Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:59:50.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of standardized ileal crude protein and amino acid digestibilities in protein supplements for piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2009

R. Urbaityte ,
R. Mosenthin ,
M. Eklund ,
H.-P. Piepho  and
M. Rademacher
R. Urbaityte
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
R. Mosenthin*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Eklund
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
H.-P. Piepho
Affiliation:
Bioinformatics Unit, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Rademacher
Affiliation:
Evonik Degussa GmbH, Feed Additives, 63457 Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany
*
†E-mail: rhmosent@uni-hohenheim.de
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to determine standardized ileal digestibilities (SID) of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) in six ingredients commonly used in weanling pigs diets. The ingredients consisted of extruded soybeans (SBe), high-protein soybean meal (SBMhp), soy protein concentrate (SPC), hydrolyzed wheat gluten (WGh), conventional fish meal 1 (FM1) and extracted fish meal 2 (FM2e). Each assay feed ingredient was added to a purified cornstarch-based basal diet supplemented with casein and crystalline AA, and SID of CP and AA of assay ingredients were estimated using the difference method. A total of 12 3-week-old barrows were surgically fitted with T-cannulas at the distal ileum. The piglets were allocated to four simultaneous 3 × 3 Latin-square designs with three animals and three periods each, resulting in six observations per assay diet. After 3 to 5 days recovery from surgery, each assay diet was fed at a level of 30 g/kg body weight. Each experimental period consisted of 5 days for adaptation to the assay diets and 2 days for ileal digesta collection. The SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr and Trp were 73%, 78%, 76%, 66% and 71% in SBe; 80%, 84%, 87%, 75% and 81% in SBMhp; 86%, 89%, 89%, 78% and 83% in SPC; 87%, 60%, 88%, 76% and 79% in WGh; 87%, 92%, 94%, 86% and 86% in FM1; and 79%, 86%, 89%, 80% and 74% in FM2e, respectively. The greatest SID of indispensable AA were observed for FM1 and SPC (SID ⩾ 85% for most indispensable AA), followed by WGh, FM2e and SBMhp (SID ⩾ 80% for most indispensable AA) and the smallest SID were obtained for SBe (SID < 80% for most indispensable AA). The SID of CP and indispensable AA in both types of fish meal, SBMhp and WGh were similar to SPC (P = 0.063 to 0.855), except for Arg (P = 0.010) and Lys (P = 0.001) in WGh, and Phe (P = 0.044) and Trp (P = 0.037) in FM2e. The SID of CP and indispensable AA were smaller in SBe compared with SPC (P < 0.001 to P = 0.017), except for Lys (P = 0.136). The SID of CP and indispensable AA were consistently smaller in FM2e compared with FM1 with significant differences for CP (P = 0.035), Phe (P = 0.028) and Trp (P = 0.008). Digestibility values measured in the present study can be used to formulate diets for piglets based on standardized ileal digestible contents of CP and AA.

Keywords

amino acidsdifference methodpigletsstandardized ileal digestibility
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 12 , December 2009 , pp. 1696 - 1705
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

AmiPig 2000. Ileal standardised digestibility of amino acids in feedstuffs for pigs. Association Française de Zootechnie, Ajinomoto Eurolysine, Aventis Animal Nutrition, INRA, ITCF, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
American Oil Chemists’ Society 1997. Trypsin inhibitor activity (Method Ba 12-75). AOCS Press, Champaign, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
Brandt, M, Allam, SM 1987. Analytik von TiO2 im Darminhalt und Kot nach Kjeldahlaufschluß. Archives of Animal Nutrition 37, 453–454.Google Scholar
Brooks, PH, Tsourgiannis, CA 2003. Factors affecting the voluntary feed intake of the weaned pig. In Weaning the pig: concepts and consequences (ed. JR Pluske, J le Dividich and MWA Verstegen), pp. 81–116. Wageningen, Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Caine, WR, Sauer, WC, Tamminga, S, Verstegen, MWA, Schulze, H 1997a. Apparent ileal digestibilities of amino acids in newly weaned pigs fed diets with protease-treated soybean meal. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2962–2969.Google Scholar
Caine, WR, Tamminga, S, Verstegen, MWA, Sauer, WC, Schulze, H 1997b. Endogenous recoveries and true ileal digestibilities of amino acids in newly weaned pigs fed diets with protease-treated soybean meal. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2970–2979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chae, BJ, Han, IK, Kim, JH, Yang, CJ, Hancock, JD, Kim, IH, Anderson, DA 1999. Effects of dietary protein sources on ileal digestibility and growth performance for early-weaned pigs. Livestock Production Science 58, 45–54.Google Scholar
CVB 2003. Feed tables: feed composition, digestibility and nutritive value of feeds. Centraal Veevoederbureau, PUDOC, Lelystad, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Degussa 2006. AminoDat® 3.0. The amino acid composition of feedstuffs, 5th revised edition. Degussa AG, Feed Additives, Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany.Google Scholar
Diebold, G, Mosenthin, R, Sauer, WC, Dugan, MER, Lien, KA 2005. Supplementation of xylanase and phospholipase to wheat-based diets for weaner pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 89, 316–325.Google Scholar
Eklund, M 2007. Methodological considerations for the determination of standardised ileal amino acid digestibilities in piglets. PhD Thesis, University of Hohenheim, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund, M, Piepho, HP, Tafaj, M, Rademacher, M, Mosenthin, R 2006. Effect of dietary protein and amino acid level on apparent ileal protein and amino acid digestibilities in newly weaned pigs. In Proceedings of 10th International Symposium on Digestive Physiology in Pigs, Book of Abstracts No. 2.30, p. 23. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Vejle, Denmark.Google Scholar
Eklund, M, Mosenthin, R, Piepho, HP, Rademacher, M 2008a. Estimates of basal ileal endogenous losses of amino acids by regression analysis and determination of standardised ileal amino acid digestibilities from casein in newly weaned pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund, M, Mosenthin, R, Piepho, HP, Rademacher, M 2008b. Effect of dietary crude protein level on basal ileal endogenous losses and standardized ileal digestibilities of crude protein and amino acids in newly weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 92, 578–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Union Directive No. 98/64/EC 1998. Commission Directive of 3 September 1998 establishing Community methods of analysis for the determination of amino acids, crude oils and fats, and olaquindox in feedingstuffs and amending Directive 71/393/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities Series L257/14–L257/29.Google Scholar
European Union Directive No. 2000/45/EC 2000. Commission Directive of 6 July 2000 establishing Community methods of analysis for the determination of vitamin A, vitamin E and tryptophan in feedingstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities Series L174/32–L174/50.Google Scholar
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC 1995. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in barley and canola meal for pigs with the direct, difference, and regression methods. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2364–2374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC 1997. Determination of true ileal amino acid digestibility in feedstuffs for pigs with the linear relationships between distal ileal outputs and dietary inputs of amino acids. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 73, 189–199.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC, Hardin, RT, Lien, KA 1994. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs: effect of dietary amino acid level. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2851–2859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC, McBurney, MI 1995a. Estimation by regression analysis of endogenous amino acid levels in digesta collected from the distal ileum of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2319–2328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC, de Lange, CFM 1995b. Amino acid digestibility in soybean meal, extruded soybean and full-fat canola for early-weaned pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 52, 189–203.Google Scholar
Gabert, VM, Sauer, WC, Schmitz, M, Ahrens, F, Mosenthin, R 1995. The effect of formic acid and buffering capacity on the ileal digestibilities of amino acids and bacterial populations and metabolites in the small intestine of weanling pigs fed semipurified fish meal diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 75, 615–623.Google Scholar
GfE 2008. Recommendations for the supply of energy and nutrients to pigs (ed. W Staudacher). Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie (GFE), DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
Gottlob, RO, DeRouchey, JM, Tokach, MD, Goodband, RD, Dritz, SS, Nelssen, JL, Hastad, CW, Knabe, DA 2006. Amino acid and energy digestibility of protein sources for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1396–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huisman, J, Tolman, GH 2001. Antinutritional factors in the plant proteins of diets for non-ruminants. In Recent developments in pig nutrition 3 (ed. PC Garnsworthy and J Wiseman), pp. 261–291. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Jansman, AJM, Smink, W, van Leeuwen, P, Rademacher, M 2002. Evaluation through literature data of the amount and amino acid composition of basal endogenous crude protein at the terminal ileum of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 98, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, JN, Savage, GP 1987. Protein quality of New Zealand fish meals. New Zealand Journal of Technology 3, 123–128.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H, Gabert, VM 2001. The ileal digestion of semipurified diets containing increasing levels of casein and the use of the regression method to estimate the endogenous flow of amino acids at the distal ileum of growing pigs. In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Digestive Physiology in Pigs (ed. JE Lindberg and B Ogle), pp. 198–201. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.Google Scholar
Kim, SW, Easter, RA 2001. Nutritional value of fish meals in the diet for young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1829–1839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knabe, DA, LaRue, DC, Gregg, EJ, Martinez, GM, Tanksley, TD Jr 1989. Apparent digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in protein feedstuffs by growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 67, 441–458.Google Scholar
Li, S, Sauer, WC, Fan, MZ 1993. The effect of dietary crude protein level on amino acid digestibility in early-weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 70, 117–128.Google Scholar
Llames, CR, Fontaine, J 1994. Determination of amino acids in feeds: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 77, 1362–1402.Google Scholar
Lorz, A, Metzger, E 1999. Tierschutzgesetz: Tierschutzgesetz mit allgemeiner Verwaltungsvorschrift, Rechtsverordnungen und europäischen Übereinkommen, Kommentar, 5th edition. Beck Verlag, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Mason, VC, Weidner, K 1964. The effect of heat on the amino acid, fatty acid, and B-vitamin composition of fish meal. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 14, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosenthin, R, Rademacher, M 2003. Digestible amino acids in diet formulation for pigs. In Amino acids in animal nutrition (ed. JPF D’Mello), 2nd edition, pp. 169–186. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Moter, V, Stein, HH 2004. Effect of feed intake on endogenous losses and amino acid and energy digestibility by growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 3518–3525.Google Scholar
Naumann, C, Bassler, R 1997. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. In Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik, Methodenbuch (ed. C Naumann and R Bassler), 3rd edition. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
NRC 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Pedersen, C, Boisen, S 2002. Establishment of tabulated values for standardized ileal digestibility of crude protein and essential amino acids in common feedstuffs for pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 52, 121–140.Google Scholar
Piepho, HP 2004. An algorithm for a letter-based representation of all-pairwise comparisons. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 13, 456–466.Google Scholar
Qin, G, ter Elst, ER, Bosch, MW, van der Poel, AFB 1996. Thermal processing of whole soya beans: studies on the inactivation of antinutritional factors and effects on ileal digestibility in piglets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 313–324.Google Scholar
Rademacher, M, Sauer, WC, Jansman, AJM 2009. Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in pigs. Evonik Degussa GmbH, Feed Additives, Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 9. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Stein, HH, Pedersen, C, Wirt, AR, Bohlke, RA 2005. Additivity of values for apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in mixed diets fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2387–2395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Kempen, TATG, van Heugten, E, Moeser, AJ, Muley, NS, Sewalt, VJH 2006. Selecting soybean meal characteristics preferred for swine nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1387–1395.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J, Coetzee, SE, Fick, JC, Siebrits, FK, Hayes, JP 1998. The ileal amino acid digestibility of different protein sources for early-weaned piglets. Livestock Production Science 54, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, WR, Maxwell, CV, Owens, FN, Buchanan, DS 1986. Milk versus soybean protein sources for pigs: II. Effects on amino acid availability. Journal of Animal Science 63, 513–524.Google Scholar
Yang, YX, Kim, YG, Lohakare, JD, Yun, JH, Lee, JK, Kwon, MS, Park, JI, Choi, JY, Chae, BJ 2007. Comparative efficacy of different soy protein sources on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and intestinal morphology in weaned pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 20, 775–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yun, JH, Yong, JS, Chae, BJ 2005. Effects of feeding rice protein concentrate on growth performance and ileal digestibility in early-weaned pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 18, 384–389.Google Scholar
Zhang, HL, Qiao, SY, Chen, XJ, Wang, X, Xing, JJ, Yin, YL 2005. Effects of graded levels of soya-bean protein on endogenous ileal lysine loss and amino acid digestibility in growing pigs. Animal Science 81, 257–264.Google Scholar