XII - 12th International Symposium - Digestive Physiology of Pigs

Recommendations

Info

Digestive Physiology of Pigs These NE values were on average 3% greater than found for growing pigs. The ranking of feedstuffs in the NE system was as expected except for the comparatively high NE values found for DDGS and soybean meal. Key words: sow, feedstuffs, net energy 1086 effect of a supra-phytase level on post-weaning growth and stool firmness of pigs fed low or high soybean meal diets. C. E. Zier-Rush 1 , S. Smith 1 , R. Palan 1 , J. Steckel 1 , P. Wilcock* 2 , and R. D. Boyd 1 , 1 The Hanor Company, Franklin, KY, USA, 2 AB Vista, Marlborough, UK. It is hypothesized that even a low level of dietary phytate is detrimental to piglet performance. This study was designed to determine if high levels of a modified E. coli phytase (Quantum TM ), when added to either a low (LSB) or high (HSB) soybean meal (SBM) feeding program, would improve post-weaning pig performance. Weaned pigs (n = 2550 at 5.53 ± 0.23 kg) were allotted to one of 8 dietary treatments (13 replicates/treatment) by weight in a randomized block design and fed a common diet for 1 d post-weaning. Test diets were arranged as 2 × 4 factorial with either LSB or HSB and 4 levels of phytase (0, 1250, 2500 or 3750 FTU/kg). All pigs were fed a 2 phase feed program for 20 d using a feed budget allocation of 1.8 kg for phase 1 (P1) and 6.4 kg for phase 2 (P2). Diets were formulated to exceed NRC (1998) requirements including available P (P1 = 0.45%, P2 = 0.38%). The LSB treatments had SBM levels of 15% in P1 and 19% in P2 with phytate-P (PP) measured at 0.15% and 0.20% respectively. The HSB treatments had SBM levels of 25% in P1 and 29% in P2 with PP measured at 0.18% and 0.23% respectively. There was no interaction (P > 0.05) between SBM level and phytase. There was a positive linear trend for ADG (279, 292, 295, and 292 g/d, P Linear
Digestive Physiology of Pigs and 3,029 kcal/kg and those in PKM were 3,043, 3,005 and 2,959 kcal/kg, respectively. As-fed basis and/or DM basis of DE, ME and MEn in CM was slightly higher than PKM when 2 ingredients were supplemented in growing pigs′ diet. The ME to DE ratios of CM and PKM were calculated at 94.7 and 98.5%, respectively. Consequently, CM and PKM have similar metabolizable energy values in growing pigs; however, nutrient digestibility varied among ingredients. Key words: metabolizable energy, copra meal, palm kernel meal 1089 high vs. low amylose starch increases methane and volatile fatty acid production and reduces energy retention in pigs. J. L. Yanez* 1,2 , S. Moehn 1 , R. O. Ball 1 , T. A. T.G. van Kempen 3 , and R. T. Zijlstra 1 , 1 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2 Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala, México, 3 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Caroline, United States. The energy contribution of starch is usually considered constant among starch types. However, starch chemistry can impact its kinetics of digestion and fermentation and thus net energy content. In a double 4 × 4 Latin square, pigs were fed 4 diets containing 70% purified starch (S1, S2, S3 and S4 with 0, 20, 28 and 63% amylose; reflected by in vitro maximal digestion rate; 1.06, 0.73, 0.38, and 0.22%/min, respectively), casein and fishmeal; TiO 2 was added as indigestible marker. Eight barrows (40.7 ± 2.08 kg BW) were fed 4 diets at 2.8 × maintenance of DE in 4 7-d periods. Feces were collected on d 6 and immediately stored at −20°C for digestibility or at −80°C for VFA analyses. Pigs were transferred into indirect calorimetry chambers (184 × 78 × 102 cm) configured with stabilized gas analyzers. Then, readings were obtained for 24 h on d 7 to measure O 2 consumption, and CO 2 and CH 4 production. Diet and achieved feed intake were included in the statistical model. The O 2 consumption was higher (P < 0.05) for S3, intermediate for S4 and lowest for S1 and S2. The CO 2 production was higher (P < 0.05) for S3 than S1, S2 and S4. The CH 4 was similar (P < 0.01) at 0.012 L/min for S1 to S3, then higher (P < 0.01) to 0.34 L/min for S4. Heat production was higher (P < 0.05) 16.7 MJ/d for S3, intermediate 15.7 MJ/d for S4 and lower for S1 and S2 14.9 and 15.1 MJ/d, respectively. The ATTD of energy and DE content was similar for rapidly to moderate slowly digestible starch but was reduced (P < 0.05) by 8% for slowly digestible starch. Reducing rate of starch digestion increased (P < 0.05) concentration in fecal (wet) matter butyrate, valerate and caproate indicating increased starch fermentation. Increasing amylose or reducing rate of starch in vitro digestion gradually reduced (P < 0.05) diet NE content from 12.6 MJ/kg for S1 and S2, via 11.3 for S3 to 10.8 MJ/kg for S4. In conclusion, high amylose starch increased CH 4 production and reduced NE content due to increased fermentation instead of digestion. Key words: energy, pig, starch 1090 Influence on the ileal and fecal digestibility of forage inclusion in the diet. H. Jørgensen,* D. Carlson, XII INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DIGESTIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF PIGS 73 Session II and H. N. Lærke, Aarhus University, Department of animal Science, Foulum, Denmark. Forage, which is mainly characterized by a high content of dietary fiber, is a potential feedstuff or additive for monogastric animals to improve health and sustainability. The present study aimed to study the ileal and fecal digestibility of 3 forages (Clover grass, Clover grass silage and Pea-Barley silage) supplemented to a basal diet. A total of 24 pigs, adapted to eating forages by supplemented with clover grass silage from weaning, were fitted with a T-cannulas at the terminal ileum at approximate 30 kg LW. For each of the 3 types of forage, 2 balance trials with 4 weeks interval were carried out. Two pigs in each test were fed the basal diet while 6 others were fed the basal diet plus forage throughout the whole experiment. The forages were offered the pigs the first 40 min at each feeding thereafter removed and the basal diet supplied. After the last collection, the pigs were sacrificed and digesta collected from the digestive tract 3 h after the morning meal. The intake of forages was relative low and quite variable and accounted on average for only 10–12% of the daily dry matter intake. Ileal digestibility estimated by collection from the T-cannulas was higher than the digestibility estimated by the slaughter technique indicating some separation of the digesta collected from the T-cannulas. The forages had, as expected, a lower DM and energy digestibility than the basal diet (P < 0.05). The fresh clover grass had a higher energy digestibility than the 2 silages (60 vs 48%, P < 0.05). Inclusion of 10% of gross energy in the diet from clover grass reduced the rations energy digestibility relatively by 2.2%, while clover grass silage and the pea-barley silage lead to reductions of 3.4 and 5.0% (P < 0.05), respectively. In organic pig production forages like the ones used in the present study can play an important role in satiety and rooting behavior. However, the contribution to the overall energy supply is limited. Key words: roughage, energy value, fibrous feedstuff 1091 Digestive utilization of diets with low or high level of fibers in pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake. L. Montagne 1,2 , M. Le Gall* 1,2 , and H. Gilbert 3,4 , 1 Agrocampus Ouest, UMR1348 PEGASE, 35000 Rennes, France, 2 INRA, UMR1348 PEGASE, 35590 St-Gilles, France, 3 INRA, UMR1313 GABI, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France, 4 INRA, UMR444 LGC, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France. Residual feed intake (RFI) is the difference between observed and theoretical daily feed intake (DFI) estimated from maintenance and production requirements. Genetic selection to lower RFI is considered to improve feed efficiency. Divergent selection on RFI was conducted for 6 generations in 2 Large White lines: the RFI+ consumed more feed than predicted compared with the RFI–. Metabolism and activity could contribute to RFI differences between the lines. Digestion has been previously reported not to differ between these lines when pigs were fed a regular diet. This study aimed to determine the digestibility coefficients of a high fiber (244
Page 1 and 2:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs XII IN
Page 3:
XII INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DIGE
Page 6 and 7:
It’s about you. It’s about your
Page 8 and 9:
Discover our ranges of additives de
Page 10 and 11:
Elanco would like to extend two wel
Page 12 and 13:
Maximizes energy for flexible feed
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs Tuesda
Page 19 and 20:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs 4:10 p
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: Digestive Physiology of Pigs XII IN
Page 41 and 42: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Lachno
Page 43 and 44: Digestive Physiology of Pigs The PC
Page 45 and 46: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Key wo
Page 47 and 48: Digestive Physiology of Pigs subtil
Page 49 and 50: Digestive Physiology of Pigs change
Page 51 and 52: Digestive Physiology of Pigs R. Min
Page 53: Digestive Physiology of Pigs d 7, 1
Page 56 and 57: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 1036 I
Page 58 and 59: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Jones
Page 60 and 61: Digestive Physiology of Pigs feed e
Page 62 and 63: Digestive Physiology of Pigs flow r
Page 64 and 65: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Hannov
Page 66 and 67: Digestive Physiology of Pigs phytas
Page 68 and 69: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Animal
Page 70 and 71: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 1075 e
Page 72 and 73: Digestive Physiology of Pigs mixtur
Page 76 and 77: Digestive Physiology of Pigs g NDF
Page 78 and 79: Digestive Physiology of Pigs SBM to
Page 80 and 81: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Key wo
Page 82 and 83: Digestive Physiology of Pigs The ex
Page 84 and 85: Digestive Physiology of Pigs At 1 h
Page 86 and 87: Digestive Physiology of Pigs J. J.
Page 88 and 89: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Freeze
Page 90 and 91: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Scienc
Page 92 and 93: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 0 to 5
Page 94 and 95: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 2000 P
Page 96 and 97: Digestive Physiology of Pigs piglet
Page 98 and 99: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 5% oxi
Page 100 and 101: Digestive Physiology of Pigs no eff
Page 102 and 103: Digestive Physiology of Pigs of neu
Page 104 and 105: Digestive Physiology of Pigs immune
Page 109 and 110: Digestive Physiology of Pigs (1.4 g
Page 111 and 112: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 17.7 d
Page 113 and 114: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Medici
Page 115: Digestive Physiology of Pigs of the
Page 118 and 119: Digestive Physiology of Pigs 3000 I
Page 120 and 121: Digestive Physiology of Pigs Fecal
Page 122 and 123: Digestive Physiology of Pigs cell h
Page 124 and 125:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs 3016 R
Page 126 and 127:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs Matern
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs period
Page 133 and 134:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs Key wo
Page 135 and 136:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs pigs
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs abunda
Page 141 and 142:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs meal w
Page 143 and 144:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs double
Page 145 and 146:
Digestive Physiology of Pigs h, 50%
Page 148:
show all

XII - 12th International Symposium - Digestive Physiology of Pigs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?