Open Access

Metabolizable energy, nitrogen balance, and ileal digestibility of amino acids in quality protein maize for pigs

  • Gerardo Mariscal-Landín1Email author,
  • Tércia Cesária Reis de Souza2 and
  • Ericka Ramírez Rodríguez1
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology20145:26

DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-5-26

Received: 8 January 2014

Accepted: 22 April 2014

Published: 7 May 2014

Abstract

Background

To compare the nutritional value and digestibility of five quality protein maize (QPM) hybrids to that of white and yellow maize, two experiments were carried out in growing pigs. In experiment 1, the energy metabolizability and the nitrogen balance of growing pigs fed one of five QPM hybrid diets were compared against those of pigs fed white or yellow maize. In experiment 2, the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility (AID and SID, respectively) of proteins and amino acids from the five QPM hybrids were compared against those obtained from pigs fed white and yellow maize. In both experiments, the comparisons were conducted using contrasts.

Results

The dry matter and nitrogen intakes were higher in the pigs fed the QPM hybrids (P < 0.05) than in the pigs fed white or yellow maize. Energy digestibility (P < 0.001) and metabolizability (P < 0.01) were higher in the pigs fed the white and yellow maize diets than in those fed the QPM diets. The AID of lysine was higher (P < 0.01) in the QPM diets than in the white and yellow maize. The AIDs of leucine, isoleucine, valine, phenylalanine, and methionine were lower in the QPM diets than those of maize (white and yellow) (all P < 0.05). Maize (white and yellow) had greater SIDs of leucine, isoleucine, valine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid, serine, alanine, tyrosine, and proline (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Based on these results, it was concluded that QPM had a lower metabolizable energy content and a higher amount of digestible lysine than normal maize.

Keywords

Amino acids Energy balance Maize Nitrogen balance Pigs

Background

Maize (Zea mays) is the most widely harvested cultivar in the world, and it is often used as the principal source of energy for pigs. It is also an important source of protein and amino acids in finishing pigs [1]. There are varieties of maize, other than yellow maize, that contain different nutrient concentrations [2]. Owing to these differences in nutrient density and/or composition, new types of maize such as quality protein maize (QPM) may offer nutritional advantages over the conventional yellow maize varieties.

Maize protein is deficient in the amino acids, lysine and tryptophan, which limits its value for monogastric animals [3]. Mertz et al. [4] first reported the mutant maize called Opaque 2 in 1963, which has a higher content of these amino acids. However, maize Opaque 2 had a soft endosperm that made it susceptible to pests and crop storage problems, for which its production was ceased. Subsequent conventional breeding efforts by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) generated numerous cultivars with improved agronomic characteristics, collectively referred to as QPM [5], a type of maize with a hard endosperm rich in lysine and tryptophan due to a change in the ratio of 19- and 22-kD α zeins, an increment of 27 kD γ zein [6], and a non zein protein called elongation factor 1α (EF-1 α) [7]. The substantial reduction in synthesis of α-zeins results in smaller, less numerous protein bodies and a concomitant increase in non-zein endosperm proteins [3].

The metabolizable energy (ME) and amino acid (AA) digestibility of yellow maize have been extensively investigated and summarized in previous publications [8, 9]. This allows for the accurate formulation of yellow maize-based diets for pigs to meet ME and digestible AA requirements. However, there is currently limited information about the nutritive value of QPM.

Therefore, the first aim of the current study was to compare the energy metabolizability and nitrogen balance of QPM to those of yellow and white maize, and the second aim was to compare the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility (AID and SID, respectively) of protein and AAs in QPM hybrids to those of yellow and white maize.

Material and methods

This study was approved by the Scientific Associate Technical Group Committee of CENID Physiology. Two experiments were conducted at the experimental farm of CENID-Physiology (INIFAP, México). The experimental animals were treated according to the guidelines of the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals [10] and the Official Mexican Standard for production, care and use of laboratory animals [11].

Raw materials

The following QPM hybrids were evaluated: 538Ta, 537Ta, 537Ig, 334Ce, and QPM1. Evaluation was also conducted on one white and one yellow maize obtained from a commercial supplier in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. The chemical composition of these materials is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Chemical composition of maize (g/kg) 1

 

QPM2

Maize

Nutrient, g /kg

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

Dry Matter

910.7

911.4

893.0

909.0

911.2

911.0

910.8

Protein

85.0

84.0

86.0

85.0

87.0

80.0

75.0

NDF

114.0

91.0

102.0

84.0

89.0

104.0

94.0

ADF

48.0

39.0

40.0

38.0

35.0

34.0

27.0

Ether Extract

34.0

34.0

47.0

39.0

52.0

39.0

37.0

Ash

17.0

14.0

16.0

17.0

17.0

11.0

12.0

Gross Energy, MJ/kg

16.7

16.6

16.4

16.0

16.6

16.5

16.5

Amino acids

       

Alanine

5.1

4.9

4.9

5.0

4.2

5.9

5.6

Arginine

5.9

3.5

5.3

5.3

4.9

3.8

3.6

Aspartic acid

6.7

4.6

6.5

6.4

5.4

5.4

5.3

Cystine

3.5

3.5

2.4

3.5

3.4

3.0

3.3

Glutamic acid

14.1

12.6

13.6

14.4

11.4

15.3

14.2

Glycine

4.1

2.9

3.9

4.0

3.5

3.1

3.0

Histidine

3.5

2.7

3.4

2.5

2.6

2.5

2.1

Isoleucine

2.6

2.0

2.5

2.4

2.1

2.6

2.5

Leucine

7.3

7.7

7.1

7.3

5.8

9.6

9.1

Lysine

3.1

2.7

2.9

2.7

2.7

2.0

2.0

Methionine

1.8

1.8

2.2

2.3

2.3

1.5

2.1

Phenylalanine

3.9

3.1

3.4

3.9

2.9

4.2

3.9

Proline

8.4

7.4

9.4

8.0

7.9

9.2

8.9

Serine

3.7

3.1

3.6

3.9

3.1

3.7

3.5

Threonine

3.3

2.4

3.0

3.5

2.7

2.8

2.6

Tyrosine

2.6

2.2

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.6

2.5

Valine

4.7

3.1

5.4

4.4

4.6

3.9

4.3

1As fed basis.

2Quality Protein Maize.

Energy metabolizability and nitrogen balance (Experiment 1)

Four consecutive groups of seven Landrace x Duroc pigs with a mean weight of 61.2 ± 2.6 kg were used (28 pigs in total, four replicates by treatment). The pigs were placed in individual metabolic cages equipped with a self-feeder and a low-pressure drinking nipple connected to a watering system that controlled the water supply. Screens were placed under the floors, which allowed for total collection of feces and urine. The room temperature ranged from 19–22°C.

The pigs were fed twice daily at 0800 h and 1800 h. The experimental diets (Table 2) were prepared with one QPM or one maize (white or yellow) as the sole protein and energy source. The diets contained calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, salt, and premixed vitamins and minerals. Chromic oxide (3 g/kg of feed) was included as an indigestible marker. The feed intake of the pigs was 2.5 times their digestible energy (DE) requirement for maintenance (460 kJ/kg BW0.75[12]) as recommended by Adeola [13] for pigs weighing >50 kg. The water container in each metabolic cage was filled just before each meal to restrict water intake to 2.5 L/kg of dry matter (DM) intake [13].
Table 2

Composition of the experimental diets (g/kg): experiment 1 1

Ingredient, g/kg

QPM2

Maize

 

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

QPM1

967.5

      

334Ce

 

967.5

     

537Ta

  

967.5

    

537Ig

   

967.5

   

538Ta

    

967.5

  

White

     

967.5

 

Yellow

      

967.5

Calcium Phosphate

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

Calcium Carbonate

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

Salt

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Minerals3

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Vitamins4

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Chromic oxide

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Chemical composition5

       

Dry Matter

906.6

903.3

891.1

904.6

901.4

905.6

904.8

Protein

82.2

81.3

83.2

82.2

84.2

77.4

72.6

Gross Energy, MJ/kg

16.5

16.2

16.1

15.9

16.1

16.0

16.0

1As fed basis.

2Quality Protein Maize.

3Furnished by kg of feed: Cl 1.65 g, Na 0.87 g, Cu 7.7 mg, Fe 89.25 mg, Mn 19.98 mg, Se 0.087 mg, I 0.053 mg.

4Furnished by kg of feed: Vitamin A 6,600 IU, D 660 IU, E 100 IU, Choline 350 mg, Niacin 54 mg, Pantothenic acid 13.15 mg, Riboflavin 2.2 mg, B12 36 μg.

5Analyzed values, on an as fed basis.

The experimental period lasted for 10 d for each consecutive group: 5 d for adaptation and 5 d for the total collection of feces and urine. The feces were frozen and kept at -20°C. At the end of the experimental period, the feces were defrosted and homogenized to obtain 10% of the weight as a final sample for lyophilizing. Urine was collected via funnels underneath the urine collection tray. This collection system included a glass wool mat to avoid contamination with feed or feces. To reduce urine pH and avoid NH3 volatilization, 40 mL of HCl 6 mol/L were added to each urine container twice a day. The urine was removed twice a day, weighed, and filtered again through four layers of cheesecloth into a clean container. Then a 5% aliquot was taken and kept at -20°C until analysis. Three urine subsamples of 20 mL per pig were lyophilized to measure energy [14].

Ileal digestibility (Experiment 2)

Seven Landrace x Duroc pigs with a mean weight of 62.3 ± 4.9 kg at the time of data collection were used. When the pigs weighed 45 kg, a T-cannula was fitted at the terminal ileum [15]. After surgery, the pigs were placed in individual metabolism cages that included a self-feeder and a low-pressure drinking nipple. The room temperature ranged from 19–22°C.

The post-operative period lasted for 21 d. During this period, the pigs were fed a grower diet (160 g of CP/kg) twice daily at 0800 h and 1800 h. The amount fed was increased 100 g/d until the level of intake was the same as that prior to surgery.

During the experimental period, the pigs received one of the experimental diets (Table 3). The diets were formulated using maize as the sole source of dietary protein. To avoid the effect of the level of the dietary protein on protein apparent digestibility [16], maize starch was used to ensure that the experimental diets consisted of the same protein level despite the different protein levels of the maize. All experimental diets contained calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, and salt. To reduce dust, 20 g/kg of maize oil was included. Vitamins and minerals exceeded the NRC [8] requirements. Chromic oxide (3 g/kg of feed) was included as an indigestible marker. The feed intake of the pigs was 2.5 times their digestible energy (DE) requirement for maintenance, 460 kJ/kg BW0.75[12]. The animals had free access to water.
Table 3

Composition of the experimental diets (g/kg): experiment 2 1

Ingredient, g/kg

QPM2

Maize

 

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

QPM1

845.5

      

334Ce

 

845.5

     

537Ta

  

825.5

    

537Ig

   

835.5

   

538Ta

    

816.5

  

White

     

887.5

 

Yellow

      

947.5

Maize starch

102.0

102.0

122.0

112.0

131.5

60.0

 

Calcium Phosphate

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5

Calcium Carbonate

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

Maize oil

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

Salt

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Minerals3

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Vitamins4

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Chromic oxide

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Chemical composition5

       

Dry matter

905.6

901.3

894.1

864.2

899.2

906.5

902.8

Protein

71.1

70.8

70.6

71.0

71.3

70.5

71.6

Gross Energy, MJ/kg

15.8

15.7

15.6

15.2

15.7

15.7

15.6

Alanine

4.70

4.81

4.45

4.32

4.01

5.55

6.08

Arginine

5.36

3.47

4.86

4.57

4.70

3.59

3.93

Aspartic acid

6.10

4.54

5.83

5.59

5.04

5.04

5.69

Cystine

3.22

3.47

2.19

3.13

3.25

2.82

3.53

Glutamic acid

12.87

12.47

12.38

12.62

10.85

14.43

15.41

Glycine

3.71

2.85

3.56

3.56

3.33

2.90

3.24

Histidine

3.22

2.67

3.08

2.54

2.48

2.39

2.36

Isoleucine

2.39

1.96

2.19

1.61

1.96

2.39

2.65

Leucine

6.60

7.57

6.39

6.10

5.55

9.05

9.81

Lysine

2.80

2.67

2.59

2.54

2.48

1.88

2.16

Methionine

1.65

1.16

2.02

1.10

1.45

1.45

2.26

Phenylalanine

3.55

3.12

3.08

2.80

2.82

3.93

4.22

Proline

6.35

6.14

8.50

4.91

7.52

8.71

9.62

Serine

3.38

3.03

3.24

3.47

2.90

3.50

3.73

Threonine

2.97

2.40

2.75

3.39

2.56

2.65

2.85

Tyrosine

2.39

2.23

2.19

2.12

1.96

2.48

2.65

Valine

4.29

3.03

4.86

2.71

4.36

3.59

4.71

1As fed basis.

2Quality Protein Maize.

3Furnished by kg of feed: Cl 1.65 g, Na 0.87 g, Cu 7.7 mg, Fe 89.25 mg, Mn 19.98 mg, Se 0.087 mg, I 0.053 mg.

4Furnished by kg of feed: Vitamin A 6,600 IU, D 660 IU, E 100 IU, Choline 350 mg, Niacin 54 mg, Pantothenic acid 13.15 mg, Riboflavin 2.2 mg, B12 36 μg.

5Analyzed values, on an as fed basis.

The four experimental periods lasted seven d each: 5 d for adaptation and 2 d for digesta collection. Ileal digesta were collected continuously over a period of 10 h (0800 h–1800 h) using plastic bags (11 cm × 5 cm) that contained 10 mL of a 0.2 mol/L HCl solution to inhibit bacterial activity and were attached to the cannula using a rubber band. When the collecting bags were full, the ileal digesta was transferred to a container and frozen at -20°C until lyophilisation.

At the end of the experiment, narcosis was induced by CO2 inhalation, followed by euthanasia by exsanguination. A post-mortem examination for fistula along the length of the small intestine was performed to verify its integrity.

Chemical analysis

The raw materials, diets, digesta, and feces were ground using a laboratory mill (Arthur H. Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA) to pass through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve. DM and nitrogen analysis methods, 934.01 and 976.05 [17], respectively, were performed. Chromium analysis was performed as described by Fenton and Fenton [18]. Gross energy was estimated using an adiabatic bomb calorimeter (model 1281, Parr, Moline, IL). Samples from the raw materials, diets, and digesta were hydrolyzed at 110°C for 24 h in 6 mol/L HCl to use in AA analysis method 994.12 [17]. For methionine and cystine analyses, oxidation with performic acid was carried out before acid hydrolysis [17]. Tryptophan was not estimated. AA analysis was performed using reverse phase HPLC (1100 HPLC Hewlett Packard), according to Henderson et al.[19]. Nitrogen in the liquid urine was estimated according to AOAC [17] method 976.05. Energy in the lyophilized urine was estimated according to Le Bellego [14].

Calculations

The AID or apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) was estimated using the equation proposed by Fan and Sauer [20]:
AID = 1 - ID × AF / AD × IF × 100

where AID = apparent digestibility (ileal or total tract) of a nutrient in the diet, ID = concentration of the marker in the diet (mg/kg DM), AF = concentration of the nutrient in ileal digesta or feces (mg/kg DM), AD = concentration of the nutrient in the diet (mg/kg DM), and IF = concentration of the marker in the ileal digesta or feces (mg/kg DM).

The SID was estimated using the formula proposed by Furuya and Kaji [21]:
SID = AID + Endogenous / Dietary Content × 100

where Endogenous = endogenous losses of a nutrient in mg/kg DM intake, and Dietary content = amount of nutrient consumed in mg/kg DM intake. The calculations were performed using endogenous values reported by Mariscal-Landin and Reis de Souza [22].

The ME was obtained using the formula proposed by Adeola [13]:
ME = GE - FE - UE / GE × 100

where ME = metabolizable energy in MJ/d, GE = gross energy intake in MJ/d, FE = fecal energy output in MJ/d, and UE = urine energy output in MJ/d.

Statistical analyses

Experiment 1

Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design [23] with four blocks of seven animals each and using the GLM procedure in SAS v9.2 [24]. The variables were the DM amount, nitrogen intake, energy intake, the amount of nitrogen and energy excreted in feces and urine, the apparent total tract digestibility of DM, nitrogen, and energy, nitrogen balance, and energy metabolizability. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to assess significance.

Experiment 2

Data were analyzed using a Latin square with additional columns, or a 4 × 7 “Youden square” [23], which included seven animals, seven treatments, and four experimental periods. The experimental variables were the protein and amino acids AID and SID of the maize. Data were analyzed using the GLM procedure in SAS v9.2 [24]. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to assess significance.

In both experiments, the means were compared using Duncan’s method and the QPM (QPM1, 334Ce, 537Ta, 537Ig, or 538Ta) and normal maize (white or yellow) were compared using contrasts [23].

Results

Energy metabolizability and nitrogen balance

Energy metabolizability, QPM vs normal maize

Energy intake was similar (P > 0.05) between the treatments: 29.5 MJ/d of QPM or normal maize. Apparent total tract digestibility was lower in the pigs fed QPM (89.8) than in those fed normal maize (91.0, P < 0.001). While UE was similar (0.58 MJ/d, P > 0.05) between all the treatments, the metabolizability of energy was lower in the pigs fed QPM (87.9) than in those fed normal maize (88.9) (Table 4).
Table 4

Energy metabolizability and nitrogen balance: experiment 1 1

Traits

QPM2

Maize

 

Contrast

 
 

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

SEM3

QPM

Normal

Prob4

Dry Matter, kg/d

           

 Intake

1.67a

1.66a

1.66a

1.68a

1.64a

1.66a

1.55b

0.010

1.66

1.60

0.05

Energy, MJ/d

           

 Intake

29,9a

29.7a

29.7a

30.2a

29.5a

29.7a

27.7b

0.17

29.8

28.7

0.63

 In feces

3.1a

3.2a

3.0a

2.9ab

2.9ab

2.6b

2.6b

0.04

3.0

2.6

0.001

 Digestible

26.8a

26.5a

26.7a

27.3a

26.5a

27.1a

25.1b

0.16

26.7

26.1

0.01

 In Urine

0.50

0.58

0.53

0.60

0.62

0.60

0.61

0.013

0.57

0.60

0.21

 Metabolizable

26.3a

25.9a

26.2a

26.7a

25.9a

26.5a

24.5b

0.16

26.2

25.5

0.01

Nitrogen, g/d

           

 Intake

22.4b

24.6a

24.5a

24.6a

24.4a

22.0b

22.1b

0.13

24.0

22.0

0.001

 In feces

3.6

4.1

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.4

3.5

0.08

3.82

3.46

0.32

 Digestible

18.7b

20.5a

20.6a

20.4a

20.5a

18.5b

18.6b

0.35

20.1

18.6

0.001

 In Urine

10.2a

12.6b

13.2b

11.9b

12.0b

12.1b

12.2b

0.21

11.97

12.2

0.74

 Retained

8.5a

7.9ab

7.5ab

8.5a

8.5a

6.5ab

6.4b

0.24

8.18

6.44

0.19

Dry matter, MJ/kg

           

 Digestible energy

16.11cd

15.96d

16.12bcd

16.29ab

16.18abc

16.34a

16.22abc

0.007

16.13

16.28

0.01

 Metabolizable energy

15.59ab

15.38b

15.59ab

15.70a

15.55ab

15.74a

15.61ab

0.009

15.56

15.68

0.09

 Coefficient

           

 DM Digestibility

88.7c

88.2c

88.9c

90.1ab

89.2bc

90.8a

90.2a

0.12

89.0

90.5

0.001

 E Digestibility

89.6bc

89.1c

89.8bc

90.4ab

90.1bc

91.3a

90.6ab

0.14

89.8

91.0

0.001

 Metabolizability

87.9b

87.2b

88.0b

88.4ab

88.0b

89.3a

88.4ab

0.15

87.9

88.9

0.01

 N Digestibility

83.7

83.3

84.3

84.7

84.3

84.3

84.2

0.30

84.1

84.3

0.72

N retention as percentage of

          

 Intake5

38.2a

32.1ab

30.5ab

35.2ab

35.0ab

29.6ab

28.8b

1.01

34.2

29.2

0.28

 Absorbed6

45.7a

38.5ab

36.1ab

41.6ab

41.3ab

35.0b

34.2b

1.14

40.3

34.6

0.20

1All data are reported on a DM basis.

2Quality Protein Maize.

3Standard error of the mean.

4Contrast Probability.

5(N retained/N intake)*100.

6(N retained/N absorbed)*100.

abcdifferent letters in the same line differ (P < 0.05).

Energy metabolizability, means comparison

Energy intake was lower in the pigs fed yellow maize (27.7 MJ/d) than in the pigs fed white maize (29.8 MJ/d, P < 0.05). Apparent total tract digestibility was higher in the pigs fed white maize (91.3) and lower in the pigs fed 334Ce QPM (89.1, P < 0.05). The metabolizability of energy was higher in the pigs fed white maize (89.3) than in the pigs fed QPM1 (87.9), except for those fed QPM 537Ig (88.4; Table 4).

Nitrogen balance, QPM vs normal maize

The DM intake was higher in the pigs fed QPM, compared to those fed normal maize (1.66 vs 1.60 kg/d, P < 0.05), and the DM total tract digestibility was lower in the QPM pigs, compared to those fed normal maize (89.0 vs 90.5, P < 0.001). The daily nitrogen intake was higher in the pigs fed QPM (24.0 g/d) than in the pigs fed normal maize (22.0 g/d, P < 0.001); however, nitrogen digestibility was similar between the treatments (84.1, P > 0.05). Consequently, the digestible nitrogen intake was higher in the pigs fed QPM. Urinary nitrogen excretion was similar between treatments (12.0 g/d, P > 0.05). Nitrogen retention as a proportion of nitrogen intake or nitrogen absorption was also similar (P > 0.05) between the treatments (Table 4).

Nitrogen balance, means comparison

Although the nitrogen intake in the pigs fed QPM1 was lower (22.4 g/d) than in the pigs fed the other hybrid QPMs (24.5 g/d, P < 0.001) and similar to the pigs fed normal maize (22.0 g/d), the pigs fed QPM1 retained more nitrogen as a percentage of nitrogen intake (38.2%) or nitrogen absorption (45.7%) than the pigs fed yellow maize (28.8% and 34.2%, respectively, P < 0.05; Table 4).

Ileal digestibility

Apparent ileal digestibility, QPM vs normal maize

The DM digestibility was lower in the pigs fed QPM (78.7) than in those fed normal maize (80.0, P < 0.05). The CP digestibility was similar in all of the diets (mean 73.0, P > 0.05).

