00. R0. 00. m0. mcHgooaee 0.0 RH. 0H. 0H. 0H. NH. 0H. 0H. HH. Rm. manoanmz 0.0 H0. H0. 00. mm. Hm. mm. R0. om. mR. meHoonomH 0.0 .mH.H om.H NH.H RN.H mH.H .0m.H 00.H Rm.H m0. oeHosoH R.0 om. om. om. 0m. 0m. om. om. mm. 00. mnHameHRnonm m.0 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. R0. 00. R0. 0H. meanaopampa .HOH mmHmwmmmw .Hmzommzm Mm wwwom RN #0033 RN 9.30 E - 0000651800 mm 0on R» 00003 “Rm 030 mm 0on 03 0on 0R: 500 030.302 R9” .6000 R0H mmm 32H meme JP R0 mcdz No mg: “no mafia No mafia 6R3 mafia R0 megs woo was: mg: Hpr m m meom< 20mm QMBHw mepHpcmsu boonSSoomR on popwmfioouH padosw pmoSOH OcHoHpmHm Och QH pammopa 05003000 05805.: 050300,. 00200002 0:003:00: 838000 oaHSHfioz 65.8306: -320 300 055 00H 00 . H0H 00H R0H H0H m0. 0HH 00H 00HH0> 0N. :0. om. om. a 0N. :0. 00. NN. Nm ocHuHumHm 0m. 00. N . H0. 00. 0N. om. Nm. 00. ochRH 00. 00. 00. 00. mm. H0. 0m. Nm. 00 ocHeoonna 0N 0N. HN. 0N. 0N. RN. NN. 0H. N0. mchoHspoz 00H N0H 00. 00H N0H moH :0 00H 0mH osHosmHomH 00H 00H 00H 0mH 00H mRH 00H HRH 0HH ocHosoH NR. HR. HR. HR HR. NR. NR. ER. 00. ochaHaHRnonm mH. 00. 0:. 00. 0: mm. m0. mm. 0R. 00000000000 L RN hoonm N choc RN wwwm WNRMMMM &mmuwwmm ww cmmm R: NOHm R: Chou R: paws: ROH Guam mmH cHod OCHE¢ z 0 9 O R m 6 m was was a Coma Rb wsdz me wads Ra mcdz mo was: No :52 00 C52 R0 2 z m H H» m 0 H0040 000 000 mRmHa RZNNNNRHQ mmR 2H Rammmmm QHQH ozhew QVH32mwmm.ac Ramummm R 00000 88 TABLE 10 GROWTH RESPONSES OF INDIVIDUAL RATS FED DIFFERENT DIETS DURING THE FIRST EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD Protein Rat No. Weight Change Protein Intake Efficiency Ratiol Gms. Gms, Fat Extracted Dried Whole Egg (10 percent)2 R1 197 R6 u.30 R2 196 NS n.36 R3 163 N1 3.99 RN 172 46 3.78 __ RS 210 N9 h.29 Mung Bean (10 percent) A1 21 21 .99 .AZ 18 20 .90 A3 22 19 1.13 JUI 19 16 1.17 1M5 27 18 1.50 Mung Bean (6 percent), Rice (u percent) 131 76 31 2.42 I32 58 25 2-3h I33 65 29 2.2a EH4 58 25 2.29 __ E35 38 21 1.78 Mung Bean (6 percent), Corn:(u percent) 01 95 BL; 2.76 C 2 58 27 2.12 C3 71 32 2.21 (311 59 26 2.28 .g (355 73 32 2.31 Mung Bean (6 percent), Wheat (u percent) D :1 129 I111 2.92 DE 8% 311 2.50 b3 8 3E ' 2.55 iI>z+ 67 27 2.50 3:353 67 - 31 2.15 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 10 (Cont.) Rat NO. Weight Change Protein Intake Eff§:::::; Ratio Gms. Gms. Mung Bean (6 percent), Corn (2 percent), Rice (2 percent) E1 61 25 2.39 E2 58 27 2.16 E3 55 26 2.09 Eh %5 23 1.9M ES 6 3h 2.55 lMung Bean (6 percent), Wheat (2 percent), Rice (2 percent) F1 62 28 2.18 F2 6 29 2.18 F3 10 39 2.71 FR 69 29 2.37 F5 61 28 2.15 Mung Bean (5 percent), Wheat (1 percent), Corn (2 percent), Rice (2 percent) (31 61 26 2.35 G2 81 29 2.77 G3 73 31 2.38 GL1 93 33 2.81 G5 6E 26 2.50 1“Grams. weight gain per gram of protein intake. 2“All diets furnished approximately 10 percent protein. TABLE 11 9O GROWTH RESPONSES OF INDIVIDUAL RATS FED DIFFERENT DIETS DURING THE SECOND EXPERIIVJENTAL PERIOD . Protein Rat.No. Weight Change Protein Intake Efficiency Ratio Gms. Gms. I Fat Extracted Dried Whole Egg (10 percent)2 R1 88 30 2.18 R2 81 32 1.92 R3 72 21 2.53 RR 62 25 2.88 R5 88 22 3.01 Mung (6 percent), Rice (2 percent), Sunflower Seed (2 percent) A1 110 18 2.2 A2 112 18 2.33 A3 MB 19 2.5 A4 2% 18 1.32 AS 2 15 1.93 Mung (6 percent), Rice (2 percent), Barley (2 percent) B1 18 18 1.01 B2 38 13 2.93 B3 19 18 1.21 BR 20 15 1.33 BS 26 18 1.h2 Mung (6 percent), Rice (2 percent), Millet (2 percent) 01 51 26 1.98 C2 31 L8 1.90 C3 35 2 1.69 Cb, 18 17 1.09 GB 37 20 1.76 1 SW“ . . _ . , . u“ .m.,..~._.~..‘_.__r1. " ‘ ‘ l l~ _ . .. L TABLE 11 (Cont.) A 91 Protein l-Grams weight gain per gram of protein intake. 2-A11 diets furnished approximately 10 percent protein. A “I. ’1- . i'.’“\'«d;..,‘ am». .- ‘.."-" Tmi't'Zi‘r’V—‘7 .4 ’ Rat No. Weight Change Protein Intake Efficiency Ratiol Gms. Gms. Mung (6 percent), Rice (2 percent), Sudan Grass (2 percent) D1 -5 18 -.27 D2 15 15 1.02 D3 -% .12 -.33 DA 19 .01 D5 2 16 .12 Mung (8 percent), Rice (2 percent), Sunflower Seed (2 percent), Barley (2 percent) El Al 33 1.82 E2 87 3; 1.96 E3 33 23 1.u ER 37 31 1.7 E5 32 21 1.53 Mung (8 percent), Rice (2 percent), Sunflower Seed (2 percent), Millet (2 percent) F1 38 21 1.81 F2 12 21 1.97 F3 69 29 2.%0 FR an 21 1. 5 F5 35 2a 1.uu Mung (u percent), Rice (2 percent), Sunflower Seed (2 percent), Sudan Grass (2 percent) 01 28 18 1.53 02 1% 25 ..56 G3 3 16 2.u3 GE 23 22 1.02 GS 2h 19 1.27 92 TABLE 12 MEAN NITROGEN ABSORPTION AND RETENTION OF RATS DURING THE TEN-DAY BALANCE ON DIETS USING FAT EXTRACTED WHOLE DRIED EGG AND VEGETABLE SEEDS AS SOURCESCHPPEOTEINS First Balance Period Rat Starting Weight TOtél Nitrogen Group Weight Change I T G Intake Fecal} Urinary Absorbed! Retained Gm' m' ma. mB- I me. me. I ma. Fat Extracted Dried Whole Egg (10%) R1 93 65 1726 2E6 515 1%80 965 R2 90 70 2122 257 66 1 65 1800 R3 90 88 1718 20A 120 1510 1090 R4 90 7 1718 2E2 323 1%72 1150 R5 88 R 2077 275 323 1 02 1816 H "’ “‘fimgszan§(Io;v;7"‘""'—’ A1 62 6 651 183 191 508 317 12 6L 6 1032 201 357 831 178 A3 65 6 773 191 203 582 380 Ah 63 5 73A 156 352 579 226 A5 6A 6 832 210 388 622 289 Mung Bean (6%), Rice (8%) B1 78 27 1u99 3E6 501 1153 689 B2 66 22 1050 218 37 832 158 B3 71 23 1189 262 81 926 508 Ba 71 20 1032 23E 25A 798 Sun B5 65 15 859 185 803 678 271 Mung Bean (6%), Corn (4%) 01 80 25 1302' 306 E38 996 558 02 73 26 1272 285 378 987 6 C3 69 27 1381 336 356 100A 64 Ch 80 12 1075 293 385 782 337 _ 05 _8IL _ _20__ _ 13115; __3LI_5_ _ 3g6_ _ _9O_0 _ _ i 93 TABLE 12 (Cont.) Rat Starting Weight Total Nitrogen Group Weight Change Intake Fecal Urinary AbsorbedIRetained Jm. Gm. Inge Inge Inge "180 ! Inge Mung Bean (6%), Wheat (u%) “* D1 83 81 1867 N20 500 luu7 987 3 D2 71 28 138 326 389 1058 669 ; D3 80 26 