4.6 Article

Ileal digestibility of amino acids, phosphorus, phytate and energy in pigs fed sorghum-based diets supplemented with phytase and Pancreatin®

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ANIMAL NUTRITION
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages 179-186

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01038.x

Keywords

amino acids; ileal digestibility; Pancreatin (R); phytase; pigs; sorghum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>The effects of phytase supplementation on the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of amino acids (AA) have been inconsistent. Two experiments evaluated the effect of providing a mixture of pancreatic enzymes (Pancreatin (R)) to growing pigs fed sorghum-soybean meal diets supplemented with phytase on the AID of AA, energy, and phosphorus (P), as well as the ileal digestibility (ID) of phytate; there were four periods per experiment. In Experiment 1, eight pigs (BW 22.1 +/- 1.3 kg) were fitted with a T-cannula at the distal ileum. Each period consisted of 9 days; 7 days for diet adaptation, and 2 days for digesta collection. Treatments (T) were: (i) basal sorghum-soybean meal diet, (ii) basal diet plus Pancreatin (R), (iii) basal diet plus phytase and (iv) basal diet plus phytase and Pancreatin (R). Phytase increased the digestibilities of phytate and P (p < 0.001), but did not affect the AID of AA and energy (p > 0.10). Except for methionine (p = 0.07), Pancreatin (R) did not affect the AID of AA. Phytase and Pancreatin (R) did not interact (p > 0.10). Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1, but Pancreatin (R) was infused into duodenum. Pancreatin (R) infusion did not affect the AID of AA (p > 0.10); and tended to reduce (p = 0.09) the AID of lysine. Phytase x Pancreatin (R) interactions were not observed (p > 0.10). In conclusion, phytase and Pancreatin (R) did not improve the AID of AA in growing pigs fed sorghum-soybean meal diets indicating that phytates did not affect AA digestibility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available