Lysine digestibility was higher in the pigs fed QPM than in the pigs fed normal maize (P < 0.05; Table 5). The digestibility of leucine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid, alanine, tyrosine, proline, valine, serine, and methionine was lower in the QPM pigs than in those fed normal maize (all P < 0.05; Table 5).
Table 5

Apparent ileal digestibility of the maize: experiment 2

Traits

QPM1

Maize

 

Contrast

 
 

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

SEM2

QPM

Normal

Prob3

Dry Matter

77.5c

77.6c

81.9a

77.7c

78.6bc

80.9ab

79.1abc

0.33

78.7

80.0

0.05

Protein

72.0

74.3

73.4

71.4

74.3

71.8

74.1

0.32

73.1

72.9

0.77

Amino acids

           

Alanine

73.2b

72.7b

71.6b

69.0b

70.6b

79.8a

80.1a

0.67

71.4

79.9

0.001

Arginine

82.1a

73.8b

82.3a

81.3a

85.5a

80.0a

82.7a

0.72

81.0

81.4

0.79

Aspartic acid

75.2

68.4

75.9

71.5

71.9

75.4

75.6

0.61

72.6

75.5

0.06

Cystine

72.9c

78.9ab

66.9d

74.9bc

78.0abc

75.1bc

80.9a

0.56

74.3

78.0

0.07

Glutamic acid

83.3b

83.1b

83.1b

81.5b

82.1b

86.9a

86.9a

0.29

82.6

86.9

0.001

Glycine

55.1ab

49.8b

58.9a

54.6ab

51.9ab

55.8ab

57.0ab

0.91

54.0

56.4

0.83

Histidine

87.2ab

83.8bc

88.3a

82.6c

85.4abc

86.1abc

84.8abc

0.45

85.4

85.4

0.93

Isoleucine

75.4ab

69.9b

74.3ab

60.2c

71.8b

79.4a

79.2a

0.66

70.3

79.3

0.001

Leucine

82.4b

83.2b

83.1b

80.5b

82.1b

89.0a

89.4a

0.43

82.3

89.2

0.001

Lysine

77.2a

76.7a

77.1a

73.8ab

75.1ab

69.0b

72.4ab

0.72

76.0

70.7

0.01

Methionine

80.5b

74.2c

85.5a

70.7d

75.5c

76.8c

84.3a

0.36

77.3

80.5

0.05

Phenylalanine

82.7b

80.6bc

81.9b

77.3c

82.6b

88.0a

87.6a

0.46

81.0

87.7

0.001

Proline

51.2cd

61.6bc

72.5ab

45.8d

61.5bc

71.6ab

80.3a

1.63

58.5

75.9

0.001

Serine

71.0ab

67.8b

72.0ab

70.4ab

69.4b

76.8a

76.6a

0.70

70.1

76.6

0.01

Threonine

60.4ab

54.6b

61.6ab

64.1a

60.1b

64.8a

62.4ab

0.96

60.1

63.6

0.39

Tyrosine

77.9b

76.8b

77.7b

73.8b

74.7b

83.7a

83.9a

0.57

76.2

83.8

0.001

Valine

77.6a

70.4b

81.7a

63.3c

80.9a

78.5a

82.8a

0.18

74.8

80.6

0.01

1Quality Protein Maize.

2Standard error of the mean.

3Probability of contrast.

abcddifferent letters in the same line differ (P < 0.05).

Apparent ileal digestibility, means comparison

In general, QPM 537Ig had the lowest digestibility, except for that for arginine, threonine, serine, and glycine; for these AAs, QPM 334Ce had the lowest digestibility (Table 5). The white maize diet demonstrated lower AID of the sulphur AAs than the yellow maize diet. The digestibility of leucine, alanine, and tyrosine was lower in all of the QPM diets than in the normal maize diets (Table 5).

Standardized ileal digestibility, QPM vs normal maize

The digestibility of CP, lysine, arginine, histidine, methionine, threonine, aspartic acid, glycine, and cystine was similar between QPM and normal maize (all P > 0.05; Table 6). The digestibility of glutamic acid, tyrosine, leucine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, alanine, valine, serine, and proline was lower in the QPM diets than in the normal maize diets (all P < 0.05; Table 6).
Table 6

Standardized ileal digestibility of the maize: experiment 2

Traits

QPM1

Maize

 

Contrast

 
 

QPM1

334Ce

537Ta

537Ig

538Ta

White

Yellow

SEM2

QPM

Normal

Prob3

Protein

86.7

88.0

88.2

85.7

88.2

86.9

88.1

0.32

87.4

87.5

0.98

Amino acids

           

Alanine

80.7ab

80.0bc

79.4c

77.1c

79.4c

86.1a

85.8ab

0.66

79.3

86.0

0.01

Arginine

87.9ab

82.8b

88.8ab

88.2ab

92.2a

88.8ab

90.8a

0.72

88.0

89.8

0.65

Aspartic acid

85.2

81.9

86.4

82.4

84.0

87.5

86.4

0.61

84.0

86.9

0.06

Cystine

77.1cd

82.8ab

73.1c

79.2bc

82.1abc

79.9abc

88.7a

0.56

78.9

82.3

0.10

Glutamic acid

88.7b

88.7b

88.7b

87.1b

88.6b

91.7a

91.4a

0.28

88.3

91.6

0.001

Glycine

73.8

74.2

78.3

74.2

72.7

79.7

78.4

0.91

74.6

79.0

0.26

Histidine

92.0ab

89.5ab

93.3a

88.6b

91.5ab

92.5ab

91.3ab

0.46

91.0

91.9

0.39

Isoleucine

86.3ab

83.3b

86.3ab

76.4c

85.0ab

90.3a

89.0ab

0.66

83.4

89.7

0.01

Leucine

89.2bc

89.1bc

90.2abc

87.9c

90.2abc

94.0a

94.0a

0.44

89.3

94.0

0.01

Lysine

88.1

88.2

88.9

85.9

87.5

85.3

86.6

0.72

87.7

85.9

0.18

Methionine

84.4b

79.7b

88.7a

76.4d

79.8c

81.1c

87.1ab

0.36

81.8

84.1

0.30

Phenylalanine

89.5bcd

88.4cd

89.8bcd

86.0d

91.3abc

94.2a

93.3ab

0.46

89.0

93.7

0.01

Proline

70.2c

81.2abc

86.7ab

70.3c

77.5bc

85.4ab

92.8a

1.63

77.2

89.1

0.02

Serine

84.6ab

82.9b

86.2ab

83.6ab

85.2ab

89.9a

88.9ab

0.70

84.5

89.4

0.03

Threonine

77.7

76.0

80.2

79.2

80.2

84.1

80.4

0.95

78.6

82.3

0.35

Tyrosine

83.2b

82.5b

83.4b

79.8b

81.1b

88.8a

88.7a

0.57

82.0

89.7

0.001

Valine

86.0ab

82.3b

89.1a

76.6c

89.1a

88.5a

90.4a

0.58

84.6

89.5

0.02

1Quality Protein Maize.

2Standard error of the mean.

3Probability.

abcddifferent letters in the same line differ (P < 0.05).

Standardized ileal digestibility, means comparison

The SID of QPM 537Ig was consistently the lowest among the QPMs. The digestibility of glutamic acid and tyrosine was lower in the QPM diets than in the normal maize diets (Table 6). Methionine was less digestible in the white maize diet than in the yellow maize diet (Table 6).

Discussion

Energy metabolizability and nitrogen balance

The total tract digestibility of energy in the QPM diets was 1.3% lower, on average, than the normal maize diets. While urinary energy was similar between the diets, metabolizability was also lower in the QPM diets than in the white maize diet.

The starch type of QPM may explain its lower digestibility in the current study; amylose is negatively correlated with average daily gain [25]. Furthermore, the starch of waxy sorghums, which are low in amylose, is more digestible than the starch of non-waxy sorghums [26]; this has also been demonstrated with maize starch in ducks [27]. Although QPM has a vitreous endosperm phenotype, it is rich in a no-crystalline amylopectin that forms bonds with γ zein (27-kDa) [28].

The negative effect of fiber on energy digestibility [29, 30] could provide another feasible explanation; dietary fiber is less digestible than other nutrients such as starch, sugars, fat, or protein (<50% vs 80-100%) [31]. Moreover, corn fiber is essentially insoluble [32]; QPM had a higher ADF content than the normal maize (40 g/kg QPM vs 30 g/kg maize), and this could have resulted in considerable effects on digestibility given that maize fiber, in general, is poorly digested by growing pigs [31]. Moreover, the ME:DE ratio in the current study was 0.98, which is similar to the 0.96 estimated by Noblet and van Milgen [31].

Generally, 50% of the nitrogen that is absorbed is retained in the body, and the other 50% is excreted in urine [29]. The retention of nitrogen in the current study was lower (37.5%), which could be attributed to a diet of low protein quality. Maize protein is deficient in lysine and tryptophan [3], and it is well-known that nitrogen retention in growing pigs is related to the lysine level in the diet as lysine is the first limiting AA [33]. Lysine digestibility was higher in the pigs fed QPM1 maize, and these same pigs retained 26% more nitrogen (1.7 g/d). These results are consistent with previous reports based on animal studies [1, 34, 35], as well as in humans where the consumption of QPM by children resulted in a 12% increase in weight [34] and a 9% increase in height and weight [36].

Ileal digestibility

The average AA profile of the proteins in the QPM was different from that of yellow and white maize. QPM had more lysine (45%), arginine (37%), histidine (31%), glycine (23%), methionine (19%), threonine (13%), aspartic acid (13%), valine (10%), and cystine (7%) than white and yellow maize. In contrast, QPM had less leucine (-23%), alanine (-14%), phenylalanine (-13%), glutamic acid (-8%), tyrosine (-8%), and proline (-7%) than white and yellow maize. Other studies have also reported that QPM is rich in lysine [5, 37, 38], while the low leucine and proline content is associated with a decrease in zein protein [6].

Dietary protein content affects apparent digestibility [16, 39, 40]. To avoid this effect, the experimental diets were iso-nitrogenous, resulting in similar protein digestibility in all of the diets. However, the differences in amino acid content may explain the differences in digestibility. It has been previously reported that the high lysine content in QPM results in a higher AID [34, 35], as was found in the current study. Similarly, the high leucine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid, alanine, tyrosine, and proline content of normal maize (white and yellow) could explain the high AID that was observed. Moreover, the low AID observed for threonine may be caused by its richness within the endogenous protein [22, 41, 42].

Although the use of the estimate from one endogenous protein in each experiment has been recommended to estimate the SID [39, 40], it is also true that the SID has been estimated from previously published AID data and corrected with an endogenous protein that was estimated later [9, 43, 44] or previously [45, 46]. This supports the use of a “standard” endogenous protein to correct the AID. The SID removes the effect of nutrient level on the digestibility value by correcting for basal endogenous losses [39, 43, 47]. The SID of lysine was similar in all of the maize diets. Additionally, when SID was estimated, threonine reached similar values to those of the other amino acids; this may be related to its richness within the endogenous protein. The SID coefficients estimated for maize in the present work were similar to those reported in previous studies [8, 9, 43]. However, no values for SID have been reported previously for QPM.

Conclusions

The energy furnished by QPM was used less efficiently (metabolizability) than the energy furnished by normal maize. The AID of lysine was higher in the QPM than in the normal maize; however, the SID of lysine was similar between QPM and normal maize. The current study provides additional data about the nutrient composition, AA digestibility, and nitrogen utilization of QPM.

Abbreviations

CIMMYT: 

International maize and wheat improvement centre

QPM: 

Quality protein maize

EF-1 α: 

Elongation factor 1α

DM: 

Dry matter

DE: 

Digestible energy

ME: 

Metabolizable energy

AA: 

Amino acid

ADF: 

Acid detergent fiber

AID: 

Apparent ileal digestibility

SID: 

Standardized ileal digestibility

ATTD: 

Apparent total tract digestibility.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

To National Research Institute for Forestry, Crops and Livestock for the financial support given to this research project.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
CENID Fisiología, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias
(2)
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro

References

  1. Cantarelli VS, Fialho ET, de Sousa RV, de Freitas RTF, Lima JAF: Composição química, vitreosidade e digestibilidade de diferentes híbridos de milho para suínos. Ciênc Agrotec. 2007, 31: 860-864.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Snow JL, Stein HH, Ku PK, Trottier NL: Amino acid digestibility and nitrogen utilization of high oil, high lysine, and waxy maize fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2004, 113: 113-126.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Jia M, Wu H, Clay K, Jung R, Larkins B, Gibbon B: Identification and characterization of lysine-rich proteins and starch biosynthesis genes in the opaque2 mutant by transcriptional and proteomic analysis. BMC Plant Biology. 2013, 13: 60.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mertz ET, Bates LS, Nelson OE: Mutant gene that changes protein composition and increases lysine content of maize endosperm. Science. 1964, 145: 279-280.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nuss ET, Tanumihardjo SA: Quality protein maize for Africa: closing the protein inadequacy gap in vulnerable populations. Adv Nutr. 2011, 2: 217-224.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wallace JC, Lopes MA, Paiva E, Larkins BA: New methods for extraction and quantitation of zeins reveal a high content of γ-zein in modified opaque-2 maize. Plant Physiol. 1990, 92: 191-196.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Habben JE, Moro GL, Hunter BG, Hamaker BR, Larkins BA: Elongation factor 1α concentration is highly correlated with the lysine content of maize endosperm. PNAS. 1995, 92: 8640-8644.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. NRC: Nutrient requirements of swine. 1998, Washington, DC: The National Academy Press, 10Google Scholar
  9. INRA: Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage. Porcs, volailles, bovins, ovins, caprins, lapins, chevaux, poissons. 2002, Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueGoogle Scholar
  10. International guiding principles for biomedical research involving animals: The development of science-based guidelines for laboratory