Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Animal Science logoLink to Journal of Animal Science
. 2018 Mar 20;96(6):2361–2370. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky114

Ileal digestibility of amino acids in selected feed ingredients fed to young growing pigs1

G A Casas 1,2, N W Jaworski 1,2, J K Htoo 3, H H Stein 1,4,✉
PMCID: PMC6095436  PMID: 29579239

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of CP and AA in brewers rice, full-fat rice bran (FFRB), defatted rice bran (DFRB), peanut meal, sesame meal, rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, soybean expellers, cassava meal, and bakery meal fed to young growing pigs. Twenty-two barrows (initial BW: 14.09 ± 1.48 kg) were surgically fitted with a T-cannula in the distal ileum and randomly allotted to a replicated 11 × 4 incomplete Latin square design with 11 diets and four 7-d periods in each square. Eleven experimental diets were prepared and test ingredients were the sole source of CP and AA in 10 diets and the eleventh diet was a N-free diet used to measure basal ileal endogenous losses of CP and AA. Chromic oxide (0.4%) was included in all diets as an indigestible marker and ileal digesta were collected on day 6 and 7 of each period. Results indicated that the SID of CP and AA was greatest (P < 0.05) in brewers rice and sesame meal and least (P < 0.05) in cassava meal. The SID of indispensable AA was greater (P < 0.05) in sesame meal compared with all other ingredients except brewers rice. Full-fat rice bran had greater (P < 0.05) SID of Arg, Ile, Leu, Lys, and Met compared with DFRB. The SID of CP and most AA was not different among rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers. Bakery meal had the least (P < 0.05) SID of most AA compared with all other ingredients, with the exception of cassava meal. The concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP was greater (P < 0.05) in sesame meal and peanut meal (482.32 and 452.44 g/kg DM, respectively) than in all other ingredients. Soybean expellers had the greatest (P < 0.05) concentration of standardized ileal digestible Lys (22.98 g/kg DM) followed by rapeseed meal (16.11 g/kg DM) and rapeseed expellers (16.17 g/kg DM). Cassava meal and bakery meal had the least (P < 0.05) concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP and most AA compared with the other ingredients. Concentrations of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA in brewers rice, FFRB, and DFRB were less (P < 0.05) than in rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers. In conclusion, peanut meal and sesame meal have greater concentrations of standardized ileal digestible CP and most AA, with the exception of Lys, than other ingredients. Rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers have the greatest concentrations of standardized ileal digestible Lys.

Keywords: amino acid digestibility, pigs, rapeseed, rice coproducts, soybean expellers

INTRODUCTION

Accurate estimation of the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of CP and AA is critical for formulating diets for pigs (Stein et al., 2007; Adeola et al., 2016) and a number of factors may affect the SID of CP and AA by young pigs. After weaning, piglets must modify the synthesis of digestive enzymes to adjust to new dietary components (Lindemann et al., 1986). In addition, DM intake, feeding level, and BW also may affect the endogenous losses of AA, and therefore, values for SID of AA (Hess and Sève, 1999; Moter and Stein, 2004). Thus, young pigs may have a limited capacity for digesting nutrients compared with older pigs (Urbaityte et al., 2009; Pedersen et al., 2016).

There are several coproducts from the grain milling and oilseed industries that may be included in diets for weanling pigs. The SID of CP and AA for these feed ingredients have been determined in growing-finishing pigs and are used in practical diet formulations (NRC, 2012). However, lower SID values of CP and AA in some ingredients has been reported in young pigs (<20 kg BW); thus, SID values obtained in older pigs may not always be applicable to younger pigs (Pedersen et al., 2016). Therefore, the objective of this experiment was to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and the SID of CP and AA in a number of feed ingredients for which limited data have been reported in young growing pigs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocol for this experiment was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Animals, Housing, Experimental Design, and Diets

Twenty-two barrows (PIC, Hendersonville, TN) with an initial BW of 14.09 ± 1.48 kg were used in the experiment. A T-cannula was surgically inserted in the distal ileum of pigs for collection of ileal digesta. Pigs were housed in individual pens (1.2 × 1.5 m) in an environmentally controlled room. Pens had smooth, plastic-coated sides and fully-slatted tribar metal floors. Each pen contained a feeder and a nipple drinker. Pigs were allowed to recover from surgery for 7 d. Pigs were then randomly allotted to a replicated 11 × 4 incomplete Latin square design with 11 diets and four 7-d periods in each square (Kim and Kim, 2010).

Brewers rice, full fat rice bran (FFRB), defatted rice bran (DFRB), peanut meal, sesame meal, rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, soybean expellers, cassava meal, and bakery meal were used (Table 1). Eleven experimental diets were prepared and test ingredients were the sole source of CP and AA in 10 diets (Tables 2 and 3). The eleventh diet was an N-free diet that was used to determine basal ileal endogenous losses of CP and AA. Chromic oxide (0.4%) was included in all diets as an indigestible marker and vitamins and minerals were included in all diets to meet current requirement estimates (NRC, 2012).

Table 1.

Analyzed chemical composition of ingredients (as-fed basis)

Item, % Brewers rice FFRB1 DFRB1 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava meal Bakery meal
DM 87.77 94.85 89.32 89.96 96.63 89.31 89.74 92.52 89.08 91.82
AEE2 1.32 18.61 5.71 1.44 5.37 2.64 13.28 9.14 0.32 9.86
Starch 73.08 24.52 22.07 6.91 0.85 1.72 1.78 1.93 56.80 38.22
TDF3 1.70 33.3 22.20 17.80 23.70 35.60 37.40 28.00 12.20 18.60
IDF3 1.70 29.2 22.20 17.80 20.20 35.0 34.60 26.10 9.40 15.5
SDF3 ND4 4.10 ND ND 3.50 0.60 2.90 2.00 2.90 3.00
Ash 0.65 9.39 13.02 5.08 7.76 7.91 6.48 5.81 3.87 3.78
Ca <0.6 0.05 1.54 0.13 0.13 0.77 0.83 0.29 0.26 0.24
P 0.13 1.86 2.20 0.66 1.69 1.16 1.14 0.58 0.14 0.30
CP 6.53 12.74 15.71 48.04 52.57 33.39 29.23 39.36 2.61 11.09
Indispensable AA
 Arg 0.57 1.08 1.30 5.42 6.26 1.99 1.79 2.85 0.24 0.55
 His 0.16 0.35 0.43 1.04 1.24 0.84 0.77 1.01 0.05 0.50
 Ile 0.27 0.45 0.54 1.54 1.84 1.33 1.17 1.76 0.08 0.44
 Leu 0.52 0.88 1.07 2.90 3.31 2.29 2.03 2.92 0.12 0.87
 Lys 0.26 0.61 0.72 1.58 1.31 1.79 1.74 2.45 0.10 0.38
 Met 0.18 0.26 0.31 0.48 1.58 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.03 0.17
 Phe 0.33 0.54 0.65 2.24 2.22 1.31 1.16 1.89 0.07 0.50
 Thr 0.23 0.47 0.58 1.22 1.77 1.48 1.27 1.50 0.09 0.38
 Trp 0.09 0.162 0.20 0.47 0.79 0.45 0.40 0.52 0.04 0.12
 Val 0.40 0.69 0.84 1.87 2.31 1.72 1.49 1.83 0.10 0.51
Dispensable AA
 Ala 0.37 0.78 0.95 1.77 2.32 1.43 1.25 1.64 0.12 0.48
 Asp 0.60 1.14 1.35 5.14 3.95 2.43 2.12 4.28 0.19 0.85
 Cys 0.16 0.28 0.32 0.59 1.04 0.77 0.72 0.60 0.04 0.20
 Glu 1.13 1.77 2.13 8.50 9.33 5.42 4.64 6.81 0.45 2.40
 Gly 0.31 0.70 0.85 2.69 2.53 1.69 1.46 1.64 0.09 0.44
 Pro 0.31 0.54 0.65 1.91 1.69 1.91 1.73 1.87 0.09 0.81
 Ser 0.32 0.58 0.71 2.17 2.22 1.43 1.25 1.94 0.09 0.52
Lys:CP ratio (%)5 3.98 4.79 4.58 3.29 2.49 5.36 5.95 6.22 3.83 3.43
Open in a new tab

1FFRB = full-fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

2AEE = acid hydrolyzed ether extract.

3TDF = total dietary fiber; SDF = soluble dietary fiber; IDF = insoluble dietary fiber.

4ND = not detectable.

5Lys:CP ratio: Calculated by expressing the concentration of Lys in each ingredient as a percentage of the concentration of CP (Stein et al., 2009).

Table 2.

Composition of experimental diets (as-fed basis)

Item, % Brewers rice FFRB1 DFRB1 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava meal Bakery meal N-free
Test ingredient 93.30 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 76.75 93.80 -
Lactose - 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 - 20.00
Cornstarch - 33.60 34.00 33.75 33.90 34.90 34.25 33.85 - - 56.70
Sucrose - - - - - - - - - - 15.00
Soybean oil 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 - 3.00 4.00
Limestone 0.55 1.20 1.80 0.35 0.25 - 0.35 0.65 - 0.50 0.40
Dicalcium phosphate 1.95 1.00 - 1.70 1.65 1.20 1.20 1.30 2.05 1.50 2.20
Salt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Chromic oxide 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Vitamin-mineral premix2 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Potassium carbonate - - - - - - - - - - 0.40
Magnesium oxide - - - - - - - - - - 0.10
Open in a new tab

1FFRB = full fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

2The vitamin-micromineral premix provided the following quantities of vitamins and micro minerals per kilogram of complete diet: Vitamin A as retinyl acetate, 11,136 IU; vitamin D3 as cholecalciferol, 2,208 IU; vitamin E as DL-alpha tocopheryl acetate, 66 IU; vitamin K as menadione dimethylprimidinol bisulfite, 1.42 mg; thiamin as thiamine mononitrate, 0.24 mg; riboflavin, 6.59 mg; pyridoxine as pyridoxine hydrochloride, 0.24 mg; vitamin B12, 0.03 mg; D-pantothenic acid as D-calcium pantothenate, 23.5 mg; niacin, 44.1 mg; folic acid, 1.59 mg; biotin, 0.44 mg; Cu, 20 mg as copper sulfate and copper chloride; Fe, 126 mg as ferrous sulfate; I, 1.26 mg as ethylenediamine dihydriodide; Mn, 60.2 mg as manganese sulfate; Se, 0.3 mg as sodium selenite and selenium yeast; and Zn, 125.1 mg as zinc sulfate.

Table 3.

Analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets (as-fed basis)

Item, % Brewers rice FFRB1 DFRB1 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava meal Bakery meal
DM 87.81 93.34 91.21 91.82 94.34 91.46 91.57 93.02 90.62 91.93
CP 6.40 5.48 6.85 19.88 24.02 15.50 14.34 16.88 1.69 10.88
Indispensable AA
 Arg 0.53 0.45 0.57 2.12 2.70 0.88 0.87 1.20 0.16 0.51
 His 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.44 0.57 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.03 0.25
 Ile 0.26 0.19 0.24 0.65 0.85 0.62 0.59 0.76 0.05 0.44
 Leu 0.52 0.38 0.49 1.24 1.53 1.07 1.03 1.29 0.08 0.86
 Lys 0.24 0.27 0.33 0.67 0.60 0.83 0.88 1.07 0.06 0.37
 Met 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.71 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.02 0.16
 Phe 0.32 0.23 0.29 0.94 1.02 0.61 0.59 0.83 0.05 0.50
 Thr 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.52 0.81 0.69 0.65 0.66 0.05 0.38
 Trp 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.36 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.02 0.12
 Val 0.37 0.30 0.38 0.79 1.06 0.79 0.75 0.79 0.06 0.50
Dispensable AA
 Ala 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.77 1.07 0.67 0.64 0.73 0.08 0.48
 Asp 0.58 0.49 0.62 2.18 1.84 1.13 1.09 1.89 0.13 0.85
 Cys 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.47 0.33 0.36 0.26 0.02 0.18
 Glu 1.07 0.77 0.97 3.58 4.34 2.44 2.42 2.84 0.29 2.33
 Gly 0.29 0.31 0.39 1.14 1.15 0.78 0.74 0.72 0.06 0.43
 Pro 0.27 0.23 0.31 0.84 0.83 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.06 0.81
 Ser 0.32 0.25 0.32 0.93 1.03 0.66 0.63 0.86 0.06 0.51
Open in a new tab

1FFRB = full fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

Feeding and Sample Collection

Pigs were fed at a level of 3 times the maintenance energy requirement (i.e., 197 kcal ME per kg BW0.60; NRC, 2012). The initial 5 d of each period was considered an adaptation period to the diets and ileal digesta were collected on day 6 and 7 for 8 h per day. Digesta samples were stored at −20 °C immediately after collection. At the conclusion of the experiment, ileal digesta samples were thawed, mixed within animal and diet, and a subsample was collected for chemical analysis. Digesta samples were lyophilized and ground in a coffee grinder before analysis.

Chemical Analysis

Ingredient, diet, and ileal digesta samples were analyzed for DM (method 930.15; AOAC Int., 2007) and CP using the combustion procedure (method 990.03; AOAC Int., 2007) on an Elementar Rapid N-cube protein/nitrogen apparatus (Elementar Americas Inc., Mt. Laurel, NJ). Aspartic acid was used as a calibration standard and CP was calculated as N × 6.25. Amino acids were analyzed in all ingredients, diets, and ileal digesta samples on a Hitachi Amino Acid Analyzer, Model No. L8800 (Hitachi High Technologies America, Inc; Pleasanton, CA) using ninhydrin for postcolum derivatization and norleucine as the internal standard. Prior to analysis, samples were hydrolyzed with 6N HCl for 24 h at 110 °C (method 982.30 E(a); AOAC Int., 2007). Methionine and Cys were determined as Met sulfone and cysteic acid after cold performic acid oxidation overnight before hydrolysis (method 982.30 E(b); AOAC Int., 2007). Tryptophan was determined after NaOH hydrolysis for 22 h at 110 °C (method 982.30 E(c); AOAC Int., 2007). The chromium concentration in diets and ileal digesta samples was determined using the Inductive Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometric method (method 990.08; AOAC Int., 2007). Samples were prepared using nitric acid-perchloric acid (method 968.08D(b); AOAC Int., 2007).

Ingredients were also analyzed for ash (method 942.05; AOAC Int., 2007) and for acid hydrolyzed ether extract (AEE) using the acid hydrolysis filter bag technique (Ankom HCl Hydrolysis System, Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY) followed by fat extraction (Ankom XT-15 Extractor, Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). Starch was analyzed using the glucoamylase procedure (method 979.10; AOAC Int., 2007), and ingredients were also analyzed for insoluble dietary fiber (IDF) and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) according to method 991.43 (AOAC Int., 2007) using the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). Concentrations of Ca and P were also analyzed in all ingredients (method 985.01; AOAC Int., 2007).

Calculations and Statistical Analysis

Total dietary fiber (TDF) was calculated as the sum of SDF and IDF and the Lys:CP ratio was calculated by expressing the concentration of Lys in each ingredient as a percentage of the concentration of CP (Stein et al., 2009). Values for AID, ileal endogenous losses, and SID of CP and AA in each diet were calculated according to Stein et al. (2007). The AID and SID for CP and AA in the diets represent the AID and SID of CP and AA in each test ingredient because the test ingredient was the sole source of CP and AA in the diet. Concentrations of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA (g/kg DM) were calculated for each ingredient by multiplying the concentration of CP and AA by the SID value for CP or each AA (Cervantes-Pahm et al., 2014).

Homogeneity of variances was confirmed using the UNIVARIATE procedure (SAS Inst., Cary, NC). Outliers were tested using the BOXPLOT procedure and 1 outlier was detected as an observation that deviated from the treatment mean by ± 3 times the interquartile range and removed from the data set. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The model included ingredient as the fixed effect and pig and period as random effects. Mean values were calculated using the LSMeans statement, and differences among treatments were detected using the PDIFF option. The pig was the experimental unit and differences were considered significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The AID of CP in sesame meal, peanut meal, rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers was between 64.3% and 79.4% (Table 4). The AID of CP in brewers rice was less (P < 0.05) than in sesame meal, but greater (P < 0.05) than in FFRB, DFRB, and bakery meal. Except for the AID of Thr, Trp, and Ala, no differences were observed for the AID of AA among brewers rice, sesame meal, and peanut meal. Likewise, there were no differences in AID of AA among rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers. The AID of total AA was greater in sesame meal, brewers rice, and peanut meal compared with FFRB, DFRB, cassava meal, and bakery meal. Cassava meal had the least (P < 0.05) AID of CP and AA followed by bakery meal.

Table 4.

Apparent ileal digestibility (%) of CP and AA in test ingredients1

Item Brewers rice FFRB2 DFRB2 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava meal Bakery meal SEM P - value
CP 61.8b 43.3c 36.6c 73.9ab 79.4a 64.3ab 64.7ab 69.3ab -94.3d 45.3c 7.50 <0.001
Indispensable AA
 Arg 86.2bc 78.7de 74.7e 90.5ab 94.3a 81.3cd 82.3cd 84.4bcd 28.3g 62.3f 2.66 <0.001
 His 80.1ab 73.1bc 66.1c 80.4ab 89.0a 81.2ab 81.7ab 79.6ab -41.3d 63.0c 3.95 <0.001
 Ile 78.7abc 60.8d 53.1d 82.2ab 86.4a 75.0bc 71.8c 74.9bc -29.7e 61.2d 3.53 <0.001
 Leu 83.4ab 65.6de 57.6e 84.2ab 87.6a 78.0abc 74.5bcd 75.4bcd -29.7f 68.6cd 3.53 <0.001
 Lys 75.1ab 71.7bc 63.1c 78.6ab 79.4ab 76.5ab 79.3ab 83.8a -1.6e 38.7d 3.48 <0.001
 Met 86.6ab 72.9de 62.8f 82.4bc 93.3a 84.8bc 83.5bc 78.4cd 4.3g 68.6ef 2.5 <0.001
 Phe 81.5abc 58.3ef 49.6f 84.7ab 87.7a 76.5abcd 71.0cde 74.6bcd -67.6g 66.1de 4.9 <0.001
 Thr 63.6b 45.6c 41.7c 71.5ab 78.6a 67.5ab 64.5b 68.7ab -86.9d 42.8c 4.91 <0.001
 Trp 73.3b 58.3cd 52.2de 69.7bc 85.3a 69.2bc 65.4bc 66.8bc -27.0f 45.5e 4.26 <0.001
 Val 81.3ab 64.7cd 58.2d 81.5ab 85.8a 73.5bc 70.3c 72.0bc -32.3e 58.2d 3.81 <0.001
 Mean 80.4abc 66.4d 59.5d 83.7ab 88.2a 76.3bc 74.9c 77.0bc -19.0e 59.4d 2.95 <0.001
Dispensable AA
 Ala 72.5b 61.8cd 54.9de 77.0ab 81.7a 70.9b 69.4bc 70.7b -36.5f 47.6e 3.11 <0.001
 Asp 77.0ab 61.0cd 52.7d 80.3a 82.3a 69.6bc 71.9ab 77.2ab -27.7e 51.8d 3.84 <0.001
 Cys 77.9a 57.5bcd 47.7cd 69.6ab 82.1a 69.4ab 72.7ab 59.5bc -84.4e 42.4d 5.96 <0.001
 Glu 84.3ab 72.7c 63.6d 83.9ab 87.7a 81.8ab 83.4ab 80.1bc 22.4e 74.0c 2.83 <0.001
 Gly 31.8ab 17.1ab 24.4ab 59.3ab 64.6a 56.5ab 52.2ab 50.5ab -326.2c 8.3b 21.66 <0.001
 Pro -141.7a -230.0a -94.2a 10.5a -5.4a 53.5a -8.3a -9.2a -988.7b -46.4a 151.31 <0.001
 Ser 74.7ab 54.2de 50.1e 77.8ab 83.9a 67.7bc 66.3bcd 72.4ab -83.4f 56.3cde 4.66 <0.001
 Mean 55.6abc 32.7c 38.4bc 71.4ab 76.2a 67.9ab 62.9abc 65.0abc -118.0d 45.4abc 14.37 <0.001
Total AA 67.8abc 55.0bc 56.3bc 77.0a 82.2a 71.5ab 68.5abc 71.0ab -73.1d 51.8c 7.89 <0.001
Open in a new tab

a-hValues within a row lacking a common superscript letter are different (P < 0.05).

1Data are least squares means of 8 observations for each treatment.

2FFRB = full fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

The SID of CP was greater (P < 0.05) in brewers rice (93.7%) compared with DFRB (67.6%), cassava meal (30.2%), and bakery meal (65.0%), but no differences were observed among the other ingredients (Table 5). The SID of AA in brewers rice, peanut meal, and sesame meal was not different, with the exception that the SID of Met was less (P < 0.05) in peanut meal than in sesame meal and the SID of Trp was less (P < 0.05) in peanut meal than in brewers rice. The SID of most AA was greater (P < 0.05) in brewers rice than in FFRB, rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers, but no differences were observed in SID of AA among FFRB, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers. The SID of Arg and Lys was greater (P < 0.05) in DFRB than in bakery meal, but for all other AA, no differences between DFRB and bakery meal were observed. The SID of Arg, Ile, Leu, Lys, Met, Ala, Asp, and Glu was greater (P < 0.05) in FFRB than in DFRB. The SID of CP and all indispensable AA was least (P < 0.05) in cassava meal compared with the other 9 ingredients, with the exception that the SID of Lys was not different between cassava meal and bakery meal.

Table 5.

Standardized ileal digestibility (%) of CP and AA in test ingredients1,2

Item Brewers rice FFRB3 DFRB3 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava meal Bakery meal SEM P-value
CP 93.7a 82.9ab 67.6bc 84.6a 88.5a 78.0abc 79.6abc 82.1ab 30.2d 65.0c 7.50 <0.001
Indispensable AA
 Arg 98.6a 94.3ab 86.7c 93.7ab 96.9a 89.1bc 90.1bc 90.2bc 71.8d 75.7d 2.66 <0.001
 His 93.2a 86.4ab 76.4bc 85.0ab 92.6a 86.3ab 86.8ab 84.2ab 29.0d 71.1c 3.95 <0.001
 Ile 91.7a 79.2b 67.3d 87.5ab 90.6a 80.6b 77.7bc 79.6b 40.5e 69.2cd 3.53 <0.001
 Leu 93.8a 80.6cd 69.2e 88.8abc 91.4ab 83.3bcd 80.0cd 79.8cd 43.9f 75.2de 3.53 <0.001
 Lys 87.0a 82.9a 72.0b 83.0a 84.5a 80.0ab 82.6a 86.6a 43.5c 46.6c 3.48 <0.001
 Met 92.1ab 81.9c 69.6d 87.3bc 94.7a 88.0abc 86.8bc 82.6c 53.1e 74.5d 2.5 <0.001
 Phe 93.6a 76.1cde 63.5e 89.0abc 91.8ab 81.9abcd 77.9cd 79.5bcd 17.2f 74.2de 4.85 <0.001
 Thr 95.1a 81.7abc 69.4cd 85.4ab 87.8ab 78.1bc 75.8bcd 79.8bc 46.3e 62.2d 4.91 <0.001
 Trp 92.2a 81.8abc 70.4cd 78.5bc 90.0ab 77.3c 73.9c 74.4c 40.7e 59.8d 4.26 <0.001
 Val 93.6a 81.1bcd 70.9de 87.6abc 90.4ab 79.6cd 76.7de 78.1cde 41.7f 67.7e 3.81 <0.001
 Mean 93.7a 83.6b 72.8c 88.9ab 92.1a 82.5b 81.2b 82.4b 48.4d 69.1c 2.95 <0.001
Dispensable AA
 Ala 91.2a 82.2b 70.5c 85.8ab 88.1ab 80.9b 79.9b 80.1b 45.4e 61.6d 3.11 <0.001
 Asp 91.1a 78.6b 66.4c 84.2ab 87.0ab 77.1b 79.7b 81.7ab 39.5d 61.8c 3.84 <0.001
 Cys 96.5a 80.3abc 66.8cd 80.7abc 87.9ab 77.5bc 80.1abc 70.1cd 27.0e 57.4d 5.96 <0.001
 Glu 93.3a 86.0ab 73.9d 86.7ab 90.1ab 85.9ab 87.5ab 83.6bc 57.0e 78.3cd 2.83 <0.001
 Gly 98.3a 84.8a 76.8ab 77.2ab 82.8a 82.3a 79.5a 79.2a 25.3b 55.1ab 21.66 0.300
 Pro 116.8a 98.3a 142.8a 97.8a 84.6a 134.7a 75.6a 77.8a 297.6a 43.3a 151.31 1.000
 Ser 95.9a 82.4bcd 71.6d 85.3abc 90.9ab 78.2bcd 77.3cd 80.6bcd 35.7e 70.0d 4.66 <0.001
 Mean 96.3a 85.0a 78.6a 84.6a 88.4a 86.4a 81.8a 81.0a 66.2a 68.3a 14.37 0.800
Total AA 95.3a 90.2a 83.5ab 86.7ab 90.4a 84.1ab 81.4ab 81.9ab 57.7c 69.1bc 7.89 <0.006
Open in a new tab

a-fValues within a row lacking a common superscript letter are different (P < 0.05).

1Data are least squares means of 8 observations for each treatment.

2Standardized ileal digestibility values were calculated by correcting values for apparent ileal digestibility for the basal ileal endogenous losses. Basal ileal endogenous losses were determined as (g/kg DMI): CP, 23.23; Arg, 0.74; His, 0.22; Ile, 0.38; Leu, 0.62; Lys, 0.32; Met, 0.10; Phe, 0.44; Thr, 0.79; Trp, 0.18; Val, 0.52; Ala, 0.73; Asp, 0.93; Cys, 0.30; Glu, 1.09; Gly, 2.21; Pro, 7.95; and Ser, 0.76.

3FFRB = full fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

The concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP and indispensable AA was greater (P < 0.05) in sesame meal than in all other ingredients, except for the concentration of standardized ileal digestible Lys, Phe, and Asp (Table 6). With the exception of Lys, Met, and Thr, peanut meal had greater (P < 0.05) concentration of standardized ileal digestible indispensable AA than all other ingredients except sesame meal. Soybean expellers had the greatest (P < 0.05) concentration of standardized ileal digestible Lys with 22.98 g/kg DM followed by rapeseed meal (16.17 g/kg DM) and rapeseed expellers (16.11 g/kg DM). Cassava meal and bakery meal had the least (P < 0.05) concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP and most AA compared with the other 8 ingredients. The concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA in brewers rice, FFRB, and DFRB were less (P < 0.05) compared with rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers. The concentration of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA in brewers rice was less (P < 0.05) than in FFRB and DFRB, but greater (P < 0.05) concentrations of standardized ileal digestible Arg, His, Met, Val, Ala, and Ser were observed in FFRB compared with DFRB.

Table 6.

Concentration (g/kg DM) of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA in test ingredients1,2

Item Brewers rice FFRB3 DFRB3 Peanut meal Sesame meal Rapeseed meal Rapeseed expellers Soybean expellers Cassava Bakery meal SEM P-value
CP 73.87g 112.19f 119.50f 452.38b 482.32a 286.64d 262.74e 351.33c 6.93h 76.63g 9.75 <0.001
Indispensable AA
 Arg 6.52h 10.74g 12.56f 56.81b 62.46a 19.77d 18.04e 27.83c 1.89j 4.47i 0.35 <0.001
 His 1.77h 3.20g 3.72f 9.78b 11.92a 8.12d 7.40e 9.19c 0.11i 3.85f 0.13 <0.001
 Ile 2.90g 3.78ef 4.10e 14.93b 17.30a 12.02c 10.08d 15.13b 0.31h 3.28fg 0.2 <0.001
 Leu 5.71h 7.50fg 8.37f 28.57b 31.35a 21.39d 18.05e 25.20c 0.47i 7.05g 0.32 <0.001
 Lys 2.71f 5.31e 5.80e 14.55c 11.51d 16.11b 16.17b 22.98a 0.39h 1.77g 0.24 <0.001
 Met 1.93g 2.25f 2.43e 4.65d 15.45a 6.61b 5.61c 4.82d 0.15i 1.35h 0.07 <0.001
 Phe 3.58g 4.33f 4.67f 22.17a 21.12b 12.04d 10.03e 16.27c 0.10h 4.03fg 0.26 <0.001
 Thr 2.57f 4.05e 4.57e 11.58c 16.10a 12.96b 10.77d 12.91b 0.40g 2.53f 0.22 <0.001
 Trp 0.97f 1.40e 1.59e 4.10bc 7.36a 3.90c 3.30d 4.18b 0.16g 0.78f 0.08 <0.001
 Val 4.36g 5.91f 6.72e 18.18b 21.66a 15.34c 12.70d 15.46c 0.39h 3.72g 0.24 <0.001
Dispensable AA
 Ala 4.02h 6.76g 7.58f 16.85b 21.17a 12.95d 11.11e 14.17c 0.56j 3.12i 0.25 <0.001
 Asp 6.44g 9.47f 10.11f 47.99a 35.76c 21.00d 18.69e 37.79b 0.68h 5.63g 0.49 <0.001
 Cys 1.80f 2.38e 2.42e 5.26c 9.50a 6.70b 6.40b 4.57d 0.07h 1.22g 0.12 <0.001
 Glu 12.36h 16.06g 17.77g 81.78b 87.20a 52.28d 45.04e 61.52c 2.62i 20.34f 0.93 <0.001
 Gly 4.01d 6.28c 7.24c 23.35a 22.00a 14.56b 13.64b 14.53b 0.21e 2.31d 0.81 <0.001
 Pro 6.20d 7.82cd 7.88cd 25.74a 14.94bc 15.21bc 21.03ab 21.35ab 3.91d 5.27d 4.49 <0.001
 Ser 3.60g 5.04f 5.75e 20.53a 20.95a 12.52c 10.73d 16.91b 0.28h 3.90g 0.24 <0.001
Open in a new tab

a-iValues within a row lacking a common superscript letter are different (P < 0.05).

1Data are least squares means of 8 observations for each treatment.

2The concentration (g/kg DM) of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA was calculated by multiplying the concentration of CP and AA (DM basis) by the SID of CP and each AA.

3FFRB = full fat rice bran; DFRB = defatted rice bran.

DISCUSSION

Nutrient Composition of Ingredients

The nutrient composition of the rice coproducts used in this experiment agree with previous values (NRC, 2012; Casas et al., 2015). Concentrations of starch and P in peanut meal were in agreement with values reported by Knabe et al. (1989) and Li et al. (2014), but the concentration of Ca, fiber, and AEE in peanut meal was slightly less than reported by Li et al., 2014. Concentrations of fat, starch, and Ca in sesame meal used in this experiment were less than reported values, but the content of NDF and P were greater (Li et al., 2000; NRC, 2012; Aguilera et al., 2015).

Concentrations of AEE and starch in rapeseed meal were within the range of reported values (NRC, 2012; Maison and Stein, 2014; Liu et al., 2016), but concentrations of TDF, ash, Ca, and P were greater than previous values (NRC, 2012; Maison and Stein, 2014; Liu et al., 2016). Rapeseed expellers contained more AEE than the sources used in previous experiments, but concentrations of ash, Ca, and P were within the range of reported values (NRC, 2012; Maison and Stein, 2014; Navarro et al., 2017). The reason for these differences among different sources of rapeseed meal and rapeseed expellers is most likely that the gums from oil purification sometimes is added to the meal or expellers, which will increase the concentration of analyzed AEE, and different efficiencies in oil pressing may also result in different quantities of oil left in rapeseed expellers. In general, concentrations of AEE is more variable in oilseed expellers than in oilseed meals because of differences among crushing plants in the efficiency of mechanically pressing out the oil (Stein et al., 2016).

Concentrations of AEE, starch, ash, Ca, and P in soybean expellers are in agreement with published values (NRC, 2012). The concentration of ash, Ca, and P in cassava meal and bakery meal were also in agreement with reported values (NRC, 2012), but the concentration of starch was less, whereas the content of AEE and fiber was greater, than in previous reports (Sonaiya and Omole, 1983; NRC, 2012; Casas et al., 2015).

The concentration of CP in brewers rice, FFRB, DFRB, rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, soybean expellers, and bakery meal were slightly lower than previous values, but concentrations of AA were within the range of published values (Almeida et al., 2011; Rostagno et al., 2011; NRC, 2012; Maison and Stein, 2014; Casas et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016). In contrast, concentrations of CP and most AA in peanut meal and sesame meal were greater than values reported by Knabe et al. (1989), Li et al. (2014), and NRC (2012), but in agreement with values reported by Aguilera et al. (2015). These differences are likely due to differences in growing and processing conditions (Li et al., 2014; Aguilera et al., 2015). As expected, cassava meal had the least concentration of CP and AA, but the values are within the range reported previously (Sonaiya and Omole, 1983; NRC, 2012).

Ileal Digestibility of Crude Protein and Amino Acids

Most digestibility values in feed ingredient tables have been determined in growing-finishing pigs between 20 and 100 kg, but as has recently been demonstrated for soybean meal, SID values determined in pigs that are less than 20 kg may be less than values determined in heavier pigs (Pedersen et al., 2016). It is, therefore, possible that diets for young pigs may be more accurately formulated if SID values determined in young pigs are used.

Brewers rice, FFRB, and DFRB are coproducts from the rice milling industry that may be used in diets for pigs (Casas et al., 2015) and combined, these ingredients contribute the 5th largest quantity of ingredients in the global swine feed industry. Positive responses on growth performance of weanling pigs were reported if rice or rice coproducts were included in the diets (Chae and Lee, 2002; Campos et al., 2006; Herfel et al., 2013; Casas and Stein, 2016). Values for SID of CP and AA in brewers rice obtained in this experiment were slightly less than values obtained in growing-finishing pigs (Casas et al., 2015). However, the greater SID of CP and AA observed in brewers rice compared with most other ingredients used in this experiment agree with previous data (Brestenský et al., 2013; Cervantes-Pahm et al., 2014; Casas et al., 2015). The greater SID of CP and AA in brewers rice may be attributed to the low concentration of fiber, which reduces the specific endogenous losses of CP and AA (Souffrant, 2001). Full-fat rice bran and DFRB have a greater concentration of CP and AA compared with brewers rice, but FFRB and DFRB also contain more TDF than brewers rice, which is likely the main reason for the reduced SID of AA in FFRB and DFRB compared with brewers rice. The SID of most AA in FFRB and DFRB were less in this experiment compared with previous data obtained using growing pigs (Kaufmann et al., 2005; Casas et al., 2015). The greater SID of CP and AA in FFRB than in DFRB is also in agreement with Casas et al. (2015) and is likely a consequence of the greater concentration of fat in FFRB compared with DFRB, because increased concentration of oil results in increased digestibility of AA and CP (Cervantes-Pahm and Stein, 2008).

Limited research has been conducted in the United States to determine SID of AA in peanut meal and sesame meal fed to pigs. However, the SID values determined in the current experiment are greater than the average values for 10 Chinese peanut meals fed to growing pigs (Li et al., 2014) indicating that U.S. peanut meal may have a greater nutritional value than Chinese peanut meal. Processing of peanut meal involves heating and AA in peanut meal, therefore, are susceptible to heat damage (Zhang and Parsons, 1996). However, the SID of Lys in peanut meal used in the current experiment was 83.7%, which is greater than the maximum SID of Lys (80.9%) in peanut meals reported by Li et al. (2014). Also, the peanut meal used in the current experiment had a Lys:CP ratio of 3.3, indicating that the peanut meal used in the current experiment was not heat damaged.

The SID of AA in sesame meal was greater than previous data obtained in young pigs (Aguilera et al., 2015), but due to the limited data base for the SID of AA in sesame meal, it is not possible to determine the reason for this difference. The concentration of standardized ileal digestible Met, Thr, and Trp was greater in sesame meal compared with all other ingredients used in the current experiment, indicating that inclusion of sesame meal in pig diets will contribute to meeting requirements for these AA.

Rapeseed and canola represent approximately 13% of global oilseed meal production (USDA, 2013). Rapeseed meal is produced by a procedure known as prepress solvent extraction, which involves cooking, pressing, and extraction with an organic solvent, usually hexane. As a consequence, the concentration of oil in rapeseed meal is usually less than 3% (Newkirk, 2011). The process to produce rapeseed expellers also involves prepress oil extraction, but solvent extraction is not used to extract residual oil and instead, a second mechanical press is used to remove additional oil. However, the mechanical press process is less efficient in oil removal than solvent extraction, resulting in a greater concentration of residual oil in rapeseed expellers compared with rapeseed meal (Newkirk, 2011). Values for SID of CP and AA observed in this experiment for both rapeseed meal and rapeseed expellers are in agreement with values determined in young pigs by Navarro et al. (2017), but are greater than some values obtained in growing pigs (González-Vega and Stein, 2012; NRC, 2012; Maison and Stein, 2014; Berrocoso et al., 2015). It has been reported that rapeseed expellers have greater SID of AA than rapeseed meal (Maison and Stein, 2014), but in this experiment there were no differences in the SID of CP or AA between rapeseed meal and rapeseed expellers.

The SID of CP and AA in soybean expellers used in the current experiment is in agreement with previous data (Opapeju et al., 2006; NRC, 2012) and the current data confirm that soybean expellers is an excellent source of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA and because of the greater oil concentration compared with soybean meal, soybean expellers also provide more NE to the diets (Velayudhan et al., 2015).

Bakery meal is a mixture of inedible products from the bakery and confectionary industries and often is included in pig diets as a palatable and highly digestible energy source (Slominski et al., 2004). Variability in digestibility of AA among batches of bakery meal is expected because the raw materials in the mixtures vary depending on which commodities are available (Almeida et al., 2011. The bakery meal used in the current experiment had reduced SID of CP and AA compared with values obtained in growing-finishing pigs (Almeida et al., 2011; Casas et al., 2015). Processing of bakery meal also includes a drying step, which makes AA in bakery meal susceptible to heat damage and, therefore, bakery meal often has a low SID of Lys (Almeida et al., 2011), which was also observed in this experiment. In addition, the SID of Lys in the bakery meal used in this experiment was less than the SID of Thr, which further indicates that this source of bakery meal was heat damaged.

Cassava meal is typically included in swine diets as an energy source because it has a high concentration of starch, whereas the concentration of CP and AA in cassava meal is very low. To our knowledge, this is the first experiment in which the SID of CP and AA in cassava meal fed to young pigs has been reported. The values obtained in this experiment are less than values reported by NRC (2012) and indicate that cassava meal has a very low protein value for pigs.

In conclusion, peanut meal and sesame meal have greater concentrations of standardized ileal digestible CP and most AA, with the exception of Lys, compared with the other ingredients included in this experiment. Rapeseed meal, rapeseed expellers, and soybean expellers are also excellent sources of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA, especially Lys. Full-fat rice bran and DFRB are better sources of standardized ileal digestible CP and AA compared with brewers rice, but although FFRB has greater SID of most AA compared with DFRB, the concentration of standardized ileal digestible AA is not different between FFRB and DFRB. Bakery meal and cassava meal have low concentrations of standardized ileal digestible AA and, therefore, these ingredients mainly provide energy to diets fed to pigs.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Footnotes

