Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:21:41.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling phosphorus intake, digestion, retention and excretion in growing and finishing pig: model evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

V. Symeou ,
I. Leinonen  and
I. Kyriazakis
V. Symeou*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Claremont Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
I. Leinonen
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Claremont Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Claremont Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A deterministic, dynamic model was developed, to enable predictions of phosphorus (P) digested, retained and excreted for different pig genotypes and under different dietary conditions. Before confidence can be placed on the predictions of the model, its evaluation was required. A sensitivity analysis of model predictions to ±20% changes in the model parameters was undertaken using a basal UK industry standard diet and a pig genotype characterized by British Society Animal Science as being of ‘intermediate growth’. Model outputs were most sensitive to the values of the efficiency of digestible P utilization for growth and the non-phytate P absorption coefficient from the small intestine into the bloodstream; all other model parameters influenced model outputs by <10%, with the majority of the parameters influencing outputs by <5%. Independent data sets of published experiments were used to evaluate model performance based on graphical comparisons and statistical analysis. The literature studies were selected on the basis of the following criteria: they were within the BW range of 20 to 120 kg, pigs grew in a thermo-neutral environment; and they provided information on P intake, retention and excretion. In general, the model predicted satisfactorily the quantitative pig responses, in terms of P digested, retained and excreted, to variation in dietary inorganic P supply, Ca and phytase supplementation. The model performed well with ‘conventional’, European feed ingredients and poorly with ‘less conventional’ ones, such as dried distillers grains with solubles and canola meal. Explanations for these inconsistencies in the predictions are offered in the paper and they are expected to lead to further model development and improvement. The latter would include the characterization of the origin of phytate in pig diets.

Keywords

mathematical modelphosphorusphytatepigsensitivity analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1622 - 1631
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adeola, O, Sands, JS, Simmins, PH and Schulze, H 2004. The efficacy of an Escherichia coli-derived phytase preparation. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2657–2666.Google Scholar
Akinmusire, AS and Adeola, O 2009. True digestibility of phosphorus in canola and soybean meals for growing pigs: influence of microbial phytase. Journal of Animal Science 87, 977–983.Google Scholar
Almeida, FN and Stein, HH 2012. Effects of graded levels of microbial phytase on the standardized total tract digestibility of phosphorus in corn and corn coproducts fed to pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1262–1269.Google Scholar
Blaabjerg, K, Carlsson, NG, Hansen-Møller, J and Poulsen, HD 2010. Effect of heat-treatment, phytase, xylanase and soaking time on inositol phosphate degradation in vitro in wheat, soybean meal and rapeseed cake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 162, 123–134.Google Scholar
Black, JL 1995. The testing and evaluation of models. In Modelling growth in the pig (ed. PJ Moughan, MWA Verstegen and MI Visser-Reyneveld), pp. 23–31. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
BSAS 2003. Nutrient requirement standards for pigs. British Society of Animal Science, Penicuik, UK.Google Scholar
Dias, RS, Lopez, S, Moreira, JA, Schulin-Zeuthen, M, Vitti, DMSS, Kebreab, E and France, J 2010. Application of a kinetic model to describe phosphorus metabolism in pigs fed a diet with a microbial phytase. Journal of Agricultural Science 148, 277–286.Google Scholar
Ekpe, ED, Zijlstra, RT and Patience, JF 2002. Digestible phosphorus requirement of grower pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 541–549.Google Scholar
Fan, MZ, Archbold, T, Sauer, WC, Lackeyram, D, Rideout, T, Gao, Y, de Lange, CF and Hacker, RR 2001. Novel methodology allows simultaneous measurement of true phosphorus digestibility and the gastrointestinal endogenous phosphorus outputs in studies with pigs. Journal of Nutrition 131, 2388–2396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, JA 1995. Calcium and phosphorus metabolism in growing pigs. III. A model resolution. Livestock Production Science 41, 255–261.Google Scholar
Jendza, AJ and Adeola, O 2009. Water-soluble phosphorus excretion in pigs fed diets supplemented with microbial phytase. Animal Science Journal 80, 296–304.Google Scholar
Jongbloed, AW, Mroz, Z and Kemme, PA 1992. The effect of supplementary Aspergillus niger phytase in diets for pigs on concentration and apparent digestibility of dry matter, total phosphorous, and phytic acid in different sections of the alimentary tract. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1159–1168.Google Scholar
Leske, KL and Coon, CN 1999. A bioassay to determine the effect of phytase on phytate phosphorus hydrolysis and total phosphorus retention of feed ingredients as determined with broilers and laying hens. Poultry Science 78, 1151–1157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Létourneau-Montminy, MP, Jondreville, C, Sauvant, D and Narcy, A 2012. Meta-analysis of phosphorus utilization by growing pigs: effect of dietary phosphorus, calcium and exogenous phytase. Animal 6, 1590–1600.Google Scholar
Létourneau-Montminy, MP, Narcy, A, Lescoat, P, Magnin, M, Bernier, JF, Sauvant, D, Jondreville, C and Pomar, C 2011. Modelling the fate of dietary phosphorus in the digestive track of growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3596–3611.Google Scholar
Lopes, JB, Moreira, JA, Kebreab, E, Vitti, DMSS, Abdalla, AL, Crompton, LA and France, J 2009. A model on biological flow of phosphorus in growing pigs. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 61, 691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttrell, BM 1993. The biological relevance of the binding of calcium ions by inositol phosphates. Journal of Biological Chemistry 268, 1521–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maguire, RO, Dou, Z, Sims, JT, Brake, J and Joern, BC 2005. Dietary strategies for reduced phosphorus excretion and improved water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 2093–2103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peerce, BE 1997. Interaction of substrates with the intestinal brush border membrane Na/phosphate cotransporter. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1323, 45–56.Google Scholar
Poulsen, HD, Carlson, D, Nørgaard, JV and Blaabjerg, K 2010. Phosphorus digestibility is highly influenced by phytase but slightly by calcium in growing pigs. Livestock Science 134, 100–102.Google Scholar
Sandberg, AS, Larsen, T and Sandström, B 1993. High dietary calcium level decreases colonic phytate degradation in pigs fed a rapeseed diet. Journal of Nutrition 123, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandberg, FB, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2005. Partitioning of limiting protein and energy in the growing pig: description of the problem, possible rules and their qualitative evaluation. British Journal of Nutrition 93, 205–212.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM and Tran, G 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses and fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selle, PH, Ravindran, V, Cowieson, AJ and Bedford, MR 2011. Phytate and phytase. In Enzymes in farm animal nutrition (ed. MR Bedford and GG Partidge), pp. 160–205. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Smith, JU, Powlson, DS, McGill, WB, Arah, JRM, Chertov, OG, Coleman, K, Franko, U, Frolking, S, Jenkinson, DS, Jensen, LS, Kelly, RM, Klein-Gunnewiek, H, Komarov, AS, Molina, LC, Mueller, JAE, Parton, WJ, Thornley, JHM and Whitmore, AP 1997. A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81, 153–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, HH, Adeola, O, Cromwell, GL, Kim, SW, Mahan, DC and Miller, PS 2011. Concentration of dietary calcium supplied by calcium carbonate does not affect the apparent total track digestibility of calcium, but decreases digestibility of phosphorus by growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2139–2144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symeou, V, Leinonen, I and Kyriazakis, I 2014. Modelling phosphorus intake, digestion, retention and excretion in growing and finishing pigs: model description. Animal, published online doi: 10.1017/S1751731114001402.Google Scholar
Trujillo, JHA, Lindemann, MD and Cromwell, GL 2010. Phosphorus utilization in growing pigs fed a phosphorus deficient diet supplemented with rice bran product and amended with phytase. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias 23, 429–433.Google Scholar
Vagenas, D, Bishop, SC and Kyriazakis, I 2007. A model to account for the consequences of host nutrition on the outcome of gastrointestinal parasitism in sheep: model evaluation. Parasitology 134, 1279–1289.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2003. Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model testing and evaluation. Animal Science 77, 267–276.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Emmans, GC and Kyriazakis, I 2004. Modeling the effects of stressors on the performance of populations of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2442–2450.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, RT and Beltranena, E 2009. Regaining competitiveness: alternative feedstuffs for swine. Advances in Pork Production 20, 237–243.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Supplementary Material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit

Download Supplementary Material(File)
File 23 KB
Supplementary material: File

Symeou Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material S1

Download Symeou Supplementary Material(File)
File 14.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Symeou Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material S2

Download Symeou Supplementary Material(File)
File 30.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Symeou Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material S2

Download Symeou Supplementary Material(File)
File 17.5 KB