농업과학연구 (Korean Journal of Agricultural Science)

  • 제46권4호
  • /
  • Pages.715-722
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2466-2402(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2466-2410(eISSN)
충남대학교 농업과학연구소 (Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Non-GMO beet pulp and canola meal corn-soybean meal diet ingredient has comparable effects as that of GMO corn-soybean meal diet on the performance of sows and piglets

  • Wang, Huan (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Dae Won (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Il Seok (Department of English, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, In Ho (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University)
  • 투고 : 2019.02.20
  • 심사 : 2019.07.16
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study was done to compare the effects of the dietary supplementation of non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) beet pulp and canola meal on reproduction performance in gestation-lactation sows. A total of 16 lactating sows (Landrace × Yorkshire) were randomly allotted to 1 of 2 dietary treatments with 8 replicates per treatment. Treatments consisted of genetically modified organism (GMO) basal diet (CON) and GMO basal diet supplemented with Non-GMO beet pulp and canola meal (NO). The experiment lasted from 4 weeks prior to farrowing, to day 21 of lactation. The ambient environments in the dry sow accommodation and the farrowing house were kept at a fairly constant temperature of 19 - 21℃, and 60% relative humidity. In the current study, inclusion of non-GMO feed ingredients diets showed comparable effects on the reproductive performance of the sows as that of the basal diet. There was no difference in reproduction performance in sows fed the non-GMO diets compared with CON diets when the feed ingredients were replaced with the feed by-product sugar-beet pulp (SBP) and canola meal (CM). In addition, there was also no significant difference in the growth performance of the piglets fed Non-GMO diets compared with the CON diet (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the results of the current study indicate a comparable effect of non-GMO sugar-beet pulp, and canola meal diet with basal diet on reproduction performance in gestation-lactation sows.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bell JM, Shires A. 1980. Effects of rapeseed dockage content on the feeding value of rapeseed meal for swine. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60:953-960. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas80-113
  2. Chern WS, Rickertsen K. 2001. Consumer acceptance of GMO: Survey results from Japan, Norway, Taiwan and the United States. Taiwanese Agricultural Economic Review 7:1-28.
  3. Clowes EJ, Kirkwood R, Cegielski A, Aherne FX. 2003. Phase-feeding protein to gestating sows over three parities reduced nitrogen excretion without affecting sow performance. Livestock Production Science 81:235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00275-0
  4. Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. 2014. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report 162.
  5. Gill BP, Mellange J, Rooke JA. 2000. Growth performance and apparent nutrient digestibility in weaned piglets offered wheat-, barley-or sugar-beet pulp-based diets supplemented with food enzymes. Animal Science 70:107-118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980005164X
  6. Gill BP, Taylor AG, Hardy B, Perrott JG. 1992. The effect of using fibrous feeds as nutrient diluents on the carcass quality and performance of finishing pigs fed ad libitum. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 1992:10.
  7. IFBC (International Food Biotechnology Council). 1990. Biotechnologies and food: Assuring the safety of foods produced by genetic $modi^{(R)}cation$. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacolog 12:S1-S196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2300(05)80077-7
  8. Kay RM, Simmins PH, Harland JI. 1990. The use of molassed sugar beet feed in growing pig diets and the effect of inclusion rates on subsequent performance. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 1990:154.
  9. Khajali F, Slominski BA. 2012. Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poultry Science 91:2564-2575. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02332
  10. King RH, Eason PE, Kerton DK, Dunshea FR. 2001. Evaluation of solvent-extracted canola meal for growing pigs and lactating sows. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52:1033-1041. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR01011
  11. Kogenebiotech. 2017. GMO analysis report. Kogenbiotech Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea.
  12. Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ. 2001. Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. The Plant Journal 27:503-528. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x
  13. Longland AC, Carruthers J, Low AG. 1994. The ability of piglets 4 to 8 weeks old to digest and perform on diets containing two contrasting sources of non-starch polysaccharide. Animal Science 58:405-410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100007352
  14. Longland AC, Low AG, Quelch DB, Bray SP. 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. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19930148
  15. McKinnon PJ, Bowland JP. 1977. Comparison of low glucosinolate-low erucic acid rapeseed meal (cv. Tower), commercial rapeseed meal and soybean meal as sources of protein for starting, growing and finishing pigs and young rats. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57:663-678. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas77-085
  16. Newkirk RW. 2009. Canola meal feed Industry guide. 4th ed. Publication of Canola Council of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada.
  17. Noblet J, Shi XS. 1994. Effect of body weight on digestive utilization of energy and nutrients of ingredients and diets in pigs. Livestock Production Science 37:323-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(94)90126-0
  18. NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. National Research Council Academy Press., Washington D.C., USA.
  19. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1986. Labour market flexibility. Report by a high-level group of experts to the secretary-general. OECD Publications and Information Center, Paris, France.
  20. Pilnik W, Voragen AGJ. 1992. Gelling agents (pectins) from plants for the food industry. Advances in Plant Cell Biochemistry and Biotechnology, USA.
  21. Pond WG. 1981. Limitations and opportunities in the use of fibrous and by-product feeds for swine. In Distillers Feed Conference Proceedings Distillers Feed Research Council.
  22. Quiniou N, Quinsac A, Crepon K, Evrard J, Peyronnet C, Bourdillon A, Royer E, Etienne M. 2012. Effects of feeding 10% rapeseed meal (Brassica napus) during gestation and lactation over three reproductive cycles on the performance of hyperprolific sows and their litters. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 92:513-524. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2012-039
  23. Robertson JA, Murison SD, Chesson A. 1987. Estimation of the potential digestibility and rate of degradation of water-insoluble dietary fiber in the pig cecum with a modified nylon bag technique. The Journal of Nutrition 117:1402-1409. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/117.8.1402
  24. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). 2013. SAS/STAT 9.4 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA.
  25. Song M, Kim DM, Choi KM, Seo S. 2012. Effects of different parities on productive performance of lactating sows. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 39:365-369. https://doi.org/10.7744/cnujas.2012.39.3.365
  26. US OSTP (United States Office of Science and Technology Policy). 1986. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register 51:23302-23350.
  27. Yan T, Longland AC, Close WH, Sharpe CE, Keal HD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800013849