Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Determination and prediction of net energy of soybean meal fed to pregnant sows by indirect calorimetry

  • Lei Xue (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Can Zhang (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Bo Cheng (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Qian Song (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Lee J. Johnston (West Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota) ;
  • Ling Liu (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Fenglai Wang (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University) ;
  • Jianjun Zang (State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2024.09.23
  • Accepted : 2024.11.27
  • Published : 2025.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The study was conducted to investigate the appropriate substitution level of soybean meal (SBM) for determining its net energy (NE), and establish NE prediction equation of SBM based on the determined NE values for pregnant sows. Methods: In Exp. 1, eighteen pregnant sows (Landrace×Yorkshire; parity, 2 to 3) with an initial body weight (BW) of 221.2±2.6 kg at mid-gestation were blocked by BW and randomly assigned into 3 groups. Three groups fed with a corn-SBM basal diet and two test diets with 15% and 30% energy-supplying components replaced by SBM, respectively. In Exp. 2, six diets were formulated including a corn-SBM basal diet and five SBM diets (based on the substitution level determined of Exp. 1) with different soybean sources and processing methods. Moreover, 12 pregnant pigs (BW = 209.0±3.0 kg; parity, 3 to 4) at mid-gestation were arranged in a 6×3 Youden square design. Results: Increasing substitution levels of SBM linearly increased (p<0.05) fecal and urinary nitrogen excretion and the ratio of urinary energy to digestible energy (DE), while linearly decreased (p<0.05) the ratio of metabolizable energy (ME) to DE and tended to linearly decrease dietary ME (p = 0.066) and NE (p = 0.074). The coefficient of variation for the NE of SBM was lower at a 15% substitution level compared to a 30% substitution level. The nutritional compositions of SBM are influenced by the soybean sources and processing methods. As dry matter basis, NE values of SBM ranged from 11.1 to 12.7 MJ/kg and the best-fitted prediction equation for NE of SBM was: NE (MJ/kg) = -91.71+5.35×gross -91.71+5.35×gross energy (%)-0.03×neutral detergent fiber (%; R2 = 0.96). Conclusion: A substitution level of 15% was more appropriate to determine NE of SBM. Furthermore, NE values of SBM can be predicted based on their chemical compositions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by National Key Research and Developmental Program of China (2021YFD1300202), the 2115 Talent Development Program of China Agricultural University (00109011), and the Research on low carbon feeding and feed substitution (202205410410629) from Quzhou Sanyiyi Ecological Agriculture Co., Ltd.

