Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:32:07.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrient and energy balance, and amino acid digestibility in weaned piglets fed wheat bran and an exogenous enzyme combination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2019

M. A. Trindade Neto Open the ORCID record for M. A. Trindade Neto [Opens in a new window] ,
J. C. Dadalt  and
C. Gallardo
M. A. Trindade Neto*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Duque de Caxias Norte, 225, Pirassununga 13635-900, Sao Paulo, Brazil
J. C. Dadalt
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, Av. Duque de Caxias Norte, 225, Pirassununga 13635-900, Sao Paulo, Brazil
C. Gallardo
Affiliation:
Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Panamericana Sur, km 19, Lima 42, Lima, Peru
*
†E-mail: messiastn@usp.br
Get access

Abstract

The digestive system of the weaned piglets can be affected by the type of ingredients present in the diet, and a high fibre content in diets can limit the use of other nutrients and energy. The study was conducted to determine the effects of multicarbohydrase (MC) and phytase (Phy) supplementation on the nutritive value of wheat bran (WB) in weaned piglets. Multicarbohydrase preparation had 700 U α-galactosidase, 2200 U galactomannanase, 3000 U xylanase and 22 000 U β-glucanase per kilogram of diet, and Phy had 500 phytase units – FTU/kg of diet. Twenty-five weaned piglets (6.1 ± 0.63 kg) at 21 days old were fed five diets in a completely randomised experimental design with a 2 × 2 + 1 (0 and 200 mg/kg MC; 0 and 50 mg/kg Phy; and basal diet – BD) factorial arrangement used to determine treatment effects. An additional group of piglets was fed a corn-basal diet during apparent digestibility of nutrients, and fed a 5% casein-corn starch basal diet during apparent and standardised ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acid evaluations. Piglets were individually caged until 38 days old, when Ileal digesta was collected at slaughter. Test diets were made by mixing the basal diets and WB 7 : 3 (w/w), with or without MC, Phy or the combination. There was an interaction trend (P = 0.07) between MC and Phy in the balance of ash, digestible energy (DE) and metabolisable energy (ME). Effects of MC (P < 0.01) on DM, N retention, DE and ME, as well as an effect of Phy (P < 0.05) on ash, DE and ME and a trend in protein digestibility (P = 0.07) also was observed. The enzyme combination showed effect (P < 0.05) on SID of Lys, Pro and Ser; as a trend (P < 0.07) on His, Thr and Val. Isolated, MC also suggested improving (P < 0.07) on SID of His, Lys, Ala (P < 0.05), while Phy improved (P < 0.06) SID of Leu, Lys, Met (P < 0.01), Thr, Val, Ala (P < 0.01), Pro and Ser (P < 0.05). The MC carbohydrate complex was characterised as a viable alternative to increase the apparent nutrients digestibility and SID of amino acids when WB was used in the diet of young pigs and, when combined with Phy, suggested an additive effect on the apparent use of energy.

Keywords

improvementmulticarbohydrasenutritionalphytasedigestion
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , March 2020 , pp. 499 - 507
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Adeola, O and Cowieson, AJ 2011. Opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzyme to improve non ruminant animal production. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3189–3218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amerah, AM 2015. Interactions between wheat characteristics and feed enzyme supplementation in broiler diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 199, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2004. Official methods of analysis, volume 2, 18th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Barrera, M, Cervantes, M, Sauer, WC, Araiza, AB, Torrentera, N and Cervantes, M 2004. Ileal amino acid digestibility and performance of growing swine fed wheat-based diets supplemented with xylanase. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1997–2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedford, MR 1995. Mechanism of action and potential environmental benefits from the uses of dieta enzymes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 53, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, MR and Cowieson, AJ 2012. Exogenous enzymes and their effects on intestinal microbiology. Animal Feed Science and Technology 173, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biviano, AB, Martinez Del Rio, C and Phillips, DL 1993. Ontogenesis of intestinal morphology and intestinal disaccharidases in chicken (Gallus gallus) fed contrasting purified diets. Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 163, 508–518.Google ScholarPubMed
Choct, M and Annison, G 1992. Anti-nutritive activity of wheat pentosans in broiler chickens: roles of viscosity and gut microflora. British Poultry Science 33, 821–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowieson, AJ, Ruckebusch, JP, Sorbara, JOB, Wilson, JW, Guggenbuhl, P and Roos, FF 2017. A systematic view on the effect of phytase on ileal amino acid digestibility in broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 225, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowieson, AJ and Ravindran, V 2007. Effect of phytic acid and microbial phytase on the flow and amino acid composition of endogenous protein at the terminal ileum of growing broiler chickens. British Journal of Nutrition 98, 745–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dadalt, JC, Gallardo, C, Polycarpo, GV, Berto, DA and Trindade Neto, MA 2017. Ileal amino acid digestibility in micronized full fat soybean meal and textured soy flour fed to piglets with or without multicarbohydrase and phytase supplementation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 229, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, G, Mosenthin, R, Piepho, HP and Sauer, WC 2004. Effect of supplementation of xylanase and phospholipase to a wheat-based diet for weanling swine on nutrient digestibility and concentrations of microbial metabolites in ileal digesta and feces. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2647–2656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eklund, M, Rademacher, M, Sauer, WC, Blank, R and Mosenthin, R 2014. Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in alfalfa meal, sugar beet pulp, and wheat bran compared to wheat and protein ingredients for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1037–1043. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-6436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emiola, IA, Opapeju, FO, Slominski, BA and Nyachoti, CM 2009. Growth performance and nutrient digestibility in pigs fed wheat distillers dried grains with solubles-based diets supplemented with a multicarbohydrase enzyme. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2315–2322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englyst, KN, Liu, S and Englyst, HN 2007. Review: nutritional characterization and measurement of dietary carbohydrates. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 61 (suppl. 1), S19–S39. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602937CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallardo, C, Dadalt, JC and Trindade Neto, MA 2018. Nitrogen retention, energy, and amino aciddigestibility of wheat bran, without or with multicarbohydrase and phytase supplementation, fed to broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science 96, 2371–2379. doi:10.1093/jas/sky062CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallardo, C, Dadalt, JC, Kiarie, E and Trindade Neto, MA 2017. Effects of multi-carbohydrase and phytase on standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids and apparent metabolizable energy in canola meal fed to broiler chickens. Poultry Science 96: 3305–3313. doi:10.3382/ps/pex141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heard, PJ, Feeney, KA, Allen, GG and Shewri, PR 2001. Determination of the elemental composition of mature wheat grain using a modified secondary ion mass spectrometer (SIMS). Plant Journal 30, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacela, JY, Dritz, SS, DeRouchey, JM, Tokach, MD, Goodband, RD and Nelssen, JL 2010. Effects of supplemental enzymes in diets containing distillers dried grains with solubles on finishing pig growth performance. Professional Animal Scientist 26, 412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiarie, E, Owusu-Asiedu, A, Simmins, PH and Nyachoti, CM 2010. Influence of phytase and carbohydrase enzymes on apparent ileal nutrient and standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in growing pigs fed wheat and barley-based diets. Livestock Science 134, 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
King, DE, Asem, E K and Adeola, O 2000. Ontogenetic development of intestinal digestive functions in White Pekin ducks. Journal of Nutrition 130, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nortey, TN, Patience, JF, Sands, JS and Zijlstra, RT 2007a. Xylanase supplementation improves energy digestibility of wheat by-products in grower pigs. Livestock Science 109, 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nortey, TN, Patience, JF, Simmins, PH, Trottier, NL and Zijlstra, RT 2007b. Effects of individual or combined xylanase and phytase supplementation on energy, amino acid, and phosphorus digestibility and growth performance of grower pigs fed wheat-based diets containing wheat millrun. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1432–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nortey, TN, Patience, JF, Sands, JS, Trottier, NL and Zijlstra, RT 2008. Effects of xylanase supplementation on digestibility and digestible content of energy, amino acids, phosphorus, and calcium in wheat by-products from dry milling in grower pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3450–3464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Opapeju, FO, Golian, A, Nyachoti, CM and Campbell, LD 2006. Amino acid digestibility in dry extruded-expelled soybean meal fed to pigs and poultry. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1130–1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravindran, V, Carbahug, S, Ravindran, G, Selle, PH and Bryden, WL 2000. Response of broiler chickens to microbial phytase supplementation as influenced by dietary phytic acid and non-phytate phosphorous levels. II. Effects on apparent metabolisable energy, nutrient digestibility and nutrient retention. British Poultry Science 41, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rostagno, HSAlbino, LFT, Donzele, JL, Gomes, PC and Oliveira, RF,2011. Tabelas Brasileiras para aves e suínos. Composição de Alimentos e Exigências Nutricionais. 3rd revised edition. Independent Production, Viçosa, MG, BR.Google Scholar
Simon, O 1998. The mode of action of NSP hydrolyzing enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 7, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 2008. User’s Guide. Version 9.2 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Slominski, BA 2011. Recent advances in research on enzymes for poultry diets. Poultry Science 90, 2013–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trindade Neto, MA, Bruno, DG, Berto, DA, Undi, M and Schammass, EA 2010. Apparent digestibility of diets with different concentrations of lysine and energy in piglets with different body weights and post-weaning age. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 39, 1784–1790.Google Scholar
Vahjen, W, Osswald, T, Schafer, K and Simon, O 2007. Comparison of xylanase and a complex of non-starch polysaccharide-degrading enzymes with regard to performance and bacterial metabolism in weaned piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woyengo, TA, Ige, DV, Akinremi, OO and Nyachoti, CM 2016. Performance and nutrient digestibility in growing pigs fed wheat dried distillers’ grain with solubles-containing diets supplemented with phytase and multi-carbohydrase. Animal Science Journal 87, 570–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, D, Wu, SB, Choct, M and Swick, RA 2015. Comparison of 3 phytases on energy utilization of a nutritionally marginal wheat-soybean meal broiler diet. Poultry Science 94, 2670–2676. doi:10.3382/ps/pev222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yen, JT, Nienaber, JA, Hill, DA and Pond, WG 1991. Potential contribution of absorbed volatile fatty acids to whole-animal energy requirement in conscious swine. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2001–2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed