Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-9w8k4 Total loading time: 0.387 Render date: 2022-12-08T10:32:57.975Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

In vitro digestion and fermentation characteristics of canola co-products simulate their digestion in the pig intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2015

T. A. Woyengo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB T6G 2P5, Canada
R. Jha
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB T6G 2P5, Canada Department of Human Nutrition, Food and Animal Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
E. Beltranena
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB T6G 2P5, Canada Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB T6H 5T6, Canada
R. T. Zijlstra*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB T6G 2P5, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Canola co-products are sources of amino acid and energy in pig feeds, but their fermentation characteristics in the pig intestine are unknown. Thus, we determined the in vitro fermentation characteristics of the canola co-products Brassica juncea solvent-extracted canola meal (JSECM), Brassica napus solvent-extracted canola meal (NSECM), B. napus expeller-pressed canola meal (NEPCM) and B. napus cold-pressed canola cake (NCPCC) in comparison with soybean meal (SBM). Samples were hydrolysed in two steps using pepsin and pancreatin. Subsequently, residues were incubated in a buffer solution with fresh pig faeces as inocula for 72 h to measure gas production. Concentration of volatile fatty acids (VFA) per gram of dry matter (DM) of feedstuff was measured in fermented solutions. Apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and apparent hindgut fermentation (AHF) of gross energy (GE) for feedstuffs were obtained from pigs fed the same feedstuffs. On DM basis, SBM, JSECM, NSECM, NEPCM and NCPCC contained 15, 19, 22, 117 and 231 g/kg ether extract; and 85, 223, 306, 208 and 176 g/kg NDF, respectively. In vitro digestibility of DM (IVDDM) of SBM (82.3%) was greater (P<0.05) than that of JSECM (68.5%), NSECM (63.4%), NEPCM (67.5%) or NCPCC (69.8%). The JSECM had greater (P<0.05) IVDDM than NSECM. The IVDDM for NSECM was lower (P<0.05) than that for NEPCM, which was lower (P<0.05) than that for NCPCC. Similarly, AID of GE was greatest for SBM followed by NCPCC, JSECM, NEPCM and then NSECM. Total VFA production for SBM (0.73 mmol/g) was lower (P<0.05) than that of JSECM (1.38 mmol/g) or NSECM (1.05 mmol/g), but not different from that of NEPCM (0.80 mmol/g) and NCPCC (0.62 mmol/g). Total VFA production of JSECM was greater (P<0.05) than that of NSECM. Total VFA production of NSECM was greater (P<0.05) than that of NEPCM or NCPCC, which differed (P<0.05). The ranking of feedstuffs for total VFA production was similar to AHF of GE. In conclusion, in vitro fermentation characteristics of canola co-products and SBM simulated their fermentation in the small and large intestine of pigs, respectively. The 30% greater VFA production for JSECM than NSECM due to lower lignified fibre of JSECM indicates that fermentation characteristics differ between canola species. The NSECM had the highest fermentability followed by NEPCM and then NCPCC, indicating that fat in canola co-products can limit their fermentability in the hindgut.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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 2006. Official methods of analysis, 18th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Bedford, MR and Schulze, H 1998. Exogenous enzymes for pigs and poultry. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 91114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, JM 1993. Factors affecting nutritional value of canola meal: review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73, 679697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2011. Feeding value of western Canadian oilseed and biodiesel co-products. In Proceedings of 32nd Western Nutrition Conference. (ed. R Zijlstra), pp. 217238. Edmonton, AB, Canada.Google Scholar
Bindelle, J, Buldgen, A, Boudry, C and Leterme, P 2007. Effect of inoculum and pepsin-pancreatin hydrolysis on fibre fermentation measured by the gas production technique in pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132, 111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrò, S, Carciofi, AC, Musco, N, Tudisco, R, Gomes, MOS and Cutrignelli, MI 2013. Fermentation characteristics of several carbohydrate sources for dog diets using the in vitro gas production technique. Italian Journal of Animal Science 12, 2127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care 2009. Guide to the care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Erwin, ES, Marco, GJ and Emery, EM 1961. Volatile fatty acids analysis of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. Journal of Dairy Science 44, 17681771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J, Dhanoa, MS, Theodorou, MK, Lister, SJ, Davies, DR and Isac, D 1993. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163, 99111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grageola, F, Landero, JL, Beltranena, E, Cervantes, M, Araiza, A and Zijlstra, RT 2013. Energy and amino acid digestibility of expeller-pressed canola meal and cold-pressed canola cake in ileal-cannulated finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 186, 169176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holst, DO 1973. Holst filtration apparatus for Van Soest detergent fiber analysis. Journal of AOAC International 56, 13521356.Google Scholar
Jha, R, Bindelle, J, Rossnagel, B, Pieper, R, Van Kessel, A and Leterme, P 2011. In vitro evaluation of the fermentation characteristics of the carbohydrate fractions of hulless barley and other cereals in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 163, 185193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, R and Leterme, P 2012. Feed ingredients differing in fermentable fibre and indigestible protein content affect fermentation metabolites and faecal nitrogen excretion in growing pigs. Animal 6, 603611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jha, R, Rossnagel, B, Pieper, R, Van Kessel, A and Leterme, P 2010. Barley and oat cultivars with diverse carbohydrate composition alter ileal and total tract nutrient digestibility and fermentation metabolites in weaned piglets. Animal 4, 724731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karr-Lilienthal, LK, Kadzere, CT, Grieshop, CM and Fahey, GC Jr 2005. Chemical and nutritional properties of soybean carbohydrates as related to nonruminants: a review. Livestock Production Science 97, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landero, JL, Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2013. Diet nutrient digestibility and growth performance of weaned pigs fed solvent-extracted Brassica juncea canola meal. Animal Feed Science and Technology 180, 6472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, GT and Macfarlane, S 2012. Bacteria, colonic fermentation, and gastrointestinal health. Journal of AOAC International 95, 5060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mauricio, RM, Moulda, FL, Dhanoab, MS, Owena, E, Channaa, KS and Theodorou, MK 1999. A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79, 321330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, KH and Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 755.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
(National Research Council (NRC) 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine, 11th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google ScholarPubMed
Pantoja, J, Firkins, JL, Eastridge, ML and Hull, BL 1994. Effects of fat saturation and source of fiber on of nutrient digestion and milk production by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 23412356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustjens, AM, de Vries, S, Gerrits, WJJ, Kabel, MA, Schols, HA and Gruppen, H 2012. Residual carbohydrates from in vitro digested processed rapeseed (Brassica napus) meal. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 60, 82578263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seneviratne, RW, Beltranena, E, Newkirk, RW, Goonewardene, LA and Zijlstra, RT 2011. Processing conditions affect nutrient digestibility of cold-pressed canola cake for grower pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 24522461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seneviratne, RW, Young, MG, Beltranena, E, Goonewardene, LA, Newkirk, RW and Zijlstra, RT 2010. The nutritional value of expeller-pressed canola meal for grower-finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 20732083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slominski, BA, Jia, W, Rogiewicz, A, Nyachoti, CM and Hickling, D 2012. Low-fiber canola. Part 1. Chemical and nutritive composition of the meal. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 60, 1222512230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spragg, J and Mailer, R 2007. Canola meal value chain quality improvement. Australian Oilseed Federation. A final report prepared for AOF and Pork CRC. JCS Solutions Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
van Laar, H, Tamminga, S, Williams, BA, Verstegen, MWA and Engels, FM 1999. Fermentation characteristics of cell-wall sugars from soya bean meal, and from separated endosperm and hulls of soya beans. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79, 179193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Woyengo, TA, Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2014. Controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: a review. Journal of Animal Science 92, 12931305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woyengo, TA, Kiarie, E and Nyachoti, CM 2010. Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 14331441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woyengo, TA, Moehn, S, Beltranena, E and Zijlstra, RT 2013. Net energy value of field pea, Napus and Juncea canola meals, and wheat millrun fed to growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91 (E-suppl. 2), 687.Google Scholar
Yen, JT, Nienaber, JA, Hill, DA and Pond, WG 1991. Potential contribution of absorbed volatile fatty acids to whole-animal energy requirement in conscious swine. Journal of Animal Science 69, 20012012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

In vitro digestion and fermentation characteristics of canola co-products simulate their digestion in the pig intestine
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

In vitro digestion and fermentation characteristics of canola co-products simulate their digestion in the pig intestine
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

In vitro digestion and fermentation characteristics of canola co-products simulate their digestion in the pig intestine
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *