4.6 Article

Amino acid digestibility in copra expellers and palm kernel expellers by growing pigs

期刊

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 91-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.09.015

关键词

Amino acid; Ileal standardized digestibility; Protein supplements; Swine

资金

  1. Rural Development Administration (Republic of Korea) [PJ907038]
  2. Farm Story Dodram B&F (Republic of Korea)
  3. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ907038022014] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experiment was conducted to determine the coefficient of ileal apparent digestibility (CIAD) and the coefficient of ileal standardized digestibility (CISD) of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) in copra expellers (CE) and palm kernel expellers (PKE) by pigs. Six boars fitted with a T-cannula in the distal ileum with an initial body weight of 65.2 +/- 5.4 kg were individually housed in pens equipped with a feeder and a nipple drinker. A replicated 3 x 3 Latin square design was employed with 3 dietary treatments, 3 periods, and 6 animals. Two experimental diets were prepared to contain 400 g/kg of CE or PKE as the sole source of nitrogen. A nitrogen-free diet was also prepared to estimate the basal ileal endogenous loss of CP and AA. All diets contained 5 g/kg chromic oxide as an indigestible index. The CIAD of CP in CE was greater (P=0.002) than in PKE (0.294 vs. 0.051). The values for the CIAD of all indispensable AA except histidine and lysine in CE were also greater (P<0.05) than in PKE. The CISD of CP in CE was greater (P=0.014) than in PKE (0.676 vs. 0.528). The values for the CISD of all indispensable AA except histidine, isoleucine, and lysine in CE were greater (P<0.05) than in PKE. In conclusion, the digestibility of CP and most AA in CE was greater than in PKE. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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