4.4 Article

Addition of oat hulls to an extruded rice-based diet for weaner pigs ameliorates the incidence of diarrhoea and reduces indices of protein fermentation in the gastrointestinal tract

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 99, 期 6, 页码 1217-1225

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114507868462

关键词

oat hulls; post-weaning diarrhoea; digestibility; plasma urea; plasma creatinine; biogenic amines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experiment was conducted to determine whether adding oat hulls to weaner pig diets based on extruded rice or unprocessed wheat influenced post-weaning diarrhoea (PWD) and protein fermentation in the large intestine. Ninety-six male piglets (5-16 (SEM 0.08) kg) were allocated to (i) extruded rice plus animal proteins (RAP); (ii) RAP with added oat hulls (20 g/kg); (iii) wheat plus animal proteins (WAP); (iv) WAP with added oat hulls (20 g/kg). Blood and faecal samples were collected on days 7 and 14 after weaning at about age 21 d. Pigs fed RAP had]note PWD than pigs fed WAP (P < 0.05). Oat hull supplementation to diet RAP decreased the incidence of PWD (P < 0.05). The total-tract digestibility of DM, starch and energy was higher in rice-based diets than in wheat-based diets (P < 0.001); however, oat hulls decreased digestibility of DM and gross energy (P < 0.001). Pigs fed RAP had higher plasma creatinine concentrations (P < 0.01), which were positively correlated to cumulative beta-haemolytic Escherichia coli scores after weaning (R-2 0928; P=0.015). Addition of oat hulls decreased plasma urea concentrations only in pigs fed RAP (interaction; P < 0.05). Pigs fed RAP had lower faecal total biogenic amine concentrations than pigs fed WAP (P < 0.001). Oat hull supplementation tended to decrease total biogenic amine concentrations (P=0.103). These data indirectly suggest that a mostly insoluble dietary fibre source such as oat hulls can decrease PWD in dietary situations where there may be a misbalance of carbohydrate to protein entering the hindgut.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据