Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:08:52.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding value of pea (Pisum sativum, L.) 2. Nutritional value in the pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. Grosjean ,
D. Bastianelli ,
A. Bourdillon ,
P. Cerneau ,
C. Jondreville  and
C. Peyronnet
F. Grosjean
Affiliation:
Institut Technique des Céréales et Fourrages, 8 avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris, France
D. Bastianelli
Affiliation:
Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Plantes riches en Protéines, 12 avenue George V, 75008 Paris, France
A. Bourdillon
Affiliation:
Sanders, BP 32, 17 quai de l'industrie, 91201 Athis Mons, France
P. Cerneau
Affiliation:
Sanders, BP 32, 17 quai de l'industrie, 91201 Athis Mons, France
C. Jondreville
Affiliation:
Institut Technique des Céréales et Fourrages, 8 avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris, France
C. Peyronnet
Affiliation:
Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Plantes riches en Protéines, 12 avenue George V, 75008 Paris, France
Get access

Abstract

Nineteen round white-feed peas (FP) varieties, six coloured-flowered peas (CP) varieties and four wrinkled white-flowered peas (WP) varieties were given to growing pigs in order to measure their feeding value. Mean values of energy apparent digestibility measured at the faecal level of FP, CP and WP were respectively 0·886, 0·812 and 0·823. Mean values for digestible energy were 16·34, 1506 and 15·60 M]l kg dry matter. Mean values of faecal apparent digestibility of protein were 0·840, 0·760 and 0·828. The lower energy and crude protein (CP) apparent digestibility of CP relative to FP can be explained by their higher fibre content and by the presence of condensed tannins whilst the lower energy and CP apparent digestibility in WP relative to FP can be explained by their higher fibre content, their lower starch content and their higher amylosel amylopectine ratio. Among the feed peas, there was no difference between peas with low trypsin inhibitor activity and peas with medium trypsin inhibitor activity.

Keywords

digestibilitypeaspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , December 1998 , pp. 621 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Bastianelli, D., Grosjean, F., Peyronnet, C., Duparque, M. and Regnier, J. M. 1998. Feeding value of pea (Pisum sativum, L.). 1. Chemical composition of different categories of pea. Animal Science. 67: 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengala Freire, J., Aumaitre, A. and Peiniau, J. 1991a. Effects of feeding raw and extruded peas on ileal digestibility, pancreatic enzymes and plasma glucose and insulin in early weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 65: 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengala Freire, J., Aumaitre, A., Peiniau, J. and Lebreton, Y. 1991b. Apparent ileal digestibility of starch and oc-galactosides from peas by early weaned pigs: effect of extrusion. In Digestive physiology in pigs (ed. Verstegen, M. W. A, Huisman, J. and Hartog, L. A. den), pp. 395–400. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bourdon, D., Jung, J. and Perez, J. M. 1977. Valeur energetique et azotee de differentes varietes de pois pour le pore. Journees Recherche Porcine en France. 9: 265–269.Google Scholar
Colonna, P., Buleon, A. and Doublier, J. L. 1992. Structural features of smooth and wrinkled pea starches. In Proceedings of the first European conference on grain Angers, France, pp. 401–402.Google Scholar
Fan, M. Z., Sauer, W. C. and Jaikaran, S. 1994. Amino acid and energy digestibility in peas from white-flowered cultivars for growing pigs. Journal of the Science of Food Agriculture. 64: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gâala, J., Buraczewska, L. and Grala, W. 1992. The chemical composition of different types and varieties of pea and the digestion of their protein in pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. 1: 71–79.Google Scholar
Gatel, F. and Grosjean, F. 1990. Composition and nutritive value of peas for pigs: a review of European results. Livestock Production Science 26: 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauschild, A. and Kohler, R. 1991. Influence of dietary fibre on digestibility of protein and organic matter of different pea genotypes in growing pigs. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on protein metabolism and nutrition, Herning, Denmark, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
Hlödversson, R. 1987a. The nutritional value of dark and white flowered cultivars of pea for growing-finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 17: 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hlödversson, R. 1987b. Comparison of the nutritional value of dark and white flowered cultivars of pea for growing-finishing pigs. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 17: 97–101.Google Scholar
Jondreville, C., Grosjean, F., Buron, G., Peyronnet, C. and Beneytout, J. L. 1992. Comparison of four pea varieties in pig feeding through digestibility and growth performance results. Journal of Animal Physiolology and Animal Nutrition 68: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leterme, P., Montmart, T. and Thewis, A. 1990. Trypsin inhibitors in peas: varietal effect and influence on digestibility of crude protein by growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 28: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, S. and Hakansson, J. 1986. Nutritional and growth studies with pea-crop meals and peas for growing-finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 16: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, J. M. and Bourdon, D. 1992. Energy and protein value of peas for pigs: synthesis of French results. In Proceedings of the first European conference on grain Angers, France, pp. 489–490.Google Scholar
Roth Maier, D. A. and Kirchgessner, M. 1990. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Futterwert von Palerbsen und Markerbsen bei Rind und Schwein. Agribiological Research 43: 225–233.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1988. User's guide. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar