| Title |
Effects of an enzyme complex on in vitro dry matter digestibility of feed ingredients for pigs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1060-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Changsu Kong, Chan Sol Park, Beob Gyun Kim |
| Abstract |
Feed ingredients of plant origin are commonly used in swine diets. However, the major components of plant cell walls, non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs), reduce nutrient digestibility. To improve the efficiency of feed utilization, exogenous enzyme products that degrade NSPs have been widely used in commercial animal feeds. Nonetheless, the effects of exogenous enzyme addition to swine diets on nutrient digestibility have not been determined. To this end, in vitro approaches may be used. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of an enzyme complex (EC) containing xylanase, protease, and phytase on the in vitro dry matter (DM) digestibility of nine feed ingredients including cereal grain energy sources (corn, wheat, and barley) and protein sources (soybean meal, rapeseed meal, palm kernel meal, cottonseed meal, copra meal, and distillers dried grains with solubles). Both in vitro ileal and total tract digestibility (IVID and IVTTD, respectively) of DM were determined for the nine test ingredients, with or without EC addition. The EC addition increased the IVID of DM in copra meal (p = 0.047) and tended to increase the IVID of DM in corn, wheat, barley, palm kernel meal, cottonseed meal, and DDGS (p < 0.10). On the other hand, no significant effect was observed in soybean meal and rapeseed meal. The IVTTD of DM in the test ingredients was not affected by the addition of EC, except for cottonseed meal (52.1 vs. 50.6%, p = 0.053). In conclusion, the effects of EC addition on in vitro DM digestibility may vary, depending on the test ingredient and method used. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 55% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,416,517
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,261
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,727
of 264,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#56
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.