Zhongyuan Du, Lixiang Gao, Yuming Wang, Jingjing Xie, Shuli Zeng, Jiangtao Zhao, Renna Sa, Feng Zhao
This experiment evaluated the difference
between computer-controlled simulated digestion and in vivo stomach–small
intestinal or large intestinal digestion for growing pigs. Five diets including
a corn–soybean meal basal diet and four experimental diets with rapeseed meal
(RSM), cottonseed meal (CSM), sunflower meal (SFM), or peanut meal (PNM) were
assigned to each group of five barrows installed terminal ileal cannula or
distal cecal cannula in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Ileal digesta and feces
were collected for the determination of digestibility of dry matter (DM) and
gross energy (GE) as well as digestible energy (DE) at terminal ileum and total
tract. The large intestinal digestibility and DE were calculated by the
difference between measurements obtained at the terminal ileum and those
obtained from total tract. In vitro stomach–small intestinal digestibility and
DE for diets and plant protein meals were determined by stomach–small
intestinal digestion in a computer-controlled simulated digestion system
(CCSDS). The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of diets were
determined in a CCSDS using ileal digesta and enzymes extracted from cecal
digesta of pigs. The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of four
plant protein meals were determined by the difference between stomach–small
intestinal and total tract digestion in the CCSDS. For the experimental diets,
the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE were not different from corresponding
in vivo values in basal diet and PNM diet, but greater than corresponding in
vivo values for diets with RSM, CSM, and SFM (P < 0.05). No difference was
observed between in vitro and in vivo large intestinal digestibility and DE in
five diets. For the feed ingredients, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE
did not differ from corresponding in vivo ileal values in RSM and PNM but were
greater than the in vivo ileal values in CSM and SFM (P < 0.05). The in
vitro large intestinal GE digestibility and DE were not different from in vivo
large intestinal values in RSM, CSM, and PNM, but lower than in vivo large
intestinal values in SFM. This finding may relate to the higher fiber content
of plant protein meals resulting in shorter digestion time of in vivo
stomach–small intestine thus lower digestibility compared to in vitro,
indicating it is necessary to optimize in vitro stomach–small intestinal
digestion time.
2023. J. Anim. Sci. 101: skad170
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad170
Registration hotline: 021-57634675
fax: 021-57632800
Copy right : 上海亘泰实业集团
Collaboration & Sponsorship: 021-57634938 57631012
ASASHotline:021-67868428
Site Map |   CNZZStatistics
address:Shanghai songjiang jiuting town nine new highway 90 lane 3 nine new commercial building 15 floor
WeChat ID:asaschina
The pig nutrition international BBS CSIS