Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:59:39.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ileal amino acids digestibility of sorghum in weaned piglets and growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2010

G. Mariscal-Landín ,
T. C. Reis de Souza  and
M. A. Avalos
G. Mariscal-Landín*
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Investigación en Fisiología Animal – Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, México, Ajuchitlán Colón, 76280 Querétaro, México, USA Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán-UNAM, Campo 1-Edificio de Estudios de Posgrado, Av. 1 de Mayo s/n, Cuautitlán Izcalli, 54700 Edo, de México, México, USA
T. C. Reis de Souza
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, México, Avenida de las Ciencias s/n, Colonia Juriquilla, Delegación Santa Rosa Jáuregui, 76230 Querétaro, México, USA
M. A. Avalos
Affiliation:
Master of Science Thesis, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to determine the coefficients of ileal apparent digestibility (CIAD) of sorghum protein and amino acids (AA) in weaned piglets and growing pigs. Digestibility coefficients were estimated using the regression and difference methods for the weaned piglets; and the direct and difference methods for the growing pigs. To test the hypothesis that CP and AA digestibility of sorghum is lower in weaned piglets than in growing pigs, two experiments were conducted. In experiment one, 20 weaned piglets were fitted with a ‘T’ cannula at 21 days of age and were fed for 2 weeks one of five dietary treatments: a reference or control diet providing 200 g of CP/kg from casein (C) as the sole protein source, and four casein–sorghum (C–S) diets kept isoproteic to C by the appropriate adjustment of C and maize starch proportions; the amount of sorghum (S) in these diets was 135, 307, 460 and 614 g/kg. In experiment 2, fifteen castrated pigs weighing 57.8 ± 2.8 kg were used and randomly allotted to one of three dietary treatments: a reference casein–maize starch diet containing C as the sole protein source, a C–S diet, both diets containing 160 g of CP/kg, and a fortified S diet containing 68 g of CP/kg. In piglets the CIAD for CP and AA decreased linearly (P < 0.05) as the amount of S in the diet increased. The average ileal digestibility of AA from C was 0.858 ± 0.111, and decreased to 0.663 ± 0.191 at the higher S level. The CIAD estimated using the regression or difference methods were similar for leucine, cysteine, glutamic acid, serine, alanine and tyrosine, and different for the other AA. In growing pigs the CIAD of protein and AA (except alanine and cysteine) were similar (P > 0.05) for the C and the C–S diets, but higher (P < 0.05) than those for the S diet. The CIAD for S obtained by the difference method were higher (P < 0.05) than those obtained using the direct method, except for lysine, isoleucine, valine, methionine, threonine and cysteine. The results indicate that except for lysine and cysteine, growing pigs’ ability to digest AA and protein is superior than weaned piglets.

Keywords

amino acidsileal digestibilitypigletsproteinsorghum
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , August 2010 , pp. 1341 - 1348
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

AOAC 2000. Official methods of analysis. Association of official analytical chemists, 17th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bansal, S, Mishra, A, Tomar, A, Sharma, S, Khanna, VK, Garg, GK 2008. Isolation and temporal endospermal expresion of α-kafirin gene of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. moench) var. M 35-1 for introgression analysis of transgene. Journal of Cereal Science 48, 808–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, JM, Keith, MO 1989. Factors affecting the digestibility by pigs of energy and protein in wheat, barley and sorghum diets supplemented with canola meal. Animal Feed Science and Technology 24, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennic, A 1982. Salivary proline rich proteins. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 45, 83–89.Google Scholar
Brand, TS, Badenhorst, HA, Siebrits, FK 1990. The use of pigs both intact and with ileo-rectal anastomosis to estimate the apparent and true digestibility of amino acids in untreated, heat-treated and thermal-ammoniated high-tannin grain sorghum. South African Journal of Animal Science 20, 223–228.Google Scholar
Charlton, AJ, Baxter, NJ, Khan, ML, Moir, AJG, Haslam, E, Davies, AP, Williamson, MP 2002. Polyphenol/peptide binding and precipitation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50, 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corfield, AP, Shukla, AK 2003. Mucins: vital components of the mucosal defensive barrier. Genomic Proteomic Technology 3, 20–23.Google Scholar
Deplancke, B, Gaskins, HR 2001. Microbial modulation of innate defense: goblet cells and the intestinal mucus layer. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, 1131S–1141S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diario Oficial de la Federación 2001. Especificaciones técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-062-ZOO-1999. Diario Oficial De La Federación, Miércoles 2 de Agosto. Segunda Sección.Google Scholar
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC 1995. Determination of ileal apparent amino acid digestibility in barley and canola meal for pigs with the direct, difference, and regression methods. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2364–2374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenton, TW, Fenton, M 1979. An improved procedure for determination of chromic oxide in feed and feces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 59, 631–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagerman, AE, Butler, LG 1981. The specificity of proanthocyanidin-protein interactions. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 256, 4494–4497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslam, E 1998. Practical polyphenolics: from structure to molecular recognition and physiological action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Henderson, JH, Ricker, RD, Bidlingmeyer, BA, Woodward, C 2000. Rapid, accurate and reproducible HPLC analysis of amino acids. Amino acid analysis using Zorbax Eclipse AAA columns and the Agilent 1100 HPLC. Agilent Technologies Part No.5980-1193E, 10pp.Google Scholar
INRA 1984. L’alimentation des animaux monogastriques: porc, lapin, volailles. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Jansman, AJM 1993. Tannins in feedstuffs for simple-stomached animals. Nutrition Research Reviews 6, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jondreville, C, van den Broecke, J, Gatel, F, Grosjean, F, van Cauwenberghe, S, Sève, B 2001. Ileal digestibility of amino acids and estimates of endogenous amino acid losses in pigs fed wheat, triticale, rye, barley, maize and sorghum. Animal Research 50, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H, House, WA, Miller, DD 2004. Habitual tea consumption protects againts the inhibitory effects of tea on iron adsorption rats. Nutrition Research 24, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondos, AC, Foale, MA 1983. Comparison of the nutritional value of low and medium tannin sorghum grains for pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 8, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, FD, Knabe, DA, Tanksley, TD 1987. Apparent digestibility of amino acids, gross energy and starch in corn, sorghum, wheat, barley, oats groats and wheat middlings for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1655–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkink, CA, Berntsen, PJM, op den Kamp, BML, Kemp, B, Verstegen, WA 1994. Gastric protein breakdown and pancreatic enzyme activities in response to two different dietary protein sources in newly weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2843–2850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mariscal-Landín, G 1992. Facteurs de variation de l’utilisation digestive des acides aminés chez le porc. PhD. Thesis Rennes 1 University, 134pp.Google Scholar
Mariscal-Landín, G, Avellaneda, JH, Reis de Souza, TC, Aguilera, A, Borbolla, GA, Mar, B 2004. Effect of tannins in sorghum on amino acid ileal digestibility and on trypsin (E.C.2.4.21.4) and chymotrypsin (E.C.2.4.21.1) activity of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 117, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariscal-Landín, G, Reis de Souza, TC, Parra, SJE, Aguilera, BA, Mar, BB 2008. Ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids from canola meal in weaned piglets and growing pigs. Livestock Science 116, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehansho, H, Clements, S, Sheares, BT, Smith, S, Carlson, DM 1985. Induction of proline-rich glycoprotein synthesis in mouse salivary glands by isoproterenol and by tannins. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 260, 4418–4423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitaru, BN, Reichert, RD, Blair, R 1984. The binding of dietary protein by sorghum tannins in the digestive tract of pigs. The Journal of Nutrition 114, 1787–1796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montagne, L, Piel, C, Lallès, JP 2004. Effect of diet on mucin kinetics and composition: nutrition and health implications. Nutrition Reviews 62, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosenthin, R, Sauer, WC, Blank, R, Huisman, J, Fan, MZ 2000. The concept of digestible amino acids in diet formulation for pigs. Livestock Production Science 64, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossé, J, Huet, JC, Baudet, J 1988. The amino acid composition of whole sorghum grain in relation to its nitrogen content. Cereal Chemistry 65, 271–277.Google Scholar
NRC 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Oria, PM, Hamaker, BR, Smith, S 1995. Resistance of sorghum α, β and γ kafirins to pepsin digestion. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43, 2148–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, ML, Steve, VS, Butler, LC 1978. A critical evaluation of the vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum grain. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 26, 1214–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, RE, Anaya, EAM, Mariscal, LG 2005. Predicción de la composición química del grano de sorgo mediante espectroscopia de reflectancia en el infrarrojo cercano (NIRS). Técnica Pecuaria en México 43, 1–11.Google Scholar
Reis de Souza, TC, Mar, BB, Mariscal, LG 2000. Canulación de cerdos posdestete para pruebas de digestibilidad ileal: desarrollo de una metodología. Técnica Pecuaria en México 38, 143–150.Google Scholar
SAS. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. User’s guide, version 9.1. 2002. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sell, DR, Reed, WM, Chrisman, CL, Rogler, JC 1985. Mucin excretion and morphology of the intestinal tract as influenced by sorghum tannins. Nutrition Reports International 31, 1369–1374.Google Scholar
Shon, KS, Maxwell, CV, Southern, LL, Buchanam, DS 1994. Improved soybean protein sources for early-weaned pigs: II. Effects on ileal amino acid digestibility. Journal of Animal Science 72, 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, RGD, Torrie, JH 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hil, New York.Google Scholar