References

  1. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. National Academies Press; 2012.
  2. Li Z, Wang X, Guo P, et al. Prediction of digestible and metabolisable energy in soybean meals produced from soybeans of different origins fed to growing pigs. Arch Anim Nutr 2015;69:473-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039x.2015.1095461
  3. Zhou X, Zhang HL, Lu XW, et al. Applying meta-data of soybean grain in origin trace and quarantine inspection. Food Res Int 2022;162:111998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111998
  4. Li Z, Lyu Z, Liu H, et al. Prediction of net energy values in expeller-pressed and solvent-extracted rapeseed meal for growing pigs. Anim Biosci 2021;34:109-18. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0962
  5. Wang K, Zou X, Guo L, et al. The nutritive value of soybean meal from different sources for sows during mid- and late gestation. J Anim Sci 2022;100:skac298. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac298
  6. Solà-Oriol D, Gasa J. Feeding strategies in pig production: sows and their piglets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2017;233:34-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.07.018
  7. Zhang S, Li Z, Liu L. Concerns about the misleading conclusions regarding estimation of the net energy value of soybean meal relative to corn using the caloric efficiency approach in pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2020;11:113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-020-00519-1
  8. Li Z, Li Y, Lv Z, et al. Net energy of corn, soybean meal and rapeseed meal in growing pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2017;8:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0169-1
  9. Noblet J, Wu SB, Choct M. Methodologies for energy evaluation of pig and poultry feeds: a review. Anim Nutr 2022;8:185-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.06.015
  10. Adeola O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. In: Lewis DJ, Southern LL, editors. Swine nutrition. 2nd ed. CRC Press; 2001. pp. 903-16.
  11. Kim JW, Koo B, Nyachoti CM. Net energy content of canola meal fed to growing pigs and effect of experimental methodology on energy values. J Anim Sci 2018;96:1441-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky039
  12. He C, Xu S, Li Z, et al. Determination and prediction of the net energy content of wheat bran for pregnant sow. Arch Anim Nutr 2024;78:207-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039x.2024.2350774
  13. Wang Z, Chen Y, Ding J, et al. Net energy content of five fiber-rich ingredients fed to pregnant sows. Anim Sci J 2019;90:939-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13211
  14. Casas GA, Stein HH. Gestating sows have greater digestibility of energy in full fat rice bran and defatted rice bran than growing gilts regardless of level of feed intake. J Anim Sci 2017;95:3136-42. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2017.1585
  15. Gerrits W, Labussière E, Dijkstra J, et al. Recovery test results as a prerequisite for publication of gaseous exchange measurements. Animal 2018;12:4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117002397
  16. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 20th ed. AOAC International; 2016.
  17. Johansen HN, Glitsø V, Bach Knudsen KE. Influence of extraction solvent and temperature on the quantitative determination of oligosaccharides from plant materials by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Agric Food Chem 1996;44:1470-4. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf950482b
  18. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  19. Brouwer E. Report of sub‐committee on constants and factors. In: Blaxter K, editor. Energy metabolism; proceedings of the 3rd symposium; 2009 May; Troon, Scotland. Academic Press; pp. 441-3.
  20. Noblet J, Fortune H, Shi XS, Dubois S. Prediction of net energy value of feeds for growing pigs. J Anim Sci 1994;72:344-54. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.722344x
  21. Labussiere E, Maxin G, Dubois S, van Milgen J, Bertrand G, Noblet J. Effect of feed intake on heat production and protein and fat deposition in milk-fed veal calves. Animal 2009;3:557-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731108003777
  22. Grieshop CM, Kadzere CT, Clapper GM, et al. Chemical and nutritional characteristics of United States soybeans and soybean meals. J Agric Food Chem 2003;51:7684-91. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf034690c
  23. Villamide MJ. Methods of energy evaluation of feed ingredients for rabbits and their accuracy. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996;57:211-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00855-1
  24. Le Bellego L, van Milgen J, Dubois S, Noblet J. Energy utilization of low-protein diets in growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2001;79:1259-71. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7951259x
  25. Le Goff G, Noblet J. Comparative total tract digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. J Anim Sci 2001;79:2418-27. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992418x
  26. Kim H, Sung JY, Kim BG. The influence of protein concentrations in basal diet on metabolizable energy of full-fat soybeans and soy protein isolate determined by the difference procedure in pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2022;288:115299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115299
  27. Noblet J, Shi XS. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients in growing pigs fed ad libitum and adults sows fed at maintenance. Livest Prod Sci 1993;34:137-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(93)90042-G
  28. Le Goff G, Le Groumellec L, van Milgen J, Dubois S, Noblet J. Digestibility and metabolic utilisation of dietary energy in adult sows: Influence of addition and origin of dietary fibre. Br J Nutr 2002;87:325-35. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjnbjn2001528
  29. Pérez de Nanclares M, Marcussen C, Tauson AH, et al. Increasing levels of rapeseed expeller meal in diets for pigs: effects on protein and energy metabolism. Animal 2019;13:273-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731118000988
  30. Fuller MF, Reeds PJ. Nitrogen cycling in the gut. Annu Rev Nutr 1998;18:385-411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.18.1.385
  31. Ramonet Y, van Milgen J, Dourmad JY, Dubois S, Meunier-Salauün MC, Noblet J. The effect of dietary fibre on energy utilisation and partitioning of heat production over pregnancy in sows. Br J Nutr 2000;84:85-94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114500001264
  32. Dahl WJ, Stewart ML. Position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics: health implications of dietary fiber. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015;115:1861-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.003
  33. Beyer M, Jentsch W, Hoffmann L, Schiemann R, Klein M. Studies on energy and nitrogen metabolism of pregnant and lactating sows and suckling piglets: 4. chemical composition and energy content of the conception products, the reproductive organs as well as the live weight gains or losses of pregnant and lactating sows. Arch Tierernahr 1994;46:7-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450399409381755
  34. Thomas LL, Goodband RD, Tokach MD, Dritz SS, Woodworth JC, DeRouchey JM. Partitioning components of maternal growth to determine efficiency of feed use in gestating sows. J Anim Sci 2018;96:4313-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky219
  35. Shimoda T, Hori S, Maegawa K, et al. A low coefficient of variation in hepatic triglyceride concentration in an inbred rat strain. Lipids Health Dis 2020;19:137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-020-01320-9
  36. Huang Q, Piao X, Liu L, Li D. Effects of inclusion level on nutrient digestibility and energy content of wheat middlings and soya bean meal for growing pigs. Arch Anim Nutr 2013;67:356-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039x.2013.837233
  37. Navarro DMDL, Abelilla JJ, Stein HH. Structures and characteristics of carbohydrates in diets fed to pigs: a review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2019;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-019-0345-6
  38. Święch E. Alternative prediction methods of protein and energy evaluation of pig feeds. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2017;8:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0171-7
  39. Noblet J, Perez JM. Prediction of digestibility of nutrients and energy values of pig diets from chemical analysis. J Anim Sci 1993;71:3389-98. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.71123389x
  40. Li DF, Qiao SY, Chen DW, et al. Nutrient requirements of swine in China. China Agriculture Press; 2020.