1Financial support for this research from Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH, 63457, Hanau, Germany, is greatly appreciated.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. Adeola O., Xue P. C., Cowieson A. J., and Ajuwon K. M.. 2016. Basal endogenous losses of amino acids in protein nutrition research for swine and poultry. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 221:274–283. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilera A., T. C. Reis de Souza G. Mariscal-Landín K. Escobar S. Montaño, and Bernal M. G.. 2015. Standardized ileal digestibility of proteins and amino acids in sesame expeller and soya bean meal in weaning piglets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl). 99:728–736. doi:10.1111/jpn.12278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Almeida F. N., G. I. Petersen, and Stein H. H.. 2011. Digestibility of amino acids in corn, corn coproducts, and bakery meal fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:4109–4115. doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. AOAC Int.. 2007. Official methods of analysis of AOAC int. 18th ed. 2nd rev.ed AOAC Int, Gaithersburg, MD. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berrocoso J. D., Rojas O. J., Liu Y., Shoulders J., Gonzalez-Vega J. C., and Stein H. H.. 2015. Energy concentration and amino acid digestibility in high-protein canola meal, conventional canola meal, and soybean meal fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:2208–2217. doi:10.2527/jas.2014–8528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brestenský M., Nitrayová S., Patráš P., and Heger J.. 2013. Standardized ileal digestibilities of amino acids and nitrogen in rye, barley, soybean meal, malt sprouts, sorghum, wheat germ and broken rice fed to growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 186:120–124. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  7. de Campos, R. M. L., E. Hierro, J. A. Ordoñez, T. M. Bertol, and L. Hoz. 2006. A note on partial replacement of maize with rice bran in the pig diet on meat and backfat fatty acids. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 15:427–433. doi:10.22358/jafs/66913/2006 [Google Scholar]
  8. Casas G. A., Almeida J. A. S., and Stein H. H.. 2015. Amino acid digestibility in rice co-products fed to growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 207:150–158. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.05.024 [Google Scholar]
  9. Casas G. A. and Stein H. H.. 2016. Effects of full fat or defatted rice bran on growth performance and blood characteristics of weanling pigs. j. Anim. Sci. 94:4179–4187. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cervantes-Pahm S. K., Y. Liu, and Stein H. H.. 2014. Digestible indispensable amino acid score and digestible amino acids in eight cereal grains. Br. j. Nutr. 111:1663–1672. doi:10.1017/S0007114513004273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cervantes-Pahm S. K. and Stein H. H.. 2008. Effect of dietary soybean oil and soybean protein concentration on the concentration of digestible amino acids in soybean products fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 86:1841–1849. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chae B. J., and Lee S. K.. 2002. Rancid rice bran affects growth performance and pork quality in finishing pigs. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 15:94–101. doi:10.5713/ajas.2002.94 [Google Scholar]
  13. González-Vega J. C. and Stein H. H.. 2012. Amino acid digestibility in canola, cottonseed, and sunflower products fed to finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 90:4391–4400. doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Herfel T., S. Jacobi X. Lin E. van Heugten V. Fellner, and Odle J.. 2013. Stabilized rice bran improves weaning pig performance via a prebiotic mechanism. J. Anim. Sci. 91:907–913. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5287 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hess V. and Sève B.. 1999. Effects of body weight and feed intake level on basal ileal endogenous losses in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 77:3281–3288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaufmann C., Sauer W. C., Cervantes M., Zhang Y., Rademacher J. H. M., and Htoo J. K.. 2005. Amino acid and energy digestibility in different sources of rice bran for growing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 85. doi:10.4141/a04-084 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim B. G., and Kim T.. 2010. A program for making completely balanced Latin Square designs employing a systemic method. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 23:277–282. [Google Scholar]
  18. Knabe D. A., D. C. LaRue E. J. Gregg G. M. Martinez, and J. T. D. Tanksley. 1989. Apparent digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in protein feedstuffs by growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 67:441–458. doi:10.2527/jas1989.672441x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Li Q., X. Piao J. Liu Z. Zeng S. Zhang, and Lei X.. 2014. Determination and prediction of the energy content and amino acid digestibility of peanut meals fed to growing pigs. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 68:196–210. doi:10.1080/1745039X.2014.910970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Li D., Qiao S. Y., Yi G. F., Jiang J. Y., Xu X. X., Piao X. S., Han I. K., and Thacker P.. 2000. Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed sesame meal supplemented diets formulated using amino acid digestibilities determined by the regression technique. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 13:213–219. doi:10.5713/ajas.2000.213 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindemann M. D., S. G. Cornelius S. M. el Kandelgy R. L. Moser, and Pettigrew J. E.. 1986. Effect of age, weaning and diet on digestive enzyme levels in the piglet. J. Anim. Sci. 62:1298–1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu Y., Jaworski N. W., Rojas O. J., and Stein H. H.. 2016. Energy concentration and amino acid digestibility in high protein canola meal, conventional canola meal, and in soybean meal fed to growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 212:52–62. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Maison T. and Stein H. H.. 2014. Digestibility by growing pigs of amino acids in canola meal from north america and 00-rapeseed meal and 00-rapeseed expellers from europe. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3502–3514. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-7748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moter V. and Stein H. H.. 2004. Effect of feed intake on endogenous losses and amino acid and energy digestibility by growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 82:3518–3525. doi:10.2527/2004.82123518x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Navarro D. M. D. L., Y. Liu T. S. Bruun, and Stein H. H.. 2017. Amino acid digestibility by weanling pigs of processed ingredients originating from soybeans, 00-rapeseeds, or a fermented mixture of plant ingredients. J. Anim. Sci. 95:2658–2669. doi:10.2527/jas.2016.1356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Newkirk R. 2011. Meal nutrient composition. In: J. K. Daun A. M. Neskin, and D. Hickling, editors, Canola - chemistry, production, processing and utilization. AOCS Press, Urbana, IL: p. 229–244. [Google Scholar]
  27. NRC.. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  28. Opapeju F. O., A. Golian C. M. Nyachoti, and Campbell L. D.. 2006. Amino acid digestibility in dry extruded-expelled soybean meal fed to pigs and poultry. J. Anim. Sci. 84:1130–1137. doi:10.2527/2006.8451130x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Pedersen C., Almeida J. S., and Stein H. H.. 2016. Analysis of published data for standardized ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in soy proteins fed to pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:340–343. doi:10.2527/jas.2015–9864 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rostagno H. S., Albino L. F. T., Donzele J. L., Gomes P. C., de Oliveira R. F., Lopes D. C., Ferreira A. S., Barreto S. L. T., and Euclides R. F.. 2011. Brazilian tables for poultry and swine. Composition of feedstuffs and nutritional requirements. 3rd ed Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil. [Google Scholar]
  31. Slominski B. A., Boros D., Campbell L. D., Guenter W., and Jones O.. 2004. Wheat by-products in poultry nutrition. Part I. Chemical and nutritive composition of wheat screenings, bakery by-products and wheat mill run. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:421–428. doi:10.4141/A03-112 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sonaiya E. B., and Omole T. A.. 1983. Cassava meal and cassava peel meal in diets for growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 8:211–220. doi:10.1016/0377-8401(83)90085–8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Souffrant W. B. 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on ileal digestibility and endogenous nitrogen losses in the pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 90:93–102. doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00199-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stein H. H., Connot S. P., and Pedersen C.. 2009. Energy and nutrient digestibility in four sources of distillers dried grains with solubles produced from corn grown within a narrow geographical area and fed to growing pigs. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1016–1025. doi:10.5713/ajas.2009.80484 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stein H. H., Lagos L. V., and Casas G. A. Nutritional value of feed ingredients of plant origin fed to pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 218:33–69. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.05.003 2016 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stein H. H., Sève B., Fuller M. F., Moughan P. J., and de Lange C. F. M.. 2007. Invited review: Amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: terminology and application. J. Anim. Sci. 85:172–180. doi:10.2527/jas.2005–742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Urbaityte R., Mosenthin R., and Eklund M.. 2009. The concept of standardized ileal amino acid digestibilities: principles and application in feed ingredients for piglets. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1209–1223. doi:10.5713/ajas.2009.80471 [Google Scholar]
  38. USDA.. 2013. Soybean and oil crops, Canola, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops (Accessed 10 August 2017.) [Google Scholar]
  39. Velayudhan D. E., J. M. Heo, and Nyachoti C. M.. 2015. Net energy content of dry extruded-expelled soybean meal fed with or without enzyme supplementation to growing pigs as determined by indirect calorimetry. J. Anim. Sci. 93:3402–3409. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang Y. E., and Parsons C. M.. 1996. Effects of overprocessing on the nutritional quality of peanut meal. Poult. Sci. 75:514–518. doi:10.3382/ps.0750514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Animal Science are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES