DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Partial dehulling increases the energy content and nutrient digestibility of barley in growing pigs

  • Wang, Hong Liang (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Shi, Meng (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Xu, Xiao (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Pan, Long (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Liu, Ling (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Piao, Xiang Shu (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Centre, China Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2016.06.02
  • Accepted : 2016.08.14
  • Published : 2017.04.01

Abstract

Objective: The hull attached to the barley kernel can be mechanically removed thus reducing the fiber content of the barley. This experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of partial dehulling on the nutrient digestibility as well as the digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) content of barley in pigs. Methods: Two hulled barley samples (high fiber barley [HF] and low fiber barley [LF]) with either high or low fiber contents were obtained from the Hubei and Jiangsu Provinces of China. A portion of the two barleys was mechanically dehulled (dehulled high fiber barley [DHF] and dehulled low fiber barley [DLF]). Thirty barrows (initial $BW=31.5{\pm}3.2kg$) were assigned to one of five diets in a randomized complete block design. The five diets consisted of 96.9% corn, HF, LF, DHF, or DLF supplemented with 3.1% minerals and vitamins. Each diet was fed to six barrows housed in individual metabolism crates for a 10-d acclimation period followed by a 5-day total but separate collection of feces and urine. Results: The daily loss of gross energy (GE) in feces was lower (p<0.01) for pigs fed DHF than for those fed HF. The daily N intake and fecal N loss were lowest (p<0.01) for pigs fed the corn diet. The DE and ME as well as the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter, GE, organic matter, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of DHF or DLF were higher (p<0.01) than the values in HF and LF, respectively while the values except the ATTD of NDF and ADF in DLF were higher (p<0.01) than the values in DHF and were comparable to corn. Conclusion: The DE and ME contents as well as the ATTD of nutrients in both DHF and DLF barley were improved compared with the HF and LF barley. Moreover, the nutritive value of DLF barley was comparable to the yellow-dent corn used in the study.

Keywords

Barley;Dehulling;Digestible Energy;Metabolizable Energy;Nutrient Digestibility;Pigs

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. Newman CW, Newman RK. Nutritional aspects of barley as a livestock feed. Proc West Sec Am Soc Anim Sci 1990;41:99-107.
  2. Bach Knudsen KE. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997;67:319-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00009-6
  3. Fairbairn SL, Patience JF, Classen HL, Zijlstra RT. The energy content of barley fed to growing pigs: Characterizing the nature of its variability and developing prediction equations for its estimation. J Anim Sci 1999;77:1502-12. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7761502x
  4. NRC. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Swine. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2012.
  5. Woyengo TA, Beltranena E, Zijlstra RT. Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: A review. J Anim Sci 2014;92:1293-305. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7169
  6. Statista. Global Grain Production from 2008/2009 to 2014/2015. 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 29]. Available from: http://www.statista.com/statistics/271943/total-world-grain-production-since-2008-2009
  7. Baik BK, Ullrich SE. Barley for food: Characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. J Cereal Sci 2008;48:233-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2008.02.002
  8. Li P, Li DF, Zhang HY, et al. Determination and prediction of energy values in corn distillers dried grains with solubles sources with varying oil content for growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2015;93:3458-70. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8782
  9. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  10. Xiong Y, Bartle SJ, Preston RL. Improved enzymatic method to measure processing effects and starch availability in sorghum grain. J Anim Sci 1990;68:3861-70. https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.68113861x
  11. Prandini A, Sigolo S, Morlacchini M, Marocco A, Lo Pinto M. High-protein maize in diets for growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011;165:105-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.014
  12. Juskiw PE, Helm JH, Salmon DF. Breeding of feed grains for Western Canada. Am J Plant Sci Biotech 2011;5(Special Issue 1):64-77.
  13. Henry RJ. A comparison of the non-starch carbohydrates in cereal grains. J Sci Food Agric 1985;36:1243-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740361207
  14. Noblet J, Le Goff G. Effect of dietary fibre on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001;90:35-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00195-X
  15. Lynch MB, Sweeney I, Callan IJ, O'Doherty IV. Effects of increasing the intake of dietary ${\beta}$-glucans by exchanging wheat for barley on nutrient digestibility, nitrogen excretion, intestinal microflora, volatile fatty acid concentration and manure ammonia emissions in finishing pigs. Animal 2007;1:812-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000158
  16. Thacker PA, Rossnagel BG. Performance and carcass traits of finishing pigs fed low phosphorus containing diets based on normal hulled or hulless barley or a low-phytate hulless barley with and without phytase. J Anim Vet Adv 2006;5:401-7.
  17. Pedersen C, Boersma MG, Stein HH. Energy and nutrient digestibility in Nutri Dense corn and other cereal grains fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2007;85:2473-83. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-620
  18. Cervantes-Pahm SK, Liu Y, Stein HH. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients and fermentability of dietary fiber in eight cereal grains fed to pigs. J Sci Food Agric 2014;94:841-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6316
  19. Lin FD, Knabe DA, Tanksley Jr TD. Apparent digestibility of amino acids, gross energy and starch in corn, sorghum, wheat, barley, oat groats and wheat middlings for growing pigs. J Anim Sci 1987;64:1655-63. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.6461655x
  20. Jorgensen H, Gabert VM, Eggum BO. The nutritional value of high-lysine barley determined in rats, young pigs and growing pigs. J Sci Food Agric 1997;73:287-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199703)73:3<287::AID-JSFA721>3.0.CO;2-L
  21. Qiao SY, Thacker PA. A comparison of washed and unwashed bags to determine the apparent fecal digestibility of dry matter, energy and crude protein in feeds for swine using the mobile nylon bag technique. Can J Anim Sci 2001;81:371-8. https://doi.org/10.4141/A00-121
  22. Hennig U, Kuhla S, Souffrant WB, Tuchscherer A, Metges CC. Partial dehulling of barley effects the concentrations of both gross and ileal digestible amino acids in pigs. Livest Sci 2007;109:129-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.01.117
  23. Thacker PA, Bell JM, Classen HL, Campbell GL, Rossnagel BG. The nutritive value of hulless barley for swine. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1988;19:191-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(88)90067-3
  24. Bolarinwa OA, Adeola O. Regression and direct methods do not give different estimates of digestible and metabolizable energy values of barley, sorghum, and wheat for pigs. J Anim Sci 2016; 94:610-8.
  25. Thacker PA. Effect of micronization on the performance of growing/finishing pigs fed diets based on hulled and hulless barley. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1999;79:29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00018-8
  26. Adeola O, Bedford MR. Exogenous dietary xylanase ameliorates viscosity-induced anti-nutritional effects in wheat based diets for White Pekin ducks (Anas platyrinchos domesticus). Br J Nutr 2004;92:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041180
  27. Patience JF, Thacker PA, de Lange CFM. Swine nutrition guide (2nd Ed.). Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Prairie Swine Centre; 1995. pp 65-67.
  28. Wiseman J, Cole DJA, Lewis D. Energy values in pig nutrition. III. The digestible and metabolizable energy content of barley, wheat, maize, oats, and rye. J Agric Sci 1982;98:89-102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600041149
  29. Kennelly JJ, Aherne FX. The effect of fibre addition to diets formulated to contain different levels of energy and protein on growth and carcass quality of swine. Can J Anim Sci 1980;60:385-93. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas80-048
  30. Lawrence TLJ. Manipulation of the gut environment of pigs. In: Haresign W, Cole DJA, editors. Recent advances in animal nutrition. London: Butterworths; 1984. pp. 97-109.

Cited by

  1. Comparative energy content and amino acid digestibility of barley obtained from diverse sources fed to growing pigs vol.30, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0775