Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T20:18:18.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of wheat processing and enzyme supplementation of weaner diets on piglet performance and gut health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2021

B. P. Gill ,
S. Garcia ,
K. H. Hillman  and
H. Schulze
B. P. Gill
Affiliation:
The Scottish Agricultural College, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD, United Kingdom
S. Garcia
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, Department of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD, United Kingdom
K. H. Hillman
Affiliation:
The Scottish Agricultural College, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD, United Kingdom
H. Schulze
Affiliation:
Finnfeeds Intemationd Ltd, Market House, Ailesbury Court, High Street, Marlborough SN8 1AA, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

Cooked cereals in weaner diets are considered to enhance digestion, gut health and intake. However, studies (McCone et al., 1991; Lynch et al., 1992) have shown adverse effects of cooked wheat on performance. The nutritional significance of cooking may include: (1) increased antinutritive effects of non-starch polysacharrides (NSP), (2) formation of retrograded starch (RS) which is resistant to α-amylase but is available for microbial fermentation (Englyst and Cummings, 1987) and (3) reduced protein quality due to heat damage. In this study, the aim was to obtain further understanding of this response to cooked wheat by evaluating the effects of different processing methods and feed enzyme supplementation on performance and indicators of gut health.

Type
Pig Nutrition
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1996 , March 1996 , pp. 58
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Englyst, H. N. and Cummings, J. H. Am J Clin Nut 45: 423–431.10.1093/ajcn/45.2.423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCone, S., English, P.R., Fowler, V.R., Gill, B.P., Birnie, M. and Davidson, F. 1991. Animal Production 52:600 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Lynch, P.B. and Zoccarato, I. 1992. Animal Production 54: 452–453 (abstr.).Google Scholar