Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:25:29.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of a nylon-bag technique for pig feed digestibility studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Hadden Graham ,
Per Åman ,
Rosemary K. Newman ,
C. Walt Newman  and
C. Walt newman
Hadden Graham
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Per Åman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Rosemary K. Newman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
C. Walt Newman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
C. Walt newman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The use of a nylon-bag technique for pig feed digestibility determination was studied. Bags, measuring 25 × 40 mm and containing feed samples, were introduced into the pig gastrointestinal tract through a duodenal cannula, and recovered in the faeces between 23 and 69 h later. The disappearance of organic matter and crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) from the bags was compared with in vivo apparent digestibility, determined by conventional faecal-collection methods, and neutral-detergent-fibre content for eleven feeds. The residues left in the bags after passage through the intestine from whole-crop-pea (Pisum sativum) and barley-grain samples were analysed for starch, non-starch polysaccharide residues, Klason lignin, crude protein and ash.

2. Dry matter disappearance of barley or whole-crop peas was not influenced by increasing bag pore size from 10 to 36 μm or sample weight from 250 to 1000 mg. Pepsin (EC 3.4.2.1) pretreatment had no effect on the degradation in the bags of the feeds investigated.

3. Organic matter and crude protein disappearance from the bags exceeded in vivo apparent digestibility by up to 0.10 and 0.42 units respectively. In vivo apparent organic matter digestibility could be predicted (P < 0.001) by the organic matter disappearance from the bags and the neutral-detergent-fibre content of the feed, while in vivo apparent crude protein digestibility was highly correlated (P < 0.001) to all these indices but poorly to crude protein disappearance from the bags.

4. Klason lignin was the least degraded component measured in the whole-crop-pea and barley residues from the bags, while starch was completely digested. Of the non-starch polysaccharide residues, xylose was the most resistant to degradation in both samples whereas other sugars vaned in susceptibility to solubilization between samples.

5. Results are discussed in relation to the potential uses of the nylon-bag technique described in the present paper for studies in simple-stomached animals.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , November 1985 , pp. 719 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Åman, P. & Hesselman, K. (1984). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 135–139.Google Scholar
Association of official analytical chemists (1975). Oficial methods of analysis, 12th ed. Washington, dc: Association of official analytical chemists.Google Scholar
Bacic, A. & Stone, B. A. (1981). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 8, 475–495.Google Scholar
Björnhag, G.& Jonsson E. (1984). Livestock Production Science 11, 179–184.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O. (1973). Beretning fra forsøgslaboratoriet no. 406. Copenhagen: National institute of animal science.Google Scholar
Ehle, F. R., Jeraci, J. L., Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Journal of Animal Science 55, 1071–1081.Google Scholar
Graham, H., Hesselman, K. & Åman, P. (1985). In Digestive physiology in the pig, pp. 195–198. [Just, A., Jørgensen, H. and Fernandez, J. A., editers]. Copenhagen: National institute of animal science.Google Scholar
Håkansson, J. & Malmlöf, K. (1984). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 45–51.Google Scholar
Just, A., Jøgensen, H., Fernańdez, J. A. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, J. E. (1983). Department of Animal Nutrition, Report no. 59. Uppsala: swedish university of agricultural sciences.Google Scholar
Lindberg, J. E., Kaspersson, A. & Ciszuk, P. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 501–504.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C. (1980). In Current concepts of digestion and absorption in pigs, no 3, pp. 112–129 [Low, A. G. and Partridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: National institute for research in dairying.Google Scholar
Mason, V. C., Kragelund, Z. & Eggum, B. O. (1982). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 48, 241–252.Google Scholar
Petry, H. & Handlos, B. M. (1978). Archiv für Tierernährung 28, 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van soest, P. J. (1981). In The Analysis of Dietary Fiber in Foods, pp. 123–158. [James, W. P. T. and Theander, O., editors]. New york: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. C., Jørgensen, H. & Berzins, R. (1983). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 233–237.Google Scholar
Theander, O. & Åman, P. (1979). Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 97–106.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Zebrowska, T. (1982). In Digestive Physiology in the Pig, pp. 225–236. [Laplace, J. P., Corring, T. and Rerat, A., editors]. Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.Google Scholar