Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets.
J Anim Sci. 2016 Jun; 94(6):2415-24.JA

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of collection method and diet type on digestibility coefficients. In Exp. 1, 24 barrows were fed either a corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diet or CSBM with 20% dried distillers' grains with solubles (CSBM-DDGS). In Exp. 2, the effects of basal diet and collection method on determination of dried distillers' grains with solubles (DDGS) digestibility were studied using 24 barrows. The 4 diets used in Exp. 2 were: a CSBM (basal 1) , a barley-canola meal (BCM; basal 2), 80% basal 1 with 20% DDGS (CSBM-DDGS), and 80% basal 2 with 20% DDGS (BCM-DDGS). In both experiments, feces were collected using a time-based collection method (DY) or a "marker-to-marker" collection method (MM). Diets contained 0.5% of titanium dioxide (TiO) for estimating digestibility using the index marker approach (IM). The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM and GE were lower (< 0.05) in the CSBM-DDGS diet than in the CSBM diet in Exp. 1 but were not different in Exp. 2. All the estimates of BCM-based diets were consistently lower (< 0.05) than those of CSBM-based diets. In Exp. 1, digestibility coefficients determined by the DY and MM were not different from each other, whereas those estimates were lower (< 0.05) using the IM than those using the total collection approach (TC; DY and MM). In Exp. 2, interactions (< 0.05) were observed between diet type and method for dietary digestibility coefficients. Digestibility and energy values estimated by the DY and MM were not different in pigs fed CSBM-based diets and the BCM-DDGS diet, whereas those estimates were greater (< 0.05) using the DY than those using the MM in pigs fed the BCM. There were no interactions between basal diet and method for estimating DDGS digestibility. The ATTD of DM and GE of DDGS using the MM were greater (< 0.05) than those using the IM, and ATTD of N tended to be greater (< 0.10) using the MM than that using the IM. All estimates using the DY were not different from those using the MM or the IM, except that DE of DDGS was greater (< 0.05) using the DY than when using the IM. Digestibility estimates of DDGS were not affected by basal diets. The mean DE and ME (as-fed basis) of DDGS were 3,994 and 3,688 kcal/kg, respectively, when estimated using the basal 1 diet and were 3,919 and 3,547 kcal/kg, respectively, when estimated using the basal 2 diet. In conclusion, both collection methods can be used to estimate energy and nutrient digestibility of diets and DDGS when using CSBM-based diets.

Authors

No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27285917

Citation

Li, Y S., et al. "Evaluation of Collection Method and Diet Effects On Apparent Digestibility and Energy Values of Swine Diets." Journal of Animal Science, vol. 94, no. 6, 2016, pp. 2415-24.
Li YS, Tran H, Bundy JW, et al. Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets. J Anim Sci. 2016;94(6):2415-24.
Li, Y. S., Tran, H., Bundy, J. W., Burkey, T. E., Kerr, B. J., Nielsen, M. K., & Miller, P. S. (2016). Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets. Journal of Animal Science, 94(6), 2415-24. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0275
Li YS, et al. Evaluation of Collection Method and Diet Effects On Apparent Digestibility and Energy Values of Swine Diets. J Anim Sci. 2016;94(6):2415-24. PubMed PMID: 27285917.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of collection method and diet effects on apparent digestibility and energy values of swine diets. AU - Li,Y S, AU - Tran,H, AU - Bundy,J W, AU - Burkey,T E, AU - Kerr,B J, AU - Nielsen,M K, AU - Miller,P S, PY - 2016/6/11/entrez PY - 2016/6/11/pubmed PY - 2017/5/31/medline SP - 2415 EP - 24 JF - Journal of animal science JO - J Anim Sci VL - 94 IS - 6 N2 - Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of collection method and diet type on digestibility coefficients. In Exp. 1, 24 barrows were fed either a corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diet or CSBM with 20% dried distillers' grains with solubles (CSBM-DDGS). In Exp. 2, the effects of basal diet and collection method on determination of dried distillers' grains with solubles (DDGS) digestibility were studied using 24 barrows. The 4 diets used in Exp. 2 were: a CSBM (basal 1) , a barley-canola meal (BCM; basal 2), 80% basal 1 with 20% DDGS (CSBM-DDGS), and 80% basal 2 with 20% DDGS (BCM-DDGS). In both experiments, feces were collected using a time-based collection method (DY) or a "marker-to-marker" collection method (MM). Diets contained 0.5% of titanium dioxide (TiO) for estimating digestibility using the index marker approach (IM). The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM and GE were lower (< 0.05) in the CSBM-DDGS diet than in the CSBM diet in Exp. 1 but were not different in Exp. 2. All the estimates of BCM-based diets were consistently lower (< 0.05) than those of CSBM-based diets. In Exp. 1, digestibility coefficients determined by the DY and MM were not different from each other, whereas those estimates were lower (< 0.05) using the IM than those using the total collection approach (TC; DY and MM). In Exp. 2, interactions (< 0.05) were observed between diet type and method for dietary digestibility coefficients. Digestibility and energy values estimated by the DY and MM were not different in pigs fed CSBM-based diets and the BCM-DDGS diet, whereas those estimates were greater (< 0.05) using the DY than those using the MM in pigs fed the BCM. There were no interactions between basal diet and method for estimating DDGS digestibility. The ATTD of DM and GE of DDGS using the MM were greater (< 0.05) than those using the IM, and ATTD of N tended to be greater (< 0.10) using the MM than that using the IM. All estimates using the DY were not different from those using the MM or the IM, except that DE of DDGS was greater (< 0.05) using the DY than when using the IM. Digestibility estimates of DDGS were not affected by basal diets. The mean DE and ME (as-fed basis) of DDGS were 3,994 and 3,688 kcal/kg, respectively, when estimated using the basal 1 diet and were 3,919 and 3,547 kcal/kg, respectively, when estimated using the basal 2 diet. In conclusion, both collection methods can be used to estimate energy and nutrient digestibility of diets and DDGS when using CSBM-based diets. SN - 1525-3163 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27285917/Evaluation_of_collection_method_and_diet_effects_on_apparent_digestibility_and_energy_values_of_swine_diets_ L2 - https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-lookup/doi/10.2527/jas.2016-0275 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -