Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Methodology effects on determining the energy concentration and the apparent total tract digestibility of components in diets fed to growing pigs

  • Huang, Chengfei (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Li, Ping (Institute of Animal Science, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Ma, Xiaokang (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Jaworski, Neil William (Trouw Nutrition) ;
  • Stein, Hans-Henrik (Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois) ;
  • Lai, Changhua (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhao, Jinbiao (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Shuai (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2017.10.16
  • Accepted : 2018.01.26
  • Published : 2018.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of different diet formulations: F1 (Two complicated basal diets containing different crude protein levels plus tested feedstuff) vs F2 (A simple corn soybean meal [SBM] basal diet plus tested feedstuff) combined with total collection (TC) or chromic oxide ($Cr_2O_3$) marker or acid-insoluble ash (AIA) marker method, and freeze-dry or oven-dry (OD) technique on estimation of nutrient digestibility in diets fed to growing pigs. Methods: In F1, twelve barrows were allocated to two $6{\times}4$ Youden Squares. The treatment diets included a high protein basal (HPB) diet, a low protein basal (LPB) diet, a corn diet and a wheat bran (WB) diet formulated based on the HPB diet, and a SBM diet and a rapeseed meal (RSM) diet formulated based on the LPB diet. In F2, eight barrows were allocated to two $4{\times}4$ Latin Squares. The treatment diets included a corn basal diet, a SBM basal diet formulated based on the corn diet, and a WB diet and a RSM diet formulated based on the SBM diet. Results: Concentration of digestible (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME), and the apparent total tract digestibility of gross energy, ash, neutral detergent fibre, and acid detergent fibre determined by $Cr_2O_3$ marker method were greater than those determined by TC and AIA marker methods in HPB, LPB, and RSM diets formulated by F1 and in corn diet formulated by F2 (p<0.05). The DE values in WB and both DE and ME values in SBM and RSM estimated using F1 were greater than those estimated using F2 (p<0.05). Conclusion: From the accuracy aspect, the AIA marker or TC method combined with OD technique is recommended for determining the energy concentration and nutrient digestibility of components in diets fed to growing pigs.

Keywords

References

  1. Adeola O, Bajjalieh NL. Energy concentration of high-oil corn varieties for pigs. J Anim Sci 1997;75:430-6. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.752430x
  2. Pedersen C, Boersma MG, Stein HH. Energy and nutrient digestibility in NutriDense corn and other cereal grains fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2007;85:2473-83. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-620
  3. Pan L, Li P, Ma XK, et al. Tannin is a key factor in the determination and prediction of energy content in sorghum grains fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2016;94:2879-89. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0457
  4. Young LG, Ashton GC, Smith GC. Estimating the energy value of some feeds for pigs using regression equations. J Anim Sci 1977;44:765-71. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1977.445765x
  5. Kong C, Adeola O. Invited review: Evaluation of amino acid and energy utilization in feedstuff for swine and poultry diets. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014;27:917-25. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.r.02
  6. May RW, Bell JM. Digestible and metabolizable energy values of some feeds for the growing pigs. Can J Anim Sci 1971;51:271-8. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas71-040
  7. Widyaratne GP, Zijlstra RT. Nutritional value of wheat and corn distiller’s dried grain with solubles: Digestibility and digestible contents of energy, amino acids and phosphorus, nutrient excretion and growth performance of grower-finisher pigs. Can J Anim Sci 2007;87:103-14. https://doi.org/10.4141/A05-070
  8. Li YS, Tran H, Bundy JW, Burkey TE, Kerr BJ, Nielsen MK, Miller PS. Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets. J Anim Sci 2016;94:2415-24. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0275
  9. Agudelo JH, Lindemann MD, Cromwell GL. A comparison of two methods to assess nutrient digestibility in pigs. Livest Sci 2010;133:74-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.06.029
  10. Bakker GCM, Jongbloed AW. The effect of housing system on apparent digestibility in pigs, using the classical and marker (chromic oxide, acid-insoluble ash) techniques, in relation to dietary composition. J Sci Food Agric 1994;64:107-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740640116
  11. Kavanagh S, Lynch PB, O’Mara F, Caffrey PJ. A comparison of total collection and marker technique for the measurement of apparent digestibility of diets for growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001;89:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00237-6
  12. Hodgkinson SM, Schmidt M, Ulloa N. Comparison of the digestible energy content of maize, oats and alfalfa between the European wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) and Landrace ${\times}$ Large White pig (Sus scrofa domesticus). Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008; 144:167-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.10.006
  13. McCarthy JF, Aherne FX, Okai DB. Use of HCl insoluble ash as an index material for determining apparent digestibility with pigs. Can J Anim Sci 1974;54:107-9. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas74-016
  14. Fahey GCJ, Jung HG. Lignin as a marker in digestion studies: a review. J Anim Sci 1983;57: 220-5. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1983.571220x
  15. 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.
  16. Jacobs BM, Patience JF, Dozier WA, Stalder KJ, Kerr BJ. Effects of drying methods on nitrogen and energy concentrations in pig feces and urine, and poultry excreta. J Anim Sci 2011;89:2624-30. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3768
  17. Dale NM, Fuller HL, Pesti GM. Freeze drying versus oven drying of excreta in true metabolizable energy, nitrogen-corrected true metabolizable energy, and true amino acid availability bioassays. Poult Sci 1985;64:362-5. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0640362
  18. NRC. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th reved. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2012.
  19. AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 18th reved. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2006.
  20. Thiex NJ, Anderson S, Gildemeister B. Crude fat, diethyl ether extraction, in feed, cereal grains, and forage (Randall/Soxtec/Submersion method): Collaborative study. J AOAC Int 2003;86:888-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/86.5.888
  21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  22. Zhang L, Li YK, Li ZC, Li QF, Lyu MB, Li DF, Lai CH. The nutritive values in different varieties of corn planted in one location fed to growing pigs over three consecutive years. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2016;29:1768-73. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0052
  23. Chen YF, Wu F, Li PL, et al. Energy content and amino acid digestibility of flaxseed expellers fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2016;94:5295-307. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0578
  24. Atkinson JL, Hilton JW, Slinger SJ. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as an indicator of feed digestibility in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1984;46:1384-6.
  25. Jagger S, Wiseman J, Cole DJA, Craigon J. Evaluation of inert markers for the determination of ileal and faecal apparent digestibility values in the pig. Br J Nutr 1992;68:729-39. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19920129
  26. Yin YL, McEvoy JDG, Schulze H, McCracken KJ. Studies on cannulation method and alternative indigestible markers and the effects of food enzyme supplementation in barley-based diets on ileal and overall apparent digestibility in growing pigs. Anim Sci 2000;70:63-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800051602
  27. Noblet J. Digestive and metabolic utilization of feed energy in swine: Application to energy evaluation systems. J Appl Anim Res 2000;17:113-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2000.9706295
  28. Wunsche J, Borgmann E, Souffrant S, Henning U, Souffrant U. Assessment of nutrient digestibility and energetic feed value of diets for growing-finishing pigs on farm conditions using HCl-insoluble ash as marker. Arch Tierz 1991; 34:561-7.
  29. Wallis I, Balnave D. A comparison of different drying techniques for energy and amino acid analyses of poultry excreta. Br Poult Sci 1983;24:255-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668308416737
  30. Jorgensen H, Sauer WC, Thacker PA. Amino acid availabilities in soybean meal, sunflower meal, fish meal and meat and bone meal fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 1984;58:926-34. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1984.584926x
  31. Wilfart A, Montagne L, Simmins PH, Van Milgen J, Noblet J. Sites of nutrient digestion in growing pigs: Effect of dietary fibre. J Anim Sci 2007;85:976-83. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-431
  32. Urriola PE, Stein HH. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in fibrous feed ingredients fed to Meishan and Yorkshire pigs. J Anim Sci 2012;90:802-12. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3254

Cited by

  1. Effects of Optimal Carbohydrase Mixtures on Nutrient Digestibility and Digestible Energy of Corn- and Wheat-Based Diets in Growing Pigs vol.10, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101846
  2. Methodologies for energy evaluation of pig and poultry feeds: A review vol.8, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.06.015