4.6 Article

Starch with High Amylose Content and Low In Vitro Digestibility Increases Intestinal Nutrient Flow and Microbial Fermentation and Selectively Promotes Bifidobacteria in Pigs

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 141, Issue 7, Pages 1273-1280

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.111.140509

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
  2. Alberta Ingenuity Fund
  3. Alberta Pulse Growers
  4. Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund
  5. ABIP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diets containing different starch types can affect enzymatic digestion of starch and thereby starch availability for microbial fermentation in the gut. However, the role of starch chemistry in nutrient digestion and flow and microbial profile has been poorly explained. Eight ileal-cannulated pigs (29.4 +/- 0.9 kg body weight) were fed 4 diets containing 70% purified starch (amylose content, <5, 20, 28, and 63%; reflected by in vitro maximal digestion rate; 1.06, 0.73, 0.38, and 0.22%/min, respectively) in a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square. Ileal and fecal starch output, postileal crude protein yield, fecal total SCFA and total butyrate content, and gene copies of Bifidobacterium spp. in feces were higher (P < 0.05) when pigs consumed the slowly digestible starch diet than the remaining 3 starch diets. The in vitro starch digestion rate had a negative, nonlinear relationship with ileal starch flow (R-2 = 0.98; P < 0.001). Ileal starch flow was positively related to Bifidobacterium spp. (R-2 = 0.27; P < 0.01), Lactobacillus group (R-2 = 0.22; P < 0.01), and total butyrate content (R-2 = 0.46; P < 0.01) but was not related to Enterobacteriaceae (R-2 < 0.00; P = 0.92). In conclusion, starch with high amylose content and low in vitro digestibility increased postileal nutrient flow and microbial fermentation and selectively promoted Bifidobacterium spp. in the distal gut. J. Nutr. 141: 1273-1280, 2011.

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