Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Growth performance and nutrient digestibility of grower and finisher pigs fed diets containing non-genetically modified soybean meal

  • Kyoung, Hyunjin (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Park, Sangwoo (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Jeong Jae (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kang, Joowon (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Ki (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Choe, Jeehwan (Department of Beef Science, Korea National College of Agriculture and Fisheries) ;
  • Song, Minho (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2020.02.13
  • Accepted : 2020.03.10
  • Published : 2020.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study assessed the effects of a dietary non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) source on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of grower-finisher pigs. The dietary treatments were 1) rice-soybean meal-based control diet and 2) rice and non-GMO soybean meal-based diet. In the experiment 1, 60 growing pigs (initial body weight [BW] = 23.76 ± 3.42 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dietary treatments with 6 pigs·pen-1 (5 replications) for 6 weeks. In experiment 2, 48 finishing pigs (initial BW = 64.31 ± 6.17 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups with 4 pigs·pen-1 (6 replications) for 6 weeks. Measurements were the average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), gain-to-feed ratio (G : F), and nutrient digestibility. The growth performance was measured at the beginning and end of each period. The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) was determined by chromium oxide as an indigestible marker during the last 7 days of each experiment. During the grower period, pigs fed the diet containing the non-GMO soybean meal had a higher (p < 0.05) ADFI than those fed the control diet; however, there were no differences between the dietary treatments in the ADG, G : F, and ATTD. Moreover, the dietary treatments did not affect the ATTD and growth performance of the finishing pigs. In conclusion, the inclusion of non-GMO soybean meal in the diet had no negative effects on the growth rate and nutrient digestibility, indicating that non-GMO soybean meal can be used in diet formulations with other feed ingredients and be a substitute for conventional soybean meal.

Keywords

References

  1. Adeola O. 2001. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. In Swine Nutrition (2nd) edited by Lewis AJ, Southern LL. pp. 903-916. CRC Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  2. Adeola O, Cowieson AJ. 2011. Opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzymes to improve nonruminant animal production. Journal of Animal Science 89:3189-3218. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3715
  3. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2007. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, USA.
  4. Cervantes-Pahm SK, Liu Y, Stein HH. 2014. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients and faermentability of dietary fiber in eight cereal grains fed to pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 94:841-849. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6316
  5. Che TM, Perez VG, Song M, Pettigrew JE. 2012. Effect of rice and other cereal grains on growth performance, pig removal, and antibiotic treatment of weaned pigs under commercial conditions. Journal of Animal Science 90:4916-4924. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4916
  6. Close WH. 1996. Modelling the growing pig: Predicting nutrient needs and responses. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry edited by Lyons TP, Jacques KA. pp. 289-297. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
  7. De Santis B, Stockhofe N, Wal JM, Weesendorp E, Lalles JP, van Dijk J, Kok E, De Giacomo M, Einspanier R, Onori R, Brera C, Bikker P, Meulen JVD, Kleter G. 2018. Case studies on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Potential risk scenarios and associated health indicators. Food and Chemical Toxicology 117:36-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.033
  8. De Vos CJ, Swanenburg M. 2018. Health effects of feeding genetically modified (GM) crops to livestock animals: A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 117:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.031
  9. Domingo JL. 2016. Safety assessment of GM plants: An updated review of the scientific literature. Food and Chemical Toxicology 95:12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.06.013
  10. EFSA G. 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology: An International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 46:S2-S70.
  11. Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K. 2005. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Archives of Animal Nutrition 59:1-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450390512331342368
  12. Friedman M, Brandon DL. 2001. Nutritional and health benefits of soy proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49:1069-1086. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0009246
  13. He X, de Brum PAR, Chukwudebe A, Privalle L, Reed A, Wang Y, Zhou C, Wang C, Lu J, Huang K, Contri D, Nakatani A, de Avila VS, Klein CH, de Lima GJMM, Lipscomb EA. 2016. Rat and poultry feeding studies with soybean meal produced from imidazolinone-tolerant (CV127) soybeans. Food and Chemical Toxicology 88:48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2015.12.012
  14. Hollis GR, Curtis SE. 2001. General characteristics of the US swine industry. In Swine Nutrition (2nd) edited by Lewis AJ, Southern LL. pp. 19-30. CRC Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  15. Khalique A, Lone KP, Khan AD, Pasha TN. 2005. Treatments effect on biological values of defatted rice polishings. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 19:209-216. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.209
  16. Kil DY, Kim BG, Stein HH. 2013. Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26:1205-1217. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.r.02
  17. Kil DY, Stein HH. 2010. Invited review: Management and feeding strategies to ameliorate the impact of removing antibiotic growth promoters from diets fed to weanling pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90:447-460. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas10028
  18. Kim JC, Mullan BP, Hampson DJ, Rijnen MMJA, Pluske JR. 2007. The digestible energy and net energy content of two varieties of processed rice in pigs of different body weight. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134:316-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.09.016
  19. Kim J, Seo J, Kim W, Yun HM, Kim SC, Jang Y, Jang K, Kim K, Kim B, Park S, Park I, Kim MK, Seo KS, Kim HB, Kim IH, Seo S, Song M. 2015. Effects of palm kernel expellers on productive performance, nutrient digestibility, and white blood cells of lactating sows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28:1150-1154. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0908
  20. Li Q, Patience JF. 2017. Factors involved in the regulation of feed and energy intake of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 233:22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.01.001
  21. Li Y, Chen L, Zhang Y, Wu J, Lin Y, Fang Z, Che L, Xu S, Wu D. 2018. Substitution of soybean meal with detoxified Jatropha curcas kernel meal: Effects on performance, nutrient utilization, and meat edibility of growing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31:888-898. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0499
  22. Noblet J, Fortune H, Shi XS, Dubois S. 1994. Prediction of net energy value of feeds for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72:344-354. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.722344x
  23. NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th ed. National Academies Press, Washington D.C., USA.
  24. Nyachoti CM, Zijlstra RT, Lange CFM de, Patience JF. 2004. Voluntary feed intake in growing-finishing pigs: A review of the main determining factors and potential approaches for accurate predictions. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84:549-566. https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-001
  25. Park S, Kim B, Kim Y, Kim S, Jang K, Kim Y, Park J, Song M, Oh S. 2016. Nutrition and feed approach according to pig physiology. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43:750-760. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20160078
  26. Stein HH, Lagos LV, Casas GA. 2016. Nutritional value of feed ingredients of plant origin fed to pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 218:33-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.003
  27. Suh DH, Moss CB. 2017. Decompositions of corn price effects: Implications for feed grain demand and livestock supply. Agricultural Economics 48:491-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12350
  28. Tsatsakis AM, Nawaz MA, Kouretas D, Balias G, Savolainen K, Tutelyan VA, Golokhvast KS, Lee JD, Yang SH, Chung G. 2017. Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review. Environmental Research 156:818-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.011
  29. Valencia DG, Serrano MP, Lazaro R, Latorre MA, Mateos GG. 2008. Influence of micronization (fine grinding) of soya bean meal and fullfat soya bean on productive performance and digestive traits in young pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147:340-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.01.011
  30. Van Lunen TA, Cole DJA. 2001. Energy-amino acid interactions in modern pig genotypes. In Recent Developments in Pig Nutrition 3 edited by Wiseman J, Garnsworthy PC. pp. 439-466. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
  31. Velayudhan DE, Kim IH, Nyachoti CM. 2015. Characterization of dietary energy in swine feed and feed ingredients: A review of recent research results. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28:1-13. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0001R
  32. Vicente B, Valencia DG, Perez-Serrano M, Lazaro R, Mateos GG. 2008. The effects of feeding rice in substitution of corn and the degree of starch gelatinization of rice on the digestibility of dietary components and productive performance of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86:119-126. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-697
  33. Williams CH, David DJ, Iismaa O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The Journal of Agricultural Science 59:381-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960001546X
  34. Woyengo TA, Beltranena E, Zijlstra RT. 2014. Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: A review. Journal of Animal Science 92:1293-1305. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7169
  35. Zhang C, Wohlhueter R, Zhang H. 2016. Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness 5:116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002
  36. Zheng S, Qin G, Tian H, Sun Z. 2014. Role of soybean $\beta$-conglycinin subunits as potential dietary allergens in piglets. The Veterinary Journal 199:434-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.11.020