1E6 310 212 1156 788 DA 72 17 1082 208 318 83R 516 D5 72 23 1173 269 385 908 V 519 I Mung (6%), Rice (2%), Corn (2%) E E1 68 23 1131 2%7 301 88 583 32 71 15 1120 2 u 393 85 863 E3 68 16 970 217 286 753 868 ER 60 17 938 253 187 685 98 E5 711 31 1531 358 332 172 £11 Mung (6%), Rice (2%). Wheat (2%) F1 76 20 1202 336 351 866 515 F2 70 26 127A 319 395 955 560 F3 76 3% 1605 388 E72 1217 785 FA 70 1 1066 288 336 778 %A3 F5 72 28 1412 386 383 1028 R5 Mung (5%), Rice (2%), Corn (2%). Wheat (1%) 01 73 16 1011 281 320 770 50 02 68 36 1829 295 265 113 69 GB 72 30 1318 310 27 100 73A GM 70 80 1608 355 33 1253 917 GS 76 2A 1029 286 351 783 392 98 TABLE 13 MEAN NITROGEN ABSORPTION AND RETENTION OF RATS DURING ThE SECOND TEN-DAY BALANCE ON DIETS USING FAT EXTRACTED WHOLE DRIED EGG AND.VEGETABLE SEEDS AS SOURCES OF PROTEIN Second Balance Period Rat Starting Weight Total Nitrogen Group Weight Change ; f j Gm. Gm. Intakes Fecal Urinary) Absorbed; Retained ma. { me. me. [ mg- 3 me- Fat Extracted Dried Whole Egg (10%) R1 213 87 ‘ 2093 261 509 1832 1323 R2 218 82 19 226 508 1718 1210 R3 186 81 175 203 833 1555 1122 R8 195 81 2251 278 337 1973 1635 R5 228 82 2131 250 856 1881 1825 Mung Beans (10%) Al 76 5 778 217 286 557 272 12 77 3 800 190 373 610 237 A3 78 8 832 237 195 595 800 A8 73 g 653 162 355 890 136 A5 76 762 288 389 518 126 Mung Bean (6%), Rice (8%) Bl 126 12 1195 251 520 988 823 B2 110 8 1083 293 358 750 392 B3 115 12 1336 252 828 1088 661 B8 110 12 1098 268 387 830 883 85 98 8 960 226 828 738 311 Mung Bean (6%), Corn (8%) C1 132 26 1720 838 829 1286 857 02 108 16 1176 259 288 917 670 03 112 18 1832 353 530 1079 589 08 105 15 1107 328 328 779 851 CS 122 18 1268 368 289 900 611 95 TABLE 13 (Cont.) Rat Starting Weight Total Nitrogen - Group Weight Change "r * ‘ G Intake! Fecal Urinary Absorbed Retained Gm. m. mg. l mg. mg. mg. mg. Mung Bean (6%), Wheat (8%) D1 156 38 1978 838 576 1580 968 D2 122 2 1829 328 508 1105 601 D3 128 1 1381 287 320 113 818 D8 118 18 1165 2 7 861 89 873 D5 125 7 1228 271 508 953 886 Mung (6%), Rice (2%), Corn (2%) E1 110 1% 1078 337 305 773 835 E2 106 1 1216 508 306 910 803 E3 108 13 1059 505 320 739 238 E8 98 10 978 206 386 592 386 E5 130 20 1398 838 381 1053 618 Mung (6%), Rice (2%), Wheat (2%) F1 116 12 1251 382 389 870 871 F2 112 16 1211 286 886 928 879 F3 180 28 1738 387 622 1351 730 F8 112 18 1382 331 822 1089 607 F5 110 12 lost 857 Mung (5%), Rice (2%), Corn (2%), Wheat (1%) 01 108 18 I 1038 232 389 806 817 G2 120 28 1181 338 387 803 856 G3 126 11 1883 313 278 1170 896 88. 132 25 1:68 3 3%3 12:8 911 95 118 18 1208 32 3 8 882 893 "a.“ i - 1 . " * ‘ k’i‘ 1 _Wcémnm'fl:- .93. lav-h“- . . n 1'» ‘i , “I", 06".... .I.. ..l .L. ... leliu‘ 4 .. w 8.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.: 88 88 8 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.: 88 88 8 88 :8 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 :8 88 8 88 88 88.m 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.m 88 88 8 88 88 8. 8. 8. . . 8 88 I8 .. .. I 8.8. 8 88 I .8. 8.8. I 88 .. .8.8 I 88 I 8.8.888 882%. 88881888 .8838 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 8 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 8 88 :8 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 8 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 8: 8 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 :8 88 8 88 88 883v 088m 486v :wcm wcsz 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.: 8: 888 8 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 8:8 8 88 :4 88.8 8.88 8.8: 8.88 mm.8 88 888 8 88 8< 88. 8.88 8.88 8.88 . .8 88 888 8 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.8: 8.88 88.8 88 888 8 88 88 Awoav swam 8:52 88.: 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 88 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 :8 88 88 88 :8 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 88 88 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 88 :8 88 88.8 8.88 8.88 8.88 88.8 88 88 88 88 88 88888 888 R 8 R R .Ew\.ws .Ew\.wE .Eo\.wfi .Ew .wE 88.88.8888 888888 a 888368 888888888888 mz 8888888 5:888:88; .83 .8888 82 .888 886.8 8 :8opoa8 eonaomp<8 2 888688884 8 688 88888888 2 888888 2 88888868 2 888888 2 8 8 p m ooahom oocmawm pmnfim ZHMBOML Nm— c: a co 7| wed 5; 4 i 1 Li a L .1 l '0 so vol 7'0 30 40 5| 'NUMBER OF DAYS OF EX9EREMENT- f Roan weight changes of eight groups of rats fed experimental diets during the second diet series. GO-I- 50‘“ GRAMQ' I N (.00 G .1 r1 WEIGHT ’IOfi 40«b CHANNCE j; IO-fi- PROTEIN GOURCELAMOX. I073) R - WHOLE DRIED £68 A - MUHG. RICE. SUNFLOWER SEEDS -------- b - MUNG. RICE. SMILEY - MUNG. RICE. MILLET MUNG, RICE, SUDAN GRASS Muuc, RICE, SUNFLOWER SEEDS, MILLET C D W E HUNG. RICE, SUNFLOWER SEEDS, MRLEY F G MUNG, RICE. SURFLDIIIER SEEDS, SUD“ GRKSQ O 1 l 0 El 57 as -NUMBER OF DAYQ 0f EXPERIMENT' QT lOI). H H H Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed ten percent protein from defatted dried whole egg curing the first diet series (hl days) and the second diet series (21 days). lOS .m apoaa. .P2w5_dmaxw Lo m>4a. :. mm 5 mm 35 mm 3 mm mm E 3.3 5 mm mm a 3 am mm 3 a m. e IIq_ma_+.TwflwwiiIiws_quqhna xxx o\, \\. \ \x \\ o\o\o \ o\ \ o\ \\\\ o\ \\\\\ o\ \\ \ Figure IV. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 10 percent mung bean protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2 per— cent sunflower seed protein during the second diet series. 106 .kzm<:dmaxm .( azoxo. mo m>4a. :gfihmmafiamimmmma :mmamhmm 58 :3 ma as. :2 m. i. m a m _ %_._J444Irfi+q+miwwwai,+riiaiII.I14i_r on g 0 N \ I M 3 \oIoIo \\o \ .459 a.“ \\\\\\\\ \ H II lozl III\ I: I.‘ DEN -329 cw 1o: W 13.5 'lIll Figure V. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, a percent rice protein, during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2 percent barley protein for the second diet series. ilCTY ..c a fi.xu ~_mV . . L. 7_.m (i _ ¢ .u in xx m “L o m .r ,i a . .emaswmammammfimmmmim .wmasgmmaauzmma m. am. e = m a m m. _.4414Iaqmfil4_44d44r|w14wladqu..1hq¢wom .3 fiODI Yes nu 601A f99M 32!. as,_un am_.ui 31mm. ami nu SW. dz“ 13a_ .aou —Ncn#m commence a Figure VI. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, A per- cent corn protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 per- cent rice protein, and 2 percent millet protein during the second dict series. 108 .kzmzlaua :. $5 $353: mmmmwm_wm.mfimmmm_ I 4 fl 4 A a — a q 4 AI IN 4 AI uI Iu‘I dI m .d .0 ago xm as I4 ,ao. Lo m>4o. « ma mmI a o. E m. m. : DIIIIPI e 4+Jq11qII. 41 +0" .2... m _ fig. 16: .62 1.8. 158 5a 3% 48a 44 A009. 1H9|3M ONI flu '9V‘IV Figure VII. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, h percent wheat protein during the first diet series; 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein and 2 percent sudan grass protein during the second diet series. 109 .a anomc. .mk2m_2_¢maxm ma m>4o. E mm 3 3 8 3 mm mm“, mm mm 3. 3. 3 5 mm mm _m an E 3 2 a mi 5 .4: m. __ m a m m _ qI It I. - I . + . d 4 _ d — _ — I q a a 1 . _ a 1 a _ q I. I _ a d A. _ m w —N€O-¢M DDOQQ IFI Ii Human; Ndnw. .19. I I Figure VIII. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent corn protein during the first diet series; A percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein, 2 percent barley protein during the second diet series. 110 Fm J D c a nu _ he 3 3 an em mm 3 G .In . 4 q A— A _ _ .m aaomm. .Fzm<:¢maxm mo _+ a a a a d _ I— d a _ a _ _ _ mrdo. A — a 8 5 2 2 a m. a e .2 __ r - p I w I ééé I19 *EI fab gure IX. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 6 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent wheat protein during the first diet series; A percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein, 2 percent millet protein during the second diet series. 111 3 mn an .3 m _ « a «I .L asoao. .kzmz_dmaxm Lo m 42. u 6 am am Mm mm .m _+ 3 pm cum mm ..m 3 Pa mm mm G M. m. iJ w w .Inu _ _ _ a a We a a ‘I I: -5: 9 L3. H IL 1.3. 16m, 165 1,99 WVUfl NI log 6 153 led - Ncfifi’m Ib-U—II—II—IL. I— 4 :- g (I I I I I I I a 3 § Figure X. Growth curves showing weights of individual rats fed 5 percent mung bean protein, 2 percent rice protein, 2 percent corn protein, 1 percent wheat protein during the first diet series; h percent mung bean protein, 2 per- cent rice protein, 2 percent sunflower seed protein and 2 percent sudan grass protein during the second diet series. 112 e _ .1“ .kzmiiawa $.32 20 mm cm mm mm .m I4 - A q q n it a 6 m a _ 4 w x A A009 1 .8. M l 3 i: 1f o: I J z iHS i 2 N I _~.._ ~&‘ liq" '9 r’..l3 . HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES IIII II I IIII I 9 312 3008363024