4.6 Article

Effects of processing of wheat or oats starch on physical pellet quality and nutritional value for broilers

期刊

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 149, 期 3-4, 页码 287-297

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.06.010

关键词

Gelatinisation; Cold-pelleting; Steam-pelleting; Extrusion; Starch digestibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of cereal starch exposed to various processing techniques on physical pellet quality and nutritional value of the diets fed to broiler chickens. In experiment 1, diets with equal amounts of oat hulls, rapeseeds and fish meal were cold-pelleted or steam-conditioned and pelleted with or without inclusion of 200g pure wheat starch/kg. Durability of the pellets was reduced (p<0.05) for the starch-containing diets compared to non-starch diets under both processing conditions. Despite a significant improvement (p<0.05) in pellet quality within starch containing-diets as a consequence of gelatinised starch addition, pellet durability was lower (p<0.05) for gelatinised starch-containing diets compared to non-starch diets. In experiment 2, wheat and de-hulled oat-based diets were cold-pelleted, steam-pelleted or extruded before being fed to broiler chickens. The extent of starch gelatinisation was higher for oat diets than for wheat diets under all processing conditions. Feed/gain was lower (p<0.05) and AME(n) higher (p<0.05) for oat versus wheat diets. The increase in AME(n) was also reflected in starch digestibility which was significantly higher for oats compared to wheat diets in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract. As a consequence of increased gelatinisation a significant improvement (p<0.05) in starch digestibility was observed for extruded wheat diets compared with eithercold- or steam-pelleted wheat diets. An improved (p<0.05) starch digestibility due to extrusion processing was only observed at a duodenal level for oat diets. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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