Dear researcher, your idea is worth it to me
Many researchers have reported the adverse effects of anti-nutrients on animal physiology. Many researchers also define it as having only a negative effect. Dr . Jacquie Jacob of the University of Kentucky defines anti-nutrients as substances that reduce the availability of one or more nutrients when contained in animal feed or water. According to (Huisman J. and Tolman GH, 200), anti-nutrient factors were classified based on the nutritional value of the feed and its effect on the biological response of animals. In recent years, there has been increasing research related to the benefits of some anti-nutrients when included in the diet, primarily as a natural alternative to the use of antibiotic growth promoters. Some of these phytochemicals have been shown to be harmful or clearly beneficial to human and animal health when consumed in modest amounts.
So my concern is why Researchers focused only on the negative side?????
One explanation might be that negative effects have been observed already decades ago e.g soybean trypsin inhibitor and negative effects are easy to be demonstrated. Positive effects are often much harder to demonstrate. And remember the dose always determines whether a substance shows adverse effects.
Dear colleague:
As example. There are a lot of information about benefits of using some plants rich in tannin as efficient source of protein for ruminants nutrition. In RG you can find some papers on that subject.
Best regards,
Redimio
The negative effects are often the most obvious. Study may finally reveal positive effects. E.g. Phytoestrogens can have positive benefits in meat production systems. Refer lit review in 'Agriculture' 2016: "Fertility of herbivores consuming phytoestrogen-containing Medicago and Trifolium species".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts