The State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
The State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Poult Sci. 2022 Dec;101(12):102196. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102196. Epub 2022 Sep 21.
The objective of this experiment was to compare the slaughter and cecectomy methods to determine amino acid (AA) digestibility of corn and soybean meal and their additivity in a corn-soybean meal diet. A completely randomized design was adopted to determine endogenous AA losses (EAAL) and AA digestibility in each of corn, soybean meal, and a corn-soybean meal diet using either slaughter or cecectomy methods. Each treatment contained 6 replicates with 3 chickens per replicate. The endogenous loss (EL) of histidine and glycine was lower and the EL of methionine and phenylalanine was greater when determined by slaughter vs. cecectomy (P < 0.05). The EL of arginine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, valine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and serine determined by slaughter were 1.2 to 3.2 times of those from cecectomy. The standard error (SE) of EL of 14 AA (excluding histidine and glycine) obtained by slaughter method was 2.1 to 9.6 times of those by cecectomy method. The apparent and standardized digestibility was not affected by methods for most AA except apparent digestibility of methionine, phenylalanine and glycine, and standardized digestibility of glycine in corn. The apparent and standardized digestibility of most AA except apparent digestibility of glycine and standardized digestibility of lysine, cysteine and glycine were less for slaughter versus cecectomy methods in soybean meal (P < 0.05). Using slaughter method resulted in reduced apparent digestibility of 15 AA (except glycine) and reduced standardized digestibility of 7 AA (arginine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and proline) relative to cecectomy method (P < 0.05), but the standardized digestibility of glycine was greater when determined by slaughter vs. cecectomy methods in corn-soybean meal diet (P < 0.05). The mean value of SE of 16 AA digestibility in slaughter method was 2.9 times of that by cecectomy method. The apparent digestibility of 2 and 9 of 16 AA and the standardized digestibility of 15 and 7 of 16 AA were additive when using slaughter and cecectomy determinations, respectively. In conclusion, compared to the slaughter method, cecectomy method had less SE and EAAL but greater apparent digestibility of methionine and phenylalanine in corn, and the apparent digestibility of 15 AA (except glycine) in soybean meal and corn-soybean meal diet. Additivity in apparent and standardized AA digestibility was more inconsistent when determined with slaughter vs. cecectomy methods. These findings suggest that the cecectomy method is more suitable than the slaughter method to determine the digestibility of AA.
本实验旨在比较屠宰和盲肠取样两种方法,以确定玉米和豆粕中的氨基酸(AA)消化率及其在玉米-豆粕日粮中的可加性。采用完全随机设计,通过屠宰或盲肠取样两种方法,分别确定玉米、豆粕和玉米-豆粕日粮中的内源氨基酸损失(EAAL)和 AA 消化率。每个处理包含 6 个重复,每个重复有 3 只鸡。与盲肠取样相比,屠宰法测定的组氨酸和甘氨酸的内源损失(EL)较低,而蛋氨酸和苯丙氨酸的 EL 较高(P<0.05)。由屠宰法测定的精氨酸、异亮氨酸、亮氨酸、赖氨酸、蛋氨酸、苯丙氨酸、缬氨酸、丙氨酸、天冬氨酸、谷氨酸和丝氨酸的 EL 分别是盲肠取样法的 1.2 至 3.2 倍。屠宰法测定的 14 种 AA(不包括组氨酸和甘氨酸)的 EL 标准误差(SE)是盲肠取样法的 2.1 至 9.6 倍。除蛋氨酸、苯丙氨酸和甘氨酸的表观消化率以及玉米中甘氨酸的标准化消化率外,大多数 AA 的表观和标准化消化率不受方法的影响。与盲肠取样法相比,在豆粕中,除甘氨酸的表观消化率和赖氨酸、半胱氨酸和甘氨酸的标准化消化率外,大多数 AA 的表观和标准化消化率较低(P<0.05)。与盲肠取样法相比,屠宰法导致 15 种 AA(除甘氨酸外)的表观消化率降低,7 种 AA(精氨酸、异亮氨酸、亮氨酸、缬氨酸、天冬氨酸、谷氨酸和脯氨酸)的标准化消化率降低(P<0.05),但在玉米-豆粕日粮中,屠宰法测定的甘氨酸的标准化消化率高于盲肠取样法(P<0.05)。屠宰法测定的 16 种 AA 消化率的 SE 均值是盲肠取样法的 2.9 倍。使用屠宰和盲肠取样法分别测定时,2 种和 9 种 AA 的表观消化率以及 15 种和 7 种 AA 的标准化消化率具有加性。总之,与屠宰法相比,盲肠取样法的 SE 和 EAAL 较低,但玉米中蛋氨酸和苯丙氨酸的表观消化率较高,豆粕和玉米-豆粕日粮中 15 种 AA(除甘氨酸外)的表观消化率较高。与屠宰法相比,用盲肠取样法测定的 AA 表观和标准化消化率的加性更不一致。这些发现表明,与屠宰法相比,盲肠取样法更适合用于测定 AA 的消化率。