Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:15:52.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of expander processing and extrusion on the nutritive value of peas for pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. V. O’Doherty  and
U. Keady
J. V. O’Doherty
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
U. Keady
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, University College Dublin, Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of expander processing of food for growing and finishing pigs. Experiment 1 examined the effects of expander processing on the nutritive value of a cereal-based diet and a pea-based diet for pigs while experiment 2 determined the effects of extrusion and expansion of the peas component of the diet on the nutritive value. In experiment 1, growth performance, carcass characteristics (no. = 12) and nutrient digestibility (no. = 4) were determined in pigs offered individually food containing a cereal diet (T1), a complete cereal diet that had been expander processed (T2), a 400 g/kg peas diet (T3) or a complete 400 g/kg peas diet that had been expander processed (T4). The expanded diets were processed at 105°C for 5 s at 35 bar pressure. In experiment 2, productive performance and nutrient digestibility were determined in pigs (no. = 12) offered individually diets including a control cereal diet (no peas) (TT1), a 400 g/kg raw peas diet (TT2), a 400 g/kg expander processed peas diet (TT3) or a 400 g/kg extruded peas diet (TT4). The pea portions of the diets were extruded at 130°C for 30 s and expanded at 130°C for 10 s at 42 bar pressure. In experiment 1, the inclusion of peas in the diet reduced (P < 0·001) the digestibility of the organic matter (OM) (0·871 v. 0·893, s.e. 0·003), protein (0·867 v. 0·907, s.e. 0·004) and energy (0·857 v. 0·880, s.e. 0·003). Expansion had no effect on the nutrient digestibility of the diets, however, it did increase (P < 0·05) the digestible energy content of the cereal diet. The inclusion of peas in the diet reduced (P < 0·05) daily gain (0·929 v. 0·999, s.e. 0·024 kg/day) and increased (P < 0·001) food conversion ratio (FCR) (2·31 v. 2·16, s.e. 0·029) from 34 kg to slaughter. Expansion had no effect on daily gain or FCR. In experiment 2, OM digestibilities of 0·891, 0·872, 0·882 and 0·885 (s.e. 0·0042) (P < 0·01), protein digestibilities of 0·905, 0·879, 0·874 and 0·877 (s.e. 0·0069) (P < 0·001) and gross energy digestibilities of 0·875, 0·861, 0·870 and 0·875 (s.e. 0·005) (P < 0·05) were recorded for TT1 to TT4 respectively. Gains (kg/day) of 0·981, 0·927, 0·940, and 1·016 (s.e. 0·036) (P < 0·05) and FCR of 2·17, 2·32, 2·28 and 2·18 (s.e. 0·037) (P < 0·05) were recorded for TT1 to TT4 respectively. In conclusion, expansion had no effect on the nutritive value of food for pigs.

Keywords

expansionextrusionpeaspigs
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 43 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Armstrong, H. 1993. Nutritional implications of expanded feed. Feed Mix 1: 24–27.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis, 13th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Barroga, C. F., Laurena, A. C. and Mendoza, M. T. 1985. Polyphenols in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek): determination and removal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 33: 1006–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. M. and Wilson, A. G. 1970. An evaluation of field peas as a protein and energy source for swine rations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, D., Delort-Laval, J., Melcion, J. P. and Valdebouze, P. 1982. Influence de l’extrusion et de l’infranisation sur les facteurs antinutritionnels et la valeur alimentaire du pois (Pisum sativum). Sciences des Aliments 2: 197–202.Google Scholar
Camire, M. E., Camire, A. and Krumhar, K. 1990. Chemical and nutritional changes in foods during extrusion. Food Science and Nutrition 29: 35–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Casteels, M., Bekaert, H., Eeckhout, W. and Buysse, F. 1970. Het effect van korrel-of meelverstrekking bij adlibitum voeding op de vetmestingsresultaten en de karkaskwaliteit van Pietrain-mestvarkens. Landbouwtijdschrift 11-12: 1589–1606.Google Scholar
Cheftel, J. C. 1989. Extrusion cooking and food safety. In Extrusion cooking (ed Mercier, C.), pp. 435–461. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Christison, G. I. and Parra de Solano, N. M. 1982. Utilisation of protein from peas, barley, buttermilk powder and soyabean meal by early weaned pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 62: 899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, W. H. 1994. Feeding new genotypes: establishing amino acid/energy requirements. In Principles of pig science (ed. Cole, D. J. A., Wiseman, J. and Varley, M. A.), pp. 123–140. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Food, Ireland. 1994. Pig carcass dressing specification. SI 216. Department of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
De Schrijver, R. 1976. Comparative study of analytical methods to predict soybean oil meal quality. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Gent 41: 1777–1783.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A., Rogers-Lewis, D. S. and Fairbairn, C. B. 1987. The effects of pea variety and inclusion rate in the diet on the performance of finishing pigs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108: 383–388.Google Scholar
Fadel, J. G., Newman, C. W., Newman, R. K. and Graham, H. 1988. Effects of extrusion cooking of barley on ileal and fecal digestibilities of dietary components in pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68: 891–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1985. Combining peas for animal feed. In The pea crop (ed. Hebblethwaite, P. D. and Dawkins, T. C. K.), pp. 453–462. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. and Castaing, J. 1983. Recherché de la valeur alimentaire du pois d’hiver pour la porc charcutier: influence de la cuisson-extrusion, de la duree du conservation et du le supplementation en tryptophans. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 15: 335–346.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. and Gatel, F. 1986. Peas for pigs. Pig News and Information 7: 443–448.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. and Gatel, F. 1989. Feeding value of Pisum sativum for pigs. 1. Influence of Technology. 2. Influence of genotype (trypsin inhibitor activity). In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. J. Huisman, A. F. B van der Poel and Liener, I. E.), pp. 239–242. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Hendriks, W. H., Moughan, P. J., Boer, H. and Poel, A. F. B. van der. 1994 Effects of extrusion on the dye-binding, flourodinitrobenzene-reactive and total lysine content of soyabean meal and peas. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hlodversson, R. 1987. The nutritive value of white and dark flowered cultivars of pea for growing-finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 17: 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwaki, K., Nimura, N., Hiraga, Y., Kinoshita, T., Takeda, K. and Ogura, H. 1987. Amino acid analysis by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatrography. Journal of Chromatography 407: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, S. L., Traylor, S. L., Hines, R. H., Hancock, J. D., Behnke, K. C., Kennedy, G. A. and Sorrell, S. P. 1998. Conditioning of corn and sorghum-based diets affects growth performance and nutrient digestibility in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76: (suppl. 1) 88 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Kakade, M. L., Rackis, J. J., McGhee, J. E. and Puski, G. 1974. Determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soy products: a collaborative analysis of an improved procedure. Cereal Chemistry 51: 376–382.Google Scholar
Laurinen, P., Valaja, J., Nasi, M. and Smeds, K. 1998. Effects of expander processing conditions on the nutritive value of barley and wheat by-products in pig diets. Livestock Production 74: 213–227.Google Scholar
Leterme, P., Beckers, Y. and Thewis, A. 1989. Inter and intravarietal variability of the trypsin inhibitors of peas and this influence on apparent digestibility of crude proteins by growing pigs. In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. Huisman, J., van der Poel, A. F. B. and Liener, I. E.), pp. 121–124. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Marty, B. J., Chavez, E. R. and Lange, C. F. M. de. 1994. Recovery of amino acids at the distal ileum for determining apparent and true ileal amino acid digestibilities in growing pigs fed various heat-processed full-fat soybean products. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2029–2037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1991. The feedingstuffs regulations 1991. Statutory instrument no. 2840, 9·76. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Myer, R. O. and Froseth, J. A. 1993. Evaluation of two methods of heat processing for improving the nutritional value of peas for swine. In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. Poel, A. F. B.van der, Huisman, J. and Saini, H. S.), European Association for Animal Production publication no. 70, pp. 441–445. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Nasi, M., Partanen, K. and Laurinen, P. 1996. Effects of expanding on the nutritive value of wheat bran in pig diets. Agricultural Food Science Finland 5: 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Doherty, J. V. and Keady, U. 2000. The nutritive value of extruded and raw peas for growing and finishing pigs. Animal Science 70: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Doherty, J.V., Murphy, D. and McGlynn, S. G. 1999. The effects of expander processing and wheat inclusion levels on performance of grower-finisher pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77: (suppl. 1) 188 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Peisker, M. 1992. High-temperature-short-time conditioning: physical and chemical changes during expansion. Feed International, February, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
Peisker, M. 1994. Influence of expansion on feed components. Feed Mix 2: 26–31.Google Scholar
Poel, A. F. B. van der, Hartog, L. A. den, Abeele, T. H. van den, Boer, H. and Zuilichem, D. J. van. 1989. Effect of infrared irradiation of extrusion processing of maize on its digestibility in piglets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26: 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pond, W. G. 1987. Thoughts on fibre utilisation in swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 497–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide, version 5·16. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. and Poel, A. F. B. van der. 1997. Effects on the physical quality of feed. In Expander processing of animal feed – chemical, physical and nutritional effects (ed. Poel, A. F. B. van der), pp 31–38. Wageningen Feed Processing Centre.Google Scholar
Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Plantes riches en Proteines — Institut Technique des Céréales et Fourrages. 1995. Peas: utilisation in animal feeding. Institut Technique des Céréales et Fourrages, Paris.Google Scholar
Van Barneveld, R. J., Batterham, E. S. and Norton, B. W. 1994. The effect of heat on amino acids for growing pigs. 1. A comparison of ileal and faecal digestibilities of amino acids in raw and heat-treated field peas (Pisum sativum cultivar Dundale). British Journal of Nutrition 72: 221–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vande Ginste, J. and De Schrijver, R. 1998. Performance and nutrient utilization of growing pigs given an expanded and pelleted diet. Animal Science 66: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenboom, J. M. H. 1993. Expander treatment, a literature review. M.Sc. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B GE. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiseman, J., Jagger, S., Cole, D. J. A. and Haresign, W. 1991. The digestion and utilization of amino acids of heat-treated fish meal by growing/finishing pigs. Animal Production 53: 215–225.Google Scholar
Zuilichem, D. J.van and Poel, A. F. B. van der. 1989. Effect of HTST treatment of Pisum sativum on the inactivation of antinutritional factors. In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. J., Huisman, Poel, A. F. B van der and Liener, I. E.), pp. 263–267. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Zuilichem, D. J. van, Poel, A. F. B. van der and Stolp, W. 1993. Different HTST inactivation methods for ANF’s and the description of inactivation kinetics for soya. In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. van der Poel, A. F. B., Huisman, J. and Saini, H. S.), European Association of Animal Production publication no. 70. pp. 493–498. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Zuilichem, D. J. van, Stolp, W. and Poel, A. F. B.van der. 1995. Expander inactivation of soybean TIA: effect of moisture level. Research FPC 1995; Victam International. 12th Feed Industry Show, Utrecht, 16-19 May 1995.Google Scholar