Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T07:07:02.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of microbially enhanced soybean meal as an alternative to fishmeal in weaned pig diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2016

S. M. Sinn ,
W. R. Gibbons ,
M. L. Brown ,
J. M. DeRouchey  and
C. L. Levesque
S. M. Sinn
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, PO Box 2170, Brookings, SD, USA
W. R. Gibbons
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Microbiology, South Dakota State University, PO Box 2104, Brookings, SD, USA
M. L. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, PO Box 2140, Brookings, SD, USA
J. M. DeRouchey
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, 232 Weber Hall, Manhattan, KS, USA
C. L. Levesque*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, PO Box 2170, Brookings, SD, USA
*
†E-mail: crystal.levesque@sdstate.edu
Get access

Abstract

An experimental, microbially enhanced soybean product (MEPRO) was evaluated as a replacement for fishmeal (FM). Assessment of feedstuffs should include estimation of digestibility as well as pig performance and in combination with dietary additives. Digestibility values determined in growing pigs may not apply to nursery pigs; thus, standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids (AA) in MEPRO and FM were determined using 30±1.6 kg BW ileal-cannulated barrows (n=6) and 9.8±1.2 kg BW barrows (n=37; serial slaughter). Experimental diets included MEPRO, FM and nitrogen free where FM and MEPRO were included as the sole protein source. The SID of AAs was 3% to 5% lower in MEPRO than FM when fed to 30 kg pigs. The SID of arginine and methionine was greater (P<0.05) in MEPRO than FM when fed to 10 kg pigs. The SID of AAs was 12% to 20% lower in FM when fed to 10 v. 30 kg pigs but only 3% to 9% lower in MEPRO. A total of 336 barrows and gilts were weaned at 21 days of age (initial BW=6.1±0.8 kg) and used in a performance trial. Pens of pigs were assigned to one of the six experimental diets (8 pens/diet in two blocks). Treatment diets were fed in Phase I (7 days) and Phase II (14 days) with all pigs fed a common Phase III diet (14 days). Experimental diets included (1) negative control (NEG) containing corn, soybean meal and whey, (2) NEG+acidifier, (3) NEG+FM (POS), (4) POS+acidifier (POS A+), (5) NEG+MEPRO (MEPRO) and (6) MEPRO+acidifier. The FM and MEPRO were included at 7.5% and 5.0% in Phase I and II diets, respectively. Diets were formulated to meet the standard nutrient requirements for weaned pigs. Pig BW and feed disappearance was measured weekly and fecal scores were measured daily for the first 14 days post-weaning as an indicator of post-weaning diarrhea syndrome (PWDS). Performance (BW, daily gain, feed intake and gain : feed) was not significantly different among treatments. Treatment for PWDS occurred on different days in each block. Analysis of fecal score was completed separately by block. Pigs fed the NEG diets had higher (P=0.02) fecal scores than pigs fed the POS diets on days 2 and 3 (block 1) and higher (P<0.05) than pigs fed MEPRO or POS diets and diets with dietary acidifier on days 6 and 3 (block 2). The MEPRO holds promise as an alternative to FM in nursery pig diets.

Keywords

digestibilitygrower pigsperformanceprotein sourcesweaned pigs
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , May 2017 , pp. 784 - 793
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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) 2006. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Badaway, AM, Campbell, RM, Cuthbertson, DP and Fell, BF 1957. Changes in the intestinal mucosa of the sheep following death by humane killer. Nature 180, 756–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, JR, Nelssen, JL, Tokach, MD, Goodband, RD, Loughmiller, JA, Musser, RE and Nessmith, JWB 1996. An evaluation of several diet acidifiers commonly utilized in pig starter diets to improve growth performance. Proceedings of the Kansas State Swine Day, 21 November 1996, Manhattan, KS, USA, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar
Berrocoso, JD, Serrano, MP, Cámara, L, Rebollar, PG and Mateos, GG 2012. Influence of diet complexity on productive performance and nutrient digestibility of weanling pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervantes-Pahm, SK and Stein, HH 2010. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in conventional, fermented, and enzyme-treated soybean meal and in soy protein isolate, fish meal, and casein fed to weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2674–2683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choct, M, Dersjant-Li, Y, McLeish, J and Peisker, M 2010. Soy oligosaccharides and soluble non-starch polysaccharides: a review of digestion, nutritive and anti-nutritive effects in pigs and poultry. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 23, 1386–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lange, CFM, Pluske, J, Gong, J and Nyachoti, SM 2010. Strategic use of feed ingredients and feed additives to stimulate gut health and development in young pigs. Livestock Science 134, 124–134.Google Scholar
DeRouchey, JM, Goodband, RD, Tokach, MD, Nelssen, JL and Dritz, SS 2010. Nursery swine nutrient recommendations and feeding management. In National swine nutrition guide (ed. DJ Meisinger), pp. 65–79. US Pork Center of Excellence, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Dilger, RN, Sands, JS, Ragland, D and Adeola, O 2004. Digestibility of nitrogen and amino acids in soybean meals with added soyhulls. Journal of Animal Science 82, 715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, MZ, Sauer, WC, Hardin, RT and Lien, KA 1994. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs: effect of dietary amino acid level. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2851–2859.Google Scholar
Fell, BF 1961. Cell shedding in the epithelium of the intestinal mucosa: fact and artefact. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 81, 251–254.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2012. The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Friesen, KG, Goodband, RD, Nelssen, JL, Blecha, F, Reddy, DN, Reddy, PG and Kats, LJ 1993. The effect of pre- and postweaning exposure to soybean meal on growth performance and on the immune response in the early-weaned pig. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2089–2098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, WR and Brown, ML 2012. Microbial-based process for high-quality protein concentrate. US Patent application #13/691,843.Google Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, de Souza, GPP, Costa, OAD and Machado Filho, LCP 2011. Disentangling the effects of weaning stressors on piglets’ behaviour and feed intake: changing the housing and social environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, CK, DeRouchey, JM, Nelssen, JL, Tokach, MD, Dritz, SS and Goodband, RD 2010. Effects of fermented soybean meal and specialty animal protein sources on nursery pig performance. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1725–1732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, H, Sauer, WC and Thacker, PA 1984. Amino acid availabilities in soybean meal, sunflower meal, fish meal and meat and bone meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 58, 926–934.Google Scholar
Lampromsuk, P, Bunchasak, C, Kaewtapee, C, Sawanon, S and Poeikhampha, T 2012. Effect of supplementing acidifiers and organic zinc in diet on growth performances and gut conditions of pigs. Journal of Applied Sciences 12, 553–560.Google Scholar
Li, DF, Nelssen, JL, Reddy, PG, Blecha, F, Hancock, JD, Allee, GL, Goodband, RD and Klemm, RD 1990. Transient hypersensitivity to soybean meal in the early-weaned pig. Journal of Animal Science 68, 1790–1799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Min, BJ, Hong, JW, Kwon, OS, Lee, WB, Kim, YC, Kim, IH, Cho, WT and Kim, JH 2004. The effect of feeding processed soy protein on the growth performance and apparent ileal digestibility in weanling pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 17, 1271–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Olsen, RL and Hasan, MR 2012. A limited supply of fishmeal: impact on future increases in global aquaculture production. Trends in Food Science and Technology 27, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, FJ, Gorton, P, Wiseman, J and Boorman, KN 1996. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, Q, Qu, F and Gill, HS 2001. Probiotic treatment using Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 reduces weanling diarrhea associated with rotavirus and Escherichia coli infection in a piglet model. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 33, 171–177.Google Scholar
Sindelar, SC 2014. Utilization of soybean products as fish-meal protein replacements in Yellow Perch Perca flavescens feeds. Master’s of Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA.Google Scholar
Song, YS, Pérez, VG, Pettigrew, JE, Martinez-Villaluenga, C and de Mejia, EG 2010. Fermentation of soybean meal and its inclusion in diets for newly weaned pigs reduced diarrhea and measures of immunoreactivity in the plasma. Animal Feed Science and Technology 159, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, HH, Seve, B, Fuller, MF, Moughan, PJ and de Lange, CF 2007. Invited review: amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: terminology and application. Journal of Animal Science 85, 172–180.Google Scholar
Tsiloyiannis, VK, Kyriakis, SC, Vlemmas, J and Sarris, K 2001. The effect of organic acids on the control of porcine post-weaning diarrhoea. Research in Veterinary Science 70, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viljoen, J, Coetzeel, SE, Fick, JC, Siebrits, FK and Hayes, JP 2000. Evaluation of in vivo techniques for the determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibilities in feedstuffs for piglets. South African Journal of Animal Science 30, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wubben, JE, Smiricky, MR, Albin, DM and Gabert, VM 2001. Improved procedure and cannula design for simple-T cannulation at the distal ileum in growing pigs. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 40, 27–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhu, CL, Rademacher, M and de Lange, CFM 2005. Increasing dietary pectin level reduces utilization of digestible threonine intake, but not lysine intake, for body protein deposition in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1044–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar