Table 7.

Effects of DFRB source and processing technology on the hindgut disappearance (%) of dietary nutrients¹

	Method
	Pressed							Solvent-extracted
	Source No.										P-value
Items2	1	2	3	4	5	7	9	6	8	SEM	Source	Method
GE	5.80	6.76	13.09	11.16	6.56	6.32	6.79	7.24	16.26	2.844	0.400	0.339
DM	6.20	7.31	6.39	10.96	7.30	7.29	7.77	7.79	16.61	1.659	<0.01	0.031
Ash	12.32	16.81	18.88	21.14	16.67	18.16	16.23	8.92	18.43	2.500	0.168	0.081
OM	5.77	6.58	11.71	10.21	6.59	6.47	7.14	7.37	17.76	2.612	0.483	0.171
EE	−25.38	−21.71	−24.49	−30.21	−38.8	−28.10	−24.80	−48.57	−26.07	6.677	0.760	0.073
CP	11.64	11.18	21.11	23.57	10.94	5.75	7.61	9.37	28.13	4.976	0.073	0.934
TDF	18.89	22.62	10.52	19.68	20.15	25.89	35.00	11.90	28.47	4.935	0.064	0.172
SDF	21.94	21.85	19.52	46.88	27.12	37.24	36.95	29.89	37.69	5.978	0.037	0.707
IDF	23.41	18.89	8.92	17.16	19.05	23.26	34.58	5.10	25.46	4.587	0.068	0.224
NDF	12.15	15.13	6.47	11.67	17.96	18.59	27.88	11.65	20.26	3.600	0.012	0.609
ADF	14.30	7.24	5.78	11.75	16.2	10.86	20.71	9.20	10.60	1.992	<0.01	0.329
Hemicellulose	10.95	21.34	13.31	19.23	9.65	22.92	30.77	14.81	11.02	5.493	0.224	0.089

¹Data represent least square means (n = 6), and individual pig was treated as the experimental unit.

²Source, effects of nine different sources of DFRB; Method, effects of oil extraction methods: pressed DFRB vs. solvent-extracted DFRB. Sources of DFRB are described in Table 1.