Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:39:15.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of cereal type and exogenous enzyme supplementation in pig diets on nutrient digestibility, intestinal microflora, volatile fatty acid concentration and manure ammonia emissions from finisher pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J.M. O'Connell ,
T. Sweeney ,
J. J. Callan  and
J. V. O'Doherty
J.M. O'Connell
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
T. Sweeney
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
J. J. Callan
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
J. V. O'Doherty*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
*
†E-mail: john.vodoherty@ucd.ie
Get access

Abstract

A 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted to investigate the interaction between cereal type (wheat v. barley) and an exogenous enzyme supplement (with or without) on nutrient digestibility, large intestinal microflora, volatile fatty acid profile and in vitro manure ammonia emissions from finisher pigs. The enzyme supplement used contained endo-1, 3-β-glucanase (EC 3·2·1·6) and endo-1, 4-β-xylanase (EC 3·2·1·8). The diets were formulated to contain similar concentrations of net energy (9·8 MJ/kg) and lysine (10·0 g/kg). Urine and faeces were collected over seven consecutive days from 16 boars (four boars per treatment, 80·0 kg live weight) that were housed in metabolism crates. After collections, the pigs were slaughtered and the contents of the intestinal tracts were removed for analysis. There was a significant interaction between cereal type and enzyme inclusion in the apparent total tract digestibility of dry matter (DMD), organic matter (OMD) and nitrogen. The inclusion of an enzyme supplement in barley-based diets increased (P < 0·05) DMD, OMD and nitrogen digestibility compared with unsupplemented diets, however there was no effect of enzyme supplementation in wheat-based diets. There was a significant interaction between cereal type and enzyme inclusion in selected components of the gut microflora. Pigs offered unsupplemented barley-based diets had higher populations of bifidobacteria (P < 0·05) in the caecum and colon than those on the enzyme supplemented barley diet, however, there was no effect of enzyme supplementation on bifidobacteria in wheat-based diets. There was a significant interaction between cereal type and enzyme inclusion in volatile fatty acid production and in in vitro ammonia emissions. In the absence of an enzyme supplement, barley-based diets reduced the proportion of isovaleric acid (P < 0·05) and isobutyric acid (P < 0·05) in the caecum and colon and also reduced manure ammonia emissions during storage from 0 to 240 h (P < 0·05) compared with the wheat-based diet, however there was no effect of cereal type in enzyme-supplemented diets. In conclusion, the inclusion of an enzyme in barley-based diets increased nutrient digestibility but also increased ammonia emissions.

Keywords

ammoniacerealsenzymesmicrobiologypigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 357 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Autio, K., Mannonen, I., Pierila, K., Kosinken, M., Siika-aho, M. and Linko, M. 1996 Incubation of barley kernel sections with purified cell wall degrading enzymes. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 102: 427–432.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E. 1991. Breakdown of plant polysaccharides in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. In Digestive physiology in pigs, proceedings of the Vth international symposium on digestive physiology in pigs (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A., Huisman, J. and den Hartog, L. A.), pp. 428–434. Purdoc Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E. and Hansen, I. 1991. Gastrointestinal implications in pigs of wheat and oat fractions. 1. Digestibility and bulking properties of polysaccharides and other major constituents. British Journal of Nutrition 65: 217–232.Google Scholar
Bedford, M. R. 2000. Exogenous enzymes in monogastric nutrition – their current value and future benefits. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86: 1–13.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. L. and Bedford, M. R. 1992. Enzyme applications for monogastric feeds: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canh, T. T., Sutton, A. L., Aarnink, A. J. A., Verstegen, M. W. A., Schrama, J. W. and Bakker, G. C. M. 1998. Dietary carbohydrates alter the faecal composition and pH and the ammonia emission from slurry of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1887–1895.Google Scholar
Choct, M. 1997. Feed non-starch polysaccharides: chemical structures and nutritional significance. Feed Milling International 06 1997: 13–26.Google Scholar
Close, W. H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. 1957. Microdiffusion analysis and volumetric error. Crosby Lockwood and Son, London.Google Scholar
De Lange, C. F. M. 2000. Characterisation of the non-starch polysaccharides. In Feed evaluation – principals and practice (ed. Moughan, P. J., Verstegen, M. W. A. and Visser-Reyneveld, M. I.), pp. 77–92. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Derikx, P. J. L. and Aarnink, A. J. A. 1993. Reduction of ammonia emission from manure by application of liquid top layers. In Nitrogen flow in pig production and environmental consequences (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A., den Hartog, L. A., van Kempen, G. J. M. and Metz, J. H. M.), EAAP publication no. 69, pp. 344–349. Purdoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dierick, N. and Decuypere, J. 1996. Mode of action of exogenous enzymes in growing pig nutrition. Pig News and Information 17: 41N–48N.Google Scholar
Drew, M. D., Van Kessel, A. G., Estrada, A. E., Ekpe, E. D. and Zijlstra, R. T. 2003. Effect of dietary cereal on intestinal bacterial populations in weaned pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82: 607–609.Google Scholar
European Council. 2001. Commission regulation (EC) no. 418/2001 of 1 March 2001 concerning the authorisation of new additives and uses of additives in feedingstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L62: 2·1·2001.Google Scholar
Gao, Y., Lackeyram, D., Rideout, T., Archbold, T., Duns, G., Fan, M. Z., Squires, E. J., De Lange, C. F. M. and Smith, T. K. 2001. Effects of dietary supplementation of exogenous fibre on the faecal excretion of major odour causing volatile compounds in pigs. In Digestive physiology in pigs, proceedings of the eighth symposium on digestive physiology in pigs (ed. Lindberg, J. E. and Ogle, B.), pp. 338–340. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Graham, H. and Pettersson, D. 1992. A note on the effect of a beta-glucanase and a multi-enzyme on production in broiler chicks fed a barley-based diet. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 22: 39–42.Google Scholar
Ho, T. K. H. 2000. Effect of yeast glucans on the gastrointestinal microflora of mice. Ph. D. thesis, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Hobbs, P. J., Misslebrook, T. H. and Pain, B. F. 1995. Assessment of odours from livestock wastes by a photoionization detector, an electronic nose, olfactometry and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 60: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaskari, J., Kontula, P., Siitonen, A., Jousimeies-Somer, H., Mattila-Sandholm, T. and Poutanen, K. 1998. Oat beta-glucan and xylan hydrolysates as selective substrates for Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus strains. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology 49: 175–181.Google Scholar
Jaskari, J., Salovaara, H., Mattilla-Sandholm, T. and Putanen, K. 1993. The effect of oat β-glucan on growth of selective Lactobacillus spp and Bifidobacterium spp. Proceedings of the 25th Nordic cereal congress (ed. Aalto-Kaarlehto, T. and Salovaara, H.), pp. 242–244. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. B. and Jørgensen, H. 1994. Effect of dietary fiber on microbial activity and microbial gas production in various regions of the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Applied Environmental Microbiology 60: 1897–1904.Google Scholar
Leek, A. B. G. 2003 Nutritional approaches to limiting nitrogen, ammonia and odour emissions from growing and finishing pigs. Ph.D. thesis, National University of Ireland, University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Leek, A. B. G., Beattie, V. E. and O'Doherty, J. V. 2004. The effects of dietary oil inclusion and oil source on apparent digestibility, faecal volatile fatty acid concentration and manure ammonia emission. Animal Science 79: 155–164.Google Scholar
Mackie, R. I., Stroot, P. G. and Varel, V. H. 1998. Biological identification and biological origin of key odour compounds in livestock waste. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1331–1342.Google Scholar
Mathers, J. C. and Annison, E. F. 1993. Stoichiometry of polysaccharide fermentation in the large intestine. In Dietary fibre and beyond – Australian perspectives (ed. Samman, S. and Annison, G.), Nutrition Society of Australia occasional publication, Perth, Australia, pp. 123–125.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1991. The feedingstuffs regulations 1991. Statutory instrument no. 2840, 9. 76. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Mroz, Z., Moeser, A. J., Vreman, K., Diepen van, J. T. M., Kempen van, T., Canh, T. T. and Jongbloed, A. W. 2000. Effects of dietary carbohydrates and buffering capacity on nutrient digestibility and manure characteristics in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78: 3096–3106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nahm, K. H. 2003. Influence of fermentable carbohydrates on shifting nitrogen excretion and reducing ammonia emission of pigs. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 30: 165–186.Google Scholar
Pettersson, D. and Aman, P. 1989. Enzyme supplementation of a poultry diet containing rye and wheat. British Journal of Nutrition 62: 139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitcairn, C. E. R., Skiba, U. M., Sutton, M. A., Fowler, D., Munro, R. and Kennedy, V. 2002. Defining the spatial impacts of poultry farm ammonia emissions on species composition of adjacent woodland groundflora using Ellenberg Nitrogen Index, nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emission and foliar nitrogen as marker variables. Environmental Pollution 119: 9–21.Google Scholar
Pluske, J. R., Kim, J. C., McDonald, D. E., Pethick, D. W. and Hampson, D. J. 2001. Non-starch polysaccharides in the diets of young piglets. In The weaner pig: nutrition and management (ed. Varley, M. A. and Wiseman, J.), pp. 81–111. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Porter, M. G. and Murray, R. S. 2001. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven drying and the inter-relationship between dry-matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass and Forage Science 56: 405–411.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Just, A., Jorgensen, H. H., Fekadu, M. and Eggum, B. O. 1980. The influence of diet composition on the apparent digestibility of crude protein and amino acids at the terminal ileum and overall in pigs. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 30: 449–459.Google Scholar
Schmitz, W. 1995. NSP degrading feed enzymes in pig nutrition: a facility to save feed formulation costs, to improve growth performance and to decrease environmental pollution. Proceedings of the second European symposium on feed enzymes (ed. van Hartingsveld, W., Hessing, M., van der Lugt, J. P. and Somers, W. A. C.), pp. 95–101. TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smith, E. A. and MacFarlane, G. T. 1997. Dissimilatory amino acid metabolism in human colonic bacteria. Anaerobe 3: 327–337.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M. 1960. Modifications of two methods for the assay of amylase. Clinical Chemistry 6: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanogias, G. and Pearce, G. R. 1985. The digestion of fibre by pigs. 3. Effects of the amount and type of fibre on physical characteristics of segments of the gastrointestinal tract. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 537–548.Google Scholar
Statistics Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. Statistical analysis systems version 6. 12. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Theander, O., Westerlund, E., Åman, P. and Graham, H. 1989. Plant cell walls and monogastric diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 23: 205–225.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varel, V. H. 1987. Activity of fibre degrading microorganisms in the pig large intestine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 488–496.Google Scholar