Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:28:12.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of konjac flour inclusion in gestation diets on the nutrient digestibility, lactation feed intake and reproductive performance of sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2014

H. Q. Sun ,
Y. F. Zhou ,
C. Q. Tan ,
L. F. Zheng ,
J. Peng  and
S. W. Jiang
H. Q. Sun
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China
Y. F. Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China
C. Q. Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China
L. F. Zheng
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China
J. Peng*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P. R. China
S. W. Jiang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Swine Breeding and Genetics of the Agricultural Ministry, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, P.R. China
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of konjac flour (KF) inclusion in gestation diets of sows on nutrients digestibility, lactation feed intake, reproductive performance of sows and preweaning performance of piglets. Two isoenergetic and isonitrogenous gestation diets were formulated: a control diet and a 2.1% KF-supplemented diet (KF diet). Both diets had the same NDF and insoluble fiber (ISF) levels, but the KF diet had higher soluble fiber (SF) level. The day after breeding, 96 multiparous sows were assigned to the two dietary treatments. Restrict-fed during gestation, in contrast, all sows were offered the same lactation diet ad libitum. Response criteria included sow BW, backfat depth, lactation feed intake, weaning-to-estrus interval, litter size and piglet’s weight at parturition and day 21 of lactation. On day 60 of gestation, 20 sows were used to measure nutrient digestibility. Results showed that the digestibility of dry matter, gross energy, crude fiber and ADF were not affected by the dietary treatments. The inclusion of KF in gestation diets increased NDF digestibility (P<0.05) and tended to increase the digestibility of CP (P=0.05) compared with the control diet group. In addition, dietary treatment during gestation did not affect litter size, BW and backfat gain during gestation, lactation weight, backfat loss or weaning-to-estrus interval of sows. However, sows fed the KF diet consumed more (P<0.05) lactation diet per day than sows in the control group. Accordingly, sows fed the KF diet showed greater average piglet weights on day 21 of lactation (P=0.09), and the litter weight of sows fed the KF diet on day 21 of lactation increased by 3.95 kg compared with sows fed the control diet (not significant). In conclusion, the inclusion of KF in gestation diets increased lactation feed intake of sows and tended to improve litter performance.

Keywords

konjac flourdigestibilitylactation feed intakereproductive performancesow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 7 , July 2014 , pp. 1089 - 1094
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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1999. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition, 5th revised. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE 2001. The nutritional significance of “dietary fibre” analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 2–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, MR 1996. Interaction between ingested feed and the digestive system in poultry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 5, 86–95.Google Scholar
Bindelle, J, Leterme, P and Buldgen, A 2008. Nutritional and environmental consequences of dietary fibre in pig nutrition: a review. Biotechnologie Agronomie Societe et Environnement 12, 313–324.Google Scholar
Chua, M, Baldwin, TC, Hocking, TJ and Chan, K 2010. Traditional uses and potential health benefits of Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch ex N.E.Br. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 128, 268–278.Google Scholar
Darroch, CS, Dove, CR, Maxwell, CV, Johnson, ZB and Southern, LL 2008. A regional evaluation of the effect of fiber type in gestation diets on sow reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1573–1578.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, JA, Jongbloed, AW and Verstegen, MW 2004. Dietary fiber stabilizes blood glucose and insulin levels and reduces physical activity in sows (Sus scrofa). Journal of Nutrition 134, 1481–1486.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, JA, Bolhuis, JE, Bosch, G and Gerrits, WJ 2008. Effects of dietary fibre on behaviour and satiety in pigs. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 67, 334–342.Google Scholar
Douglas, MW, Cunnick, JE, Pekas, JC, Zimmerman, DR and von Borell, EH 1998. Impact of feeding regimen on behavioral and physiological indicators for feeding motivation and satiety, immune function, and performance of gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2589–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eissen, JJ, Kanis, E and Kemp, B 2000. Sow factors affecting voluntary feed intake during lactation. Livestock Production Science 64, 147–165.Google Scholar
Guillemet, R, Hamard, A, Quesnel, H, Pere, MC, Etienne, M, Dourmad, JY and Meunier-Salaun, MC 2007. Dietary fibre for gestating sows: effects on parturition progress, behaviour, litter and sow performance. Animal 1, 872–880.Google Scholar
Holt, JP, Johnston, LJ, Baidoo, SK and Shurson, GC 2006. Effects of a high-fiber diet and frequent feeding on behavior, reproductive performance, and nutrient digestibility in gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science 84, 946–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isken, F, Klaus, S, Osterhoff, M, Pfeiffer, AF and Weickert, MO 2010. Effects of long-term soluble v. insoluble dietary fiber intake on high-fat diet-induced obesity in C57BL/6J mice. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 21, 278–284.Google Scholar
Lewis, CR and Bunter, KL 2011. Body development in sows, feed intake and maternal capacity. Part 1: performance, pre-breeding and lactation feed intake traits of primiparous sows. Animal 5, 1843–1854.Google Scholar
Li, B, Xia, J, Wang, Y and Xie, BJ 2005. Grain-size effect on the structure and antiobe-sity activity of konjac flour. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53, 7404–7407.Google Scholar
Matte, JJ, Robert, S, Girard, CL, Farmer, C and Martineau, GP 1994. Effect of bulky diets based on wheat bran or oat hulls on reproductive performance of sows during their first two parities. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1754–1760.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Edwards, SA and Robert, S 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the behaviour and health of the restricted fed sow. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miquel, N, Knudsen, KE and Jorgensen, H 2001. Impact of diets varying in dietary fibre characteristics on gastric emptying in pregnant sows. Archives of Animal Nutrition-archiv Fur Tierernahrung 55, 121–145.Google Scholar
Mosnier, E, Le Floc’h, N, Etienne, M, Ramaekers, P, Seve, B and Pere, MC 2010. Reduced feed intake of lactating primiparous sows is associated with increased insulin resistance during the peripartum period and is not modified through supplementation with dietary tryptophan. Journal of Animal Science 88, 612–625.Google Scholar
Noblet, J and Perez, JM 1993. Prediction of digestibility of nutrients and energy values of pig diets from chemical analysis. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3389–3398.Google Scholar
NRC. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Onishi, N, Kawamoto, S, Suzuki, H, Santo, H, Aki, T, Shigeta, S, Hashimoto, K, Hide, M and Ono, K 2007. Dietary pulverized konjac glucomannan suppresses scratching behavior and skin inflammatory immune responses in NC/Nga mice. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 144, 95–104.Google Scholar
Owusu-Asiedu, A, Patience, JF, Laarveld, B, Van Kessel, AG, Simmins, PH, Zijlstra, RT 2006. Effects of guar gum and cellulose on digesta passage rate, ileal microbial populations, energy and protein digestibility, and performance of grower pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 843–852.Google Scholar
Pere, MC and Etienne, M 2007. Insulin sensitivity during pregnancy, lactation, and postweaning in primiparous gilts. Journal of Animal Science 85, 101–110.Google Scholar
Pere, MC, Etienne, M and Dourmad, JY 2000. Adaptations of glucose metabolism in multiparous sows: effects of pregnancy and feeding level. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2933–2941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quesnel, H, Meunier-Salaun, MC, Hamard, A, Guillemet, R, Etienne, M, Farmer, C, Dourmad, JY and Pere, MC 2009. Dietary fiber for pregnant sows: influence on sow physiology and performance during lactation. Journal of Animal Science 87, 532–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robert, S, Bergeron, R, Farmer, C and Meunier-Salaun, MC 2002. Dose the number of daily meals affect feeding motivation and behaviour of gilts fed high-fber diets? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 105–117.Google Scholar
Schürch, AF, Lloyd, LE and Champton, EW 1950. The use of chromic oxide as an index for determining the digestibility of a diet. Journal of Nutrition 50, 629–636.Google Scholar
Sekiguchi, T and Koketsu, Y 2004. Behavior and reproductive performance by stalled breeding females on a commercial swine farm. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1482–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serena, A, Jorgensen, H and Bach Knudsen, KE 2008. Digestion of carbohydrates and utilization of energy in sows fed diets with contrasting levels and physicochemical properties of dietary fiber. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2208–2216.Google Scholar
Shurson, GC, Lubal, GW, Crenshaw, J, Hamilton, CR, Fisher, RL, Koehler, DD and Whitney, MH 2003. Impact of energy intake and pregnancy status on rate and efficiency of gain and backfat changes of sows postweaning. Journal of Animal Science 81, 209–216.Google Scholar
Song, YJ, Sawamura, M, Ikeda, K, Igawa, S and Yamori, Y 2000. Soluble dietary fibre improves insulin sensitivity by increasing muscle GLUT-4 content in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 27, 41–45.Google Scholar
Van der Peet-Schwering, CM, Kemp, B, Binnendijk, GP, den Hartog, LA, Vereijken, PF and Verstegen, MW 2004. Effects of additional starch or fat in late-gestating high nonstarch polysaccharide diets on litter performance and glucose tolerance in sows. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2964–2971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Veum, TL, Crenshaw, JD, Crenshaw, TD, Cromwell, GL, Easter, RA, Ewan, RC, Nelssen, JL, Miller, ER, Pettigrew, JE and Ellersieck, MR 2009. The addition of ground wheat straw as a fiber source in the gestation diet of sows and the effect on sow and litter performance for three successive parities. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1003–1012.Google Scholar