4.6 Article

Chromic oxide and acid-insoluble ash as markers in digestibility studies with growing pigs and sows

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpn.12503

关键词

acid-insoluble ash; chromic oxide; pig; digestibility

资金

  1. Operational Programme Research and Development - European Regional Development Fund [26220220176]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results of three experiments, focused on the determination of endogenous ileal flow (EIF) of amino acids (AA) and nitrogen (N) (Exp. 1), apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of AA and N (Exp. 2), and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), N, calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) (Exps. 2 and 3), were used to compare chromic oxide (Cr2O3) and acid-insoluble ash (AIA) as digestibility markers. In Exps. 1 and 2, a total of six gilts fitted with T-cannula in terminal ileum, and in Exp. 3, a total of 24 pregnant sows were used. In Exps. 1 and 2, the pigs were assigned into four dietary treatments according to 4 9 6 crossover design (Exp. 1; diets with 0%, 4%, 8% and 12% of casein; Exp. 2 basal diet with different levels of phytase). In Exp. 3, the sows were assigned to four dietary treatments (basal diet with different levels of phytase) of six sows. In Exps. 1 and 2 ileal digesta and in Exps. 2 and 3 faeces were collected for the determination of EIF, AID and ATTD. Differences in EIF of AA determined by Cr2O3 and AIA ranged (p > 0.05) from -4.62 to 4.54%. The lowest EIF was for methionine and the greatest one for proline, determined by both markers. Apparent ileal digestibility determined by Cr2O3 was slightly greater (p. 0.05) in comparison with AIA. Differences ranged from 1.88% (Arg) to 7.08% (Gly). The greatest AID was for arginine and the lowest one for glycine, determined by both Cr2O3 and AIA. Similarly for ATTD of DM, OM, N, Ca and P, there were no differences in digestibility determined by Cr2O3 and AIA. Both, Cr2O3 and AIA, are suitable and comparable markers for digestibility studies in pigs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据