Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:06:19.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of dietary fibre on digestive utilization and rate of passage in growing pigs, finishing pigs and adult sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

G.Le Goff ,
J. van Milgen  and
J. Noblet
G.Le Goff
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 St-Gilles, France
J. van Milgen
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 St-Gilles, France
J. Noblet*
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur le Veau et le Porc, 35590 St-Gilles, France
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: noblet@st-gilles.rennes.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Four experimental diets differing in the level and the origin of dietary fibre (DF) were studied: a control, low DF diet (diet C, 100 g total dietary fibre (TDF) per kg dry matter (DM)) and three fibre-rich diets (200 g TDF per kg DM) which corresponded to a combination of diet C and maize bran (diet MB), or wheat bran (diet WB), or sugar-beet pulp (diet SBP). During two successive experimental periods, each diet was offered to five pigs at a growing stage (35 kg body weight (BW)) and at a finishing stage (75 kg BW). In addition, four adult ovariectomized sows received successively one of the four diets according to a 4 ✕ 4 Latin-square design. Digestive utilization of energy and nutrients of diets and rate of passage parameters were determined using a pulse dose of ytterbium oxide followed by total faecal collection. Faecal marker excretion was quantified using an age-dependent, one-compartment model, from which the mean retention time in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs (MRT) was obtained. The digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients, especially the DF fraction, increased with the increase in BW from growing to finishing pigs (P < 0.01) and was still higher in adult sows; the difference between pig stages was more pronounced for diet MB. At each stage, the digestibility of energy or nutrients was lower (P < 0.01) for diets MB or WB than for diet SBP. Accordingly, the energy and DF digestibility of sugar-beet pulp was higher and increased much less with BW. The MRT was shorter for diets MB and WB in growing pigs and in sows. Sows had a longer MRT (81 h) than finishing pigs (37 h) and growing pigs (33 h); however, MRT was highly variable between sows. It is concluded that the degree to which different types of DF are digested depends, in part, on the botanical origin, and it may be improved by a longer MRT in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Some fibrous foodstuffs (such as maize-by products) will benefit more from a longer MRT than others.

Keywords

digestibility, fibre, pigs, sows
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , June 2002 , pp. 503 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E. 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67: 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K. E. and Hansen, J. A. 1991. Gastrointestinal implications in pigs of wheat and oat fractions. I. Digestibility and bulking properties of polyssacharides and other major constituents. British Journal of Nutrition 65: 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardon, T. and Fioramonti, J. 1983. Nature of the effects of bran on digestive transit time in pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 50: 685–690.Google Scholar
Bureau Interprofessionel d’Etudes Analytiques. 1976. Recueil des méthodes d’analyse des Communautés Européennes, pp. 105–111. BIPEA, Gennevilliers, France.Google Scholar
Carré, B. and Brillouet, J.-M. 1986. Yield and composition of cell wall residues isolated from various feedstuffs used for non-ruminant farm animal. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37: 341–351.Google Scholar
Centraal Veevoeder Bureau. 2000. Veevoedertabel. CVB, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Chabeauti, E., Noblet, J. and Carré, B. 1991. Digestion of plant cell walls from four different sources in growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 32: 207–213.Google Scholar
Cherbut, C., Barry, J. L., Wyers, M. and Delort-Laval, J. 1988. Effect of the nature of dietary fibre on transit time and fecal excretion in the growing pig. Animal Feed Science and Technology 20: 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dierick, N. A., Vervaeke, I. J., Demeyer, D. I. and Decuypere, J. A. 1989. Approach to the energetic importance of fibre digestion in pigs. 1. importance of fermentation in the overall energy supply. Animal Feed Science and Technology 23: 141–167.Google Scholar
European Economic Community. 1972. Analytical determination of starch. Official Journal of European Communities, no. 123/L, p. 7. EEC, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Fernandez, J. A. and Jørgensen, J. N. 1986. Digestibility and absorption of nutrients as affected by fibre content in the diet of the pig. Quantitative aspects. Livestock Production Science 15: 53–71.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. A., Jørgensen, H. and Just, A. 1986. Comparative digestibility experiments with growing pigs and adult sows. Animal Production 43: 127–132.Google Scholar
Fioramnoti, J. and Bueno, L. 1980. Motor activity in the large intestine of the pig related to dietary fibre and retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 43: 162.Google Scholar
Graham, H., Hesselman, K. and Åman, P. 1986. The influence of wheat bran and sugar-beet pulp on the digestibility of dietary components in a cereal-based pig diet. Journal of Nutrition 116: 242–251.Google Scholar
Guillon, F., Auffret, A., Robertson, J. A., Thibault, J.-F. and Barry, J.-L. 1998. Relationships between physical characteristics of sugar-beet fibre and its fermentability by human faecal flora. Carbohydrate Polymers 37: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzgraefe, D. P., Fahey, G. C. and Jensen, A. H. 1985. Influence of dietary alfalfa: orchardgrass hay and lasalocid on in vitro estimates of dry matter digestibility and volatile fatty acid concentrations of cecal contents and rate of digesta passage in sows. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1235–1246.Google Scholar
Kass, M. L., Van Soest, P. J., Pond, W. G., Lewis, B. and McDowell, R. E. 1980. Utilization of dietary fiber from alfalfa by growing swine. I. Apparent digestibility of diet components in specific segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Animal Science 50: 175–191.Google Scholar
Keys, J. E. and DeBarthe, J. V. 1974. Site and extent of carbohydrate, dry matter, energy and protein digestion and the rate of passage of grain diets in swine. Journal of Animal Science 39: 57–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuan, K. K., Stanogias, G. and Dunkin, A. C. 1983. The effect of proportion of cell-wall material from lucerne leaf meal on apparent digestibility, rate of passage and gut characteristics in pigs. Animal Production 36: 201–209.Google Scholar
Latymer, E. A., Low, A. G., Fadden, K., Sambrook, I. E., Woodley, S. C. and Keal, H. D. 1990. Measurement of transit time of digesta through sections of gastrointestinal tract of pigs fed with diets containing various sources of dietary fibre (non-starch polysaccharides). Archives of Animal Nutrition 40: 667–680.Google Scholar
Le Goff, G. and Noblet, J. 2001. Comparative digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2418–2427.Google Scholar
Longland, A. C. and Low, A. G. 1991. Prediction of the energy value of alternative feeds for pigs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and D. Cole, J. A.), pp. 187–209. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Longland, A. C., Low, A. G., Quelch, D. B. and Bray, S. P. 1993. Adaptation to the digestion of non-starch polysaccharide in growing pigs fed on cereal or semi-purified basal diets. British Journal of Nutrition 70: 557–566.Google Scholar
McBurney, M. I. and Thompson, L. U. 1990. Fermentative characteristics of cereal brans and vegetable fibers. Nutrition and Cancer 13: 271–280.Google Scholar
Mambrini, M. and Peyraud, J. L. 1997. Retention time of feed particles and liquids in the stomachs and intestines of dairy cows. Direct measurement and calculations based on faecal collection. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 37: 427–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matis, J. H., Wehrly, T. E. and Ellis, W. C. 1989. Some generalized stochastic compartment models for digesta flow. Biometrics 45: 703–720.Google Scholar
Münchow, H., Hager, H. and Bergner, H. 1986. The use of partly hydrolysed and untreated straw meal in the feeding of breeding sows. 3. Nutrient digestibility, feed transit time and mineral balance with added straw, treated in different ways, or with concentrate alone. Archives of Animal Nutrition 36: 381–395.Google ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J. and Bach Knudsen, K. E. 1997. Comparative digestibility of wheat, maize and sugar beet pulp non-starch polysaccharides in adult sows and growing pigs. In Digestive physiology in pigs (ed. Laplace, J. P. /Février, C. and Barbeau, A.), pp. 571–574. INRA, Saint-Malo, France.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Bourdon, D. 1997. Valeur énergétique comparée de onze matières premières chez le porc en croissance et la truie adulte. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 29: 221–226.Google Scholar
Noblet, J., Fortune, H., Dubois, S. and Henry, Y. 1989. Nouvelles bases d’estimation des teneurs en énergie digestible métabolisable et nette des aliments pour le porc. INRA, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Le Goff, G. 2000. Utilisation digestive et valeurs énergétiques du blé, du mais et leurs co-produits chez le porc en croissance et la truie adulte. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 32: 177–183.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Shi, X. S. 1993a. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs fed ad libitum and adult sows fed at maintenance. Livestock Production Science 34: 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noblet, J. and Shi, X. S. 1993b. Contribution of the hindgut to digestion of diets in growing pigs and adult sows: effect of diet composition. Livestock Production Science 34: 237–252.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Shi, X. S. 1994. Effect of body weight on digestive utilization of energy and nutrients of ingredients and diets in pigs. Livestock Production Science 37: 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekas, J. C. 1991. Digestion and absorption capacity and their development. In Swine nutrition (ed. Miller, E. R. Ullrey, D. E. and Lewis, A. J.), pp. 37–73. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.Google Scholar
Pond, W. G., Pond, K. R., Ellis, W. C. and Matis, J. H. 1986. Markers for estimating digesta flow in pigs and the effects of dietary fiber. Journal of Animal Science 63: 1140–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potkins, Z. V., Lawrence, T. L. J. and Thomlison, J. R. 1991. Effects of structural and non-structural polysaccharides in the diet of the growing pig on gastric emptying rate and rate of passage of digesta to the terminal ileum and through the total gastrointestinal tract. British Journal of Nutrition 65: 391–413.Google Scholar
Prosky, L., Asp, N.-G., Schweizer, T. F., DeVries, J. W. and Furda, I. 1988. Determination of insoluble, soluble, and total dietary fiber in foods and food products: interlaboratory study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 71: 1017–1023.Google Scholar
Quiniou, N., Dourmad, J.-Y. and Noblet, J. 1996. Effect of energy intake on the performance of different types of pig from 45 to 100 kg body weight. 1. Protein and lipid deposition. Animal Science 63: 277–288.Google Scholar
Ramonet, Y., Robert, S., Aumaître, A., Dourmad, J. Y. and Meunier-Salaün, M. C. 2000. Influence of the nature of dietary fibre on digestive utilization, some metabolite and hormone profiles and the behaviour of pregnant sows. Animal Science 70: 275–286.Google Scholar
Roth, F. X. and Kirchgessner, M. 1984. Digestibility of energy and crude nutrients in pigs in relation to feeding plane and live weight. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 51: 79–87.Google Scholar
Roth, F. X. and Kirchgessner, M. 1985. Digestibility and intestinal rate of passage in pigs in response to feeding level and crude fiber content of the diet. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 53: 254–264.Google Scholar
Salvador, V. and Cherbut, C. 1992. Régulation du transit digestif par les fibres alimentaires. Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique 27: 290–297.Google Scholar
Salvador, V., Cherbut, C., Barry, J.-L., Bertrand, D., Bonnet, C. and Delort-Laval, J. 1993. Sugar composition of dietary fibre and short-chain fatty acid production during in vitro fermentation by human bacteria. British Journal of Nutrition 70: 189–197.Google Scholar
Stanogias, G. and Pearce, G. R. 1985. The digestion of fibre by pigs. 1. The effects of amount and type of fibre on apparent digestibility, nitrogen balance and rate of passage. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 513–530.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT® user’s guide: statistics, release 6.07. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cellwall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50: 50–55.Google Scholar
Varel, V. H. and Yen, J. T. 1997. Microbial perspective on fiber utilization by swine. Journal of Animal Science 75: 2715–2722.Google Scholar
Yan, T., Longland, A. C., Close, W. H., Sharpe, C. E. and Keal, H. D. 1995. The digestion of dry matter and non-starch polysaccharides from diets containing plain sugar-beet pulp or wheat straw by pregnant sows. Animal Science 61: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar