State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Wen's Food Group Co. Ltd., Guangdong 527439, China.
J Anim Sci. 2023 Jan 3;101. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad170.
This experiment evaluated the difference between computer-controlled simulated digestion and in vivo stomach-small intestinal or large intestinal digestion for growing pigs. Five diets including a corn-soybean meal basal diet and four experimental diets with rapeseed meal (RSM), cottonseed meal (CSM), sunflower meal (SFM), or peanut meal (PNM) were assigned to each group of five barrows installed terminal ileal cannula or distal cecal cannula in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Ileal digesta and feces were collected for the determination of digestibility of dry matter (DM) and gross energy (GE) as well as digestible energy (DE) at terminal ileum and total tract. The large intestinal digestibility and DE were calculated by the difference between measurements obtained at the terminal ileum and those obtained from total tract. In vitro stomach-small intestinal digestibility and DE for diets and plant protein meals were determined by stomach-small intestinal digestion in a computer-controlled simulated digestion system (CCSDS). The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of diets were determined in a CCSDS using ileal digesta and enzymes extracted from cecal digesta of pigs. The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of four plant protein meals were determined by the difference between stomach-small intestinal and total tract digestion in the CCSDS. For the experimental diets, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE were not different from corresponding in vivo values in basal diet and PNM diet, but greater than corresponding in vivo values for diets with RSM, CSM, and SFM (P < 0.05). No difference was observed between in vitro and in vivo large intestinal digestibility and DE in five diets. For the feed ingredients, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE did not differ from corresponding in vivo ileal values in RSM and PNM but were greater than the in vivo ileal values in CSM and SFM (P < 0.05). The in vitro large intestinal GE digestibility and DE were not different from in vivo large intestinal values in RSM, CSM, and PNM, but lower than in vivo large intestinal values in SFM. This finding may relate to the higher fiber content of plant protein meals resulting in shorter digestion time of in vivo stomach-small intestine thus lower digestibility compared to in vitro, indicating it is necessary to optimize in vitro stomach-small intestinal digestion time.
本实验评估了计算机控制模拟消化与生长猪体内胃-小肠或大肠消化之间的差异。采用 5×5 拉丁方试验设计,将包括玉米-豆粕基础饲粮和添加菜籽粕(RSM)、棉籽粕(CSM)、葵花粕(SFM)或花生粕(PNM)的 4 种试验饲粮分别分配给每组安装回肠末端或盲肠末端套管的 5 头阉公猪。分别收集回肠食糜和粪便,以测定干物质(DM)和总能(GE)以及回肠末端可消化能(DE)的消化率,同时计算大肠消化率和总能 DE。通过回肠末端和全肠道测定值之间的差值来计算饲粮和植物蛋白饲料的大肠可消化能 DE。采用计算机控制模拟消化系统(CCSDS)进行胃-小肠消化,以确定饲粮和植物蛋白饲料的体外胃-小肠消化率和 DE。采用 CCSDS 利用从猪盲肠食糜中提取的酶和回肠食糜进行消化,以确定饲粮的体外大肠消化率和 DE。采用 CCSDS 中胃-小肠和全肠道消化之间的差值来确定 4 种植物蛋白饲料的体外大肠消化率和 DE。对于试验饲粮,RSM、CSM 和 SFM 饲粮的体外回肠消化率和 DE 与基础饲粮和 PNM 饲粮的相应体内值没有差异,但大于这些饲粮的相应体内值(P<0.05)。5 种饲粮的体外和体内大肠消化率和 DE 没有差异。对于饲料原料,RSM 和 PNM 饲粮的体外回肠消化率和 DE 与相应的体内回肠值没有差异,但大于 CSM 和 SFM 饲粮的相应体内值(P<0.05)。RSM、CSM 和 PNM 饲粮的体外大肠 GE 消化率和 DE 与体内大肠值没有差异,但 SFM 饲粮的体外大肠 GE 消化率和 DE 低于体内值。这一发现可能与植物蛋白饲料较高的纤维含量有关,导致体内胃-小肠消化时间较短,因此与体外相比消化率较低,这表明有必要优化体外胃-小肠消化时间。