Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T00:45:40.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of the amino acid digestibility of legume seeds in growing pigs: a meta-analysis approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2017

F. Messad ,
M. P. Létourneau-Montminy ,
E. Charbonneau ,
D. Sauvant  and
F. Guay
F. Messad
Affiliation:
Département des sciences animales, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6
M. P. Létourneau-Montminy
Affiliation:
Département des sciences animales, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6
E. Charbonneau
Affiliation:
Département des sciences animales, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6
D. Sauvant
Affiliation:
INRA, AgroParisTech, UMR791 Physiologie de la Nutrition et alimentation, F-75231 Paris, France
F. Guay*
Affiliation:
Département des sciences animales, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6
*
†E-mail: frederic.guay@fsaa.ulaval.ca
Get access

Abstract

On pig farms, a high proportion of the cost of production comes from feed costs. However, the use of alternative ingredients such as legume seeds may help to reduce this cost. In fact, legume seeds are an important source of essential amino acids (EAA) and can therefore be an alternative to oilseed meals. However, the accurate use of these legume seeds requires a precise knowledge of the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of EAA, which may vary depending on its botanical variety. A meta-analysis was performed on a database compiling data from 41 studies published between 1981 and 2013 and 178 dietary treatments. Models of prediction of the SID of EAA as well as the dietary concentration of digestible standardized EAA (dEAA) were obtained, based on the chemical composition of ingredients reported in the publications. The effect of the type of legume seeds (faba bean, lupin, pea and soya bean), surgical procedures (T-cannula, re-entrant cannulas, post valve T-cannulas and ileo-rectal anastomosis), and BW of pigs (BW⩽25 kg BW>25 kg) were also tested in each model. Results showed that dietary CP and crude fibre (CF) were, respectively, the best predictors of each EAA SID for faba bean, lupin and pea (R2=0.42 to 0.89) and soya bean (R2=0.32 to 0.77). For the dEAA content, the best prediction models included dietary CP and ADF for faba bean, lupin and pea and soya bean, respectively, with R2 ranging from 0.66 to 0.98. Models developed in this study allow predicting the digestibility of EAA in these alternatives feedstuffs.

Keywords

meta-analysisamino acidstandardized ileal digestibilitylegume seedspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 940 - 949
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Ayoade, DI, Kiarie, E, Woyengo, TA, Slominski, BA and Nyachoti, CM 2012. Effect of a carbohydrase mixture on ileal amino acid digestibility in extruded full-fat soybeans fed to finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3842–3847.Google Scholar
Baker, KM, Kim, BG and Stein, HH 2010. Amino acid digestibility in conventional, high-protein, or low-oligosaccharide varieties of full-fat soybeans and in soybean meal by weanling pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 162, 66–73.Google Scholar
Cervantes-Pahm, SK and Stein, HH 2008. Effect of dietary soybean oil and soybean protein concentration on the concentration of digestible amino acids in soybean products fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1841–1849.Google Scholar
Chilomer, K, Kasprowicz-Potocka, M, Gulewicz, P and Frankiewicz, A 2013. The influence of lupin seed germination on the chemical composition and standardized ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition (Berlin) 97, 639–646.Google Scholar
Dilger, RN, Sands, JS, Ragland, D and Adeola, O 2004. Digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in soybean meal with added soyhulls. Journal of Animal Science 82, 715–724.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, CM and Liener, IE 1989. Heat inactivation of the Kunitz and Bowman-birk soybean protease inhibitors. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 37, 39–44.Google Scholar
Evonik 2010. Amino Dat 4.0 ®. The amino acid composition of feedstuffs, 5th revised edition. AG Degussa, Feed Additives, Hanau, Germany.Google Scholar
Gatel, F 1994. Protein quality of legume seeds for non-ruminant animals: a literature review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 45, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatta, D, Russo, C, Giuliotti, L, Mannari, C, Picciarelli, P, Lombardi, L, Giovannini, L, Ceccarelli, N and Mariotti, L 2013. Influence of partial replacement of soya bean meal by faba beans or peas in heavy pigs diet on meat quality, residual anti-nutritional factors and phytoestrogen content. Archives of Animal Nutrition 67, 235–247.Google Scholar
Goebel, KP and Stein, HH 2011. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in conventional and low-Kunitz soybean products fed to weanling pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24, 88–95.Google Scholar
Grojean, F, Cerneau, P, Bourdillon, A, Bastianelli, D, Peyronnet, C and Duc, G 2001. Valeur alimentaire, pour le porc, de féveroles presque isogéniques contenant ou non des tanins et à forte ou faible teneur en vicine et convicine. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 33, 205–210.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F, Jondreville, C, Williatte-Hazouard, L, Skiba, FBC and Gâtel, F 2000. Ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids of feed peas with different trypsin inhibitor activity in pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 643–652.Google Scholar
Hess, V, Sève, B, Langer, S and Duc, G 2000. Impact des pertes endogènes iléales sur la rétention azotée corporelle Vers un nouveau système d'évaluation des protéines. Journées Recherche Porcine en France 32, 207–215.Google Scholar
Huisman, J and Jansman, AJM 1991. Dietary effects and sorne analytical aspects of antinutritional factors in peas (Pisum sativum), common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and soyabeans (Glycine max L.) in monogastric farm animals. A literature review. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 61, 901–921.Google Scholar
Ikegami, S, Tsuchihashi, F, Harada, H, Tsuchihashi, N, Nishide, E and Innami, S 1990. Effect of viscous indigestible polysaccharide on pancreatic-biliary secretion in the pig. Journal of Nutrition 27, 353–360.Google Scholar
Jezierny, D, Mosenthin, R and Bauer, E 2010. The use of grain legumes as a protein source in pig nutrition: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157, 111–128.Google Scholar
Jezierny, D, Mosenthin, R, Sauer, N, Roth, S, Piepho, HP, Rademacher, M and Eklund, M 2011. Chemical composition and standardised ileal digestibilities of crude protein and amino acids in grain legumes for growing pigs. Livestock Science 138, 229–243.Google Scholar
Lenis, NP, Bikker, P, van der Meulen, J, van Diepen, JT, Bakker, JG and Jongbloed, AW 1996. Effect of dietary neutral detergent fiber on ileal digestibility and portal flux of nitrogen and amino acids and on nitrogen utilization in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2687–2699.Google Scholar
Leterme, P, Beckers, Y and Thewis, A 1990a. Trypsin inhibitors in peas: varietal effect and influence on digestibility of crude protein by growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 29, 45–55.Google Scholar
Loncke, C, Ortigues-Marty, I, Vernet, J, Lapierre, H, Sauvant, D and Noziere, P 2009. Empirical prediction of net portal appearance of volatile fatty acids, glucose, and their secondary metabolites (beta-hydroxybutyrate, lactate) from dietary characteristics in ruminants: A meta-analysis approach. Journal of Animal Sciences 87, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mariscal-landin, G, Lebreton, Y and Sève, B 2002. Apparent and standardized true ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids from faba bean, lupins and pea, provided as whole seeds, dehulled or extruded in pigs diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 97, 183–198.Google Scholar
Messad, F, Létourneau-Montminy, MP, Charbonneau, E, Sauvant, D and Guay, F. 2015. Prediction of standardized ileal digestibility and essential amino acid content of ingredients in swine: a meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 207, 204–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messad, F, Létourneau-Montminy, MP, Charbonneau, E, Sauvant, D and Guay, F. 2016. Meta-analysis of the amino acid digestibility of oilseed meal in growing pigs. Animal 3, 1–10.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 11th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Salgado, P, Freire, JPB, Mourato, M, Cabralb, F, Toulle, R and Lalles, JP 2002. Comparative effects of different legume protein sources in weaned piglets: nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology and digestive enzymes. Livestock Production Science 74, 191–202.Google Scholar
Sathe, SK, Deshpande, SS and Salunkhe, DK 1984. Dry beans of Phaseolus. A review. Part 2. Chemical composition: carbohydrates, fiber, minerals, vitamins, and lipids. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 21, 41.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM and Tran, G 2004. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage : porcs, volailles, bovins, ovins, lapins, chevaux, poisson. INRA Éditions, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P and Daudin, J 2005. Les méta-analyses des données expérimentales : applications en nutrition animale. INRA. Productions Animales 18, 63–73.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Schmidely, P, Daudin, JJ and Saint-Pierre, NR 2008. Meta-analyses of experimental data in animal nutrition. Animal 2, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
Sève, B 2004. Alternative protein sources : Grain legumes as alternative protein sources in monogastric animal feeding. 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Bled, 5–9 September 2004, Bled, Slovenia, p. 132.Google Scholar
Sève, B, Marichal, LG, Février, C and Lechevestrier, Y 1994. Prédiction de la disgestibilité des acides aminés chez le porc ; le cas des issues de blé. Journées Recherche Porcine en France 26, 259–266.Google Scholar
Shah, N, Atallah, MT, Mahoney, RR and Pellett, PL 1982. Effect of dietary fiber components on fecal nitrogen excretion and protein utilization in growing rats. Journal of Nutrition 112, 658–666.Google Scholar
Stein, HH, Benzoni, G, Bohlke, RA and Peters, DN 2004. Assessment of the feeding value of South Dakota-grown field peas (Pisum sativum L.) for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2568–2578.Google Scholar
Urbaityte, R, Mosenthin, R and Eklund, M 2009a. The concept of standardized ileal amino acid digestibilities: principles and application in feed ingredients for piglets. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 22, 1209–1223.Google Scholar
Urbaityte, R, Mosenthin, R, Eklund, M, Piepho, H-P, Sauer, N and Rademacher, M 2009b. Standardised ileal crude protein and amino acid digestibilities in protein supplements for piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 63, 356–378.Google Scholar
Urriola, PE, Cervantes-Pahm, SK and Stein, HH 2013. Fiber in swine nutrition. In Sustainable Swine Nutrition (ed. LI Chiba), pp 255–276. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Valencia, DG, Serrano, MP, Lázaro, R, Latorre, MA and Mateos, GG 2008. Influence of micronization (fine grinding) of soya bean meal and fullfat soya bean on productive performance and digestive traits in young pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 340–356.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 1

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 117.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 2

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 121.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 3

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 56.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 4

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 51.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 5

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 44.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Messad et al. supplementary material

Messad et al. supplementary material 6

Download Messad et al. supplementary material(File)
File 122.9 KB