Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T19:57:06.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Digestive physiology of pigs fed diets containing different phosphorus sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

J. A. Moreira*
Affiliation:
Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil
D. M. S. S. Vitti
Affiliation:
Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil
J. B. Lopes
Affiliation:
University Federal of Piaui, Teresina, Piaui, Brazil
A.O. Teixeira
Affiliation:
Bunge Animal Nutrition, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
M. R. R. Peçanha
Affiliation:
Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Get access

Extract

The metabolism and kinetics model of Fernandez modified by Lopes et al. (2001) is a fundamental tool for the study of the digestive physiology of phosphorus (P) in pigs. In Brazil there is a great potential of use of rock phosphate and those represents approximately 2.9 billion metric tons. Brazilian researchers are interested to evaluate those phosphate as alternative sources in diets of pigs. All of the natural sources of phosphate in Brazil presented low level of fluor, when compared with international sources and levels of heavy metals are considered low too. The main concern resides in the fact that non-absorbed P is excreted and can cause contamination of water. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the digestive physiology of pigs fed diets supplemented with different P sources and the study the environmental pollution provoked by P excreted.

Type
Posters
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

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

Lopes, J.B., Vitti, D.M.S.S., Abdalla, A.L., Haddad, M.L., Figueirêdo, A.V., Moraes, R.C.B. 2001. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 30, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar