Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:29:16.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Very high expander processing of maize on animal performance, digestibility and product quality of finishing pigs and broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2017

R. Puntigam ,
K. Schedle ,
C. Schwarz ,
E. Wanzenböck ,
J. Eipper ,
E.-M. Lechner ,
L. Yin  and
M. Gierus
R. Puntigam
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
K. Schedle*
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
C. Schwarz
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
E. Wanzenböck
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
J. Eipper
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
E.-M. Lechner
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
L. Yin
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
M. Gierus
Affiliation:
Department of Agrobiotechnology, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Livestock Products, and Nutrition Physiology (TTE), IFA-Tulln, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), 1190 Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: karl.schedle@boku.ac.at
Get access

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of hydrothermic maize processing and supplementation of amino acids (AA) in two experiments. In total, 60 barrows and 384 broilers were fed four diets including either unprocessed (T1), or hydrothermically processed maize, that is short- (T2), or long-term conditioned (LC) (T3), and subsequently expanded maize of the same batch. Assuming a higher metabolizable energy (ME) content after processing, the fourth diet (T4) contains maize processed as treatment T3, but AA were supplemented to maintain the ideal protein value. Performance, digestibility and product quality in both species were assessed. Results show that in pigs receiving T4 the average daily feed intake was lower compared with the other treatments, whereas no difference was observed in broilers. The T3 improved the feed conversion rate compared with T1 (P<0.10) for both species. In contrast, average daily gain (ADG) (1277 g/day for T2 and 1267 g/day for T3 v. 971 g/day for T1) was only altered in pigs. The hydrothermic maize processing increased the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of dry matter, starch and ether extract after acid hydrolysis. This may be a consequence of higher ATTD of gross energy in the finishing phase for both animal species, suggesting a higher ME content in diets with processed maize. The higher ME content of diets with processed maize is supported also by measurements of product quality. Supplementation of AA in T4 enhanced the loin depth in pigs as well as the amount of breast meat in broilers. Further effects of processing maize on meat quality were the reduced yellowness and antioxidative capacity (P<0.10) for broilers, likely due to the heat damage of xanthophylls and tocopherols. Processing also increased springiness and chewiness (P<0.10) of the broilers breast meat, whereas the loin meat of pigs showed a decreased lightness and yellowness (P<0.10) in meat when hydrothermic processed maize was used (for T2, T3 and T4). LC processed maize (T3) showed the lowest springiness in pork, however the supplementation of AA in T4 did not show differences between the treatments. Shown results demonstrated positive effects of hydrothermic processing of maize on animal performance and digestibility in both species. However, effects on carcass characteristics and product quality differed. The negative effects on product quality could be partly compensated with the AA supplementation, whereas a change in meat colour and reduced antioxidative capacity was observed in all groups fed hydrothermic maize processing.

Keywords

maizefattening pigsbroilershydrothermic processingdigestibilityproduct quality
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 7 , July 2018 , pp. 1536 - 1546
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Altmann, F 1992. Determination of amino sugars and amino acids in glycoconjugates using precolumn derivatization with o-phthalaldehyde. Analytical Biochemistry 204, 215–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amornthewaphat, N, Lerdsuwan, S and Attamangkune, S 2005. Effect of extrusion of maize and feed form on feed quality and growth performance of poultry in a tropical environment. Poultry Science 84, 1640–1647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, JS and Sunderland, R 2002. Effect of extruder moisture and dryer processing temperature on Vitamin C and E and astaxanthin stability. Aquaculture 207, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, VH 1971. Problems in the determination of FDNB – available lysine. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 658–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callan, JJ, Garry, BP and O’Doherty, J 2007. The effect of expander processing and screen size on nutrient digestibility, growth performance, selected faecal microbial populations and faecal volatile fatty acid concentrations in grower-finishing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claeys, E, Vossen, E and De Smet, S 2016. Determination of α-tocopherol by reversed-phase HPLC in feed and animal-derived foods without saponification. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96, 522–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowieson, AJ 2005. Factors that affect the nutritional value of maize for broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 119, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutlip, SE, Hott, JM, Buchanan, NP, Rack, AL, Latshaw, JD and Moritz, JS 2008. The effect of steam-conditioning practices on pellet quality and growing broiler nutritional value. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 17, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durek, J, Ghadiri Khozroughi, A, Fröhling, A, Schlüter, O, Knorr, F, Mader, A, Goodarzi Boroojeni, F, Zentek, J, Knorr, D and Bolling, JS 2014. Effects of thermally treated broiler feed with different organic acid levels on resulting meat composition and parameters related to meat quality. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 26, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GfE 2006. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung von Schweinen. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Giuberti, G, Gallo, A, Cerioli, C and Masoero, F 2012. In vitro starch digestion and predicted glycemic index of cereal grains commonly utilized in pig nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 174, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodarzi Boroojeni, F, Vahjen, W, Mader, A, Knorr, F, Ruhnke, I, Rohe, I, Hafeez, A, Villodre, C, Manner, K and Zentek, J 2014. The effects of different thermal treatments and organic acid levels in feed on microbial composition and activity in gastrointestinal tract of broilers. Poultry Science 93, 1440–1452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, MI, Lázaro, R, Latorre, MA, Medel, P, Araníbar, MJ, Jiménez-Moreno, E and Mateos, GG 2009. Influence of enzyme supplementation of diets and cooking–flaking of maize on digestive traits and growth performance of broilers from 1 to 21 days of age. Animal Feed Science and Technology 150, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hejdysz, M, Kaczmarek, SA and Rutkowski, A 2016. Effect of extrusion on the nutritional value of peas for broiler chickens. Archives of Animal Nutrition 70, 364–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagger, S, Wiseman, J, Cole, DJA and Craigon, J 1992. Evaluation of inert markers for the determination of ileal and faecal apparent digestibility values in the pig. British Journal of Nutrition 68, 729–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, SL, Hines, RH, Hancock, JD, Behnke, KC, Traylor, SL, Chae, BJ and Han, IK 1999. Effects of conditioners (standard, long-term and expander) on pellet quality and growth performance in nursery and finishing pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 12, 558–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, MT, Corzo, A, Hill, SM, Zumwalt, CD, Robinson, EH and Dozier, WA 2005. Growth and meat yield responses of broilers provided feed subjected to extrusion cooking. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 14, 536–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraler, M, Schedle, K, Domig, KJ, Heine, D, Michlmayr, H and Kneifel, W 2014. Effects of fermented and extruded wheat bran on total tract apparent digestibility of nutrients, minerals and energy in growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 197, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liermann, W, Berk, A, Böschen, V and Dänicke, S 2015. Effects of particle size and hydro-thermal treatment of feed on performance and stomach health in fattening pigs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 69, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundblad, KK, Issa, S, Hancock, JD, Behnke, KC, McKinney, LJ, Alavi, S, Prestløkken, E, Fledderus, J and Sørensen, M 2011. Effects of steam conditioning at low and high temperature, expander conditioning and extruder processing prior to pelleting on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in nursery pigs and broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology 169, 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, S, Kumar, S, Boever, J De, Ducatelle, R and De Brabander, D 2012. Effect of feed processing on growth performance and gastric mucosa integrity in pigs from weaning until slaughter. Animal Feed Science and Technology 175, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moros, EE, Darnoko, D, Cheryan, M, Perkins, EG and Jerrell, J 2002. Analysis of xanthophylls in corn by HPLC. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50, 5787–5790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naumann, C and Bassler, R 2012. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Nishizawa, M, Kohno, M, Nishimura, M, Kitagawa, A and Niwano, Y 2005. Nonreductive scavenging of 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazil (DPPH) by peroxydradical: a useful method for quantitative analysis of peroxydradical. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 53, 714–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Doherty, JV and Keady, U 2001. The effects of expander processing and extrusion on the nutritive value of peas for pigs. Journal of Animal Science 72, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Doherty, JV, McGlynn, SG and Murphy, D 2000. The effect of expander processing and pelleting on the nutritive value of feed for growing and finishing pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81, 135–141.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Doherty, JV, McGlynn, SG and Murphy, D 2002. The influence of fibre level and fat supplementation in expander-processed diets on grower-finishing pig performance. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 82, 1036–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, JS, Hancock, JD, Maloney, CA, Cao, H and Hines, RH 1998. Effects of expander processing of wheat-based diets for finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 76, 186. (Abstract).Google Scholar
Röhe, I, Ruhnke, I, Knorr, F, Mader, A, Boroojeni, FG, Lowe, R and Zentek, J 2014. Effects of grinding method, particle size, and physical form of the diet on gastrointestinal morphology and jejunal glucose transport in laying hens. Poultry Science 93, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rojas, OJ and Stein, HH 2016. Use of feed technology to improve the nutritional value of feed ingredients. Animal Production Science 56, 1312–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukhija, PS and Palmquist, DL 1988. Rapid method for determination of total fatty acid content and composition of feedstuffs and feces. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 36, 1202–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svihus, B 2014. Starch digestion capacity of poultry. Poultry Science 93, 2394–2399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svihus, B and Zimonja, O 2011. Chemical alterations with nutritional consequences due to pelleting animal feeds: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tothi, R, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR and Hvelplund, T 2003. Effect of expander processing on fractional rate of maize and barley starch degradation in the rumen of dairy cows estimated using rumen evacuation and in situ techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 104, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaidya, B and Choe, E 2011. Effects of seed roasting on tocopherols, carotenoids, and oxidation in mustard seed oil during heating. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 88, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar