
pmid: 22010236
The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare amino acid digestibility of several feedstuffs using 2 commonly accepted methods: the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay (PFR) and the standardized ileal amino acid assay (SIAAD). Six corn, 6 corn distillers dried grains with or without solubles (DDGS/DDG), one wet distillers grains, one condensed solubles, 2 meat and bone meal (MBM) and a poultry byproduct meal were evaluated. Due to insufficient amounts, the wet distillers grains and condensed solubles were only evaluated in roosters. Standardized amino acid digestibility varied among the feed ingredients and among samples of the same ingredient for both methods. For corn, there were generally no differences in amino acid digestibility between the 2 methods. When differences did occur, there was no consistent pattern among the individual amino acids and methods. Standardized amino acid digestibility was not different between the 2 methods for 4 of the DDG samples; however, the PFR yielded higher digestibility values for a high protein DDG and a conventionally processed DDGS. The PFR yielded higher amino acid digestibility values than the SIAAD for several amino acids in 1 MBM and the poultry byproduct meal, but it yielded lower digestibility values for the other MBM. Overall, there were no consistent differences between methods for amino acid digestibility values. In conclusion, the PFR and SIAAD methods are acceptable for determining amino acid digestibility. However, these procedures do not always yield similar results for all feedstuffs evaluated. Thus, further studies are needed to understand the underlying causes in this variability.
Male, Ileum, Animals, Digestion, Amino Acids, Animal Feed, Cecum, Chickens
Male, Ileum, Animals, Digestion, Amino Acids, Animal Feed, Cecum, Chickens
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 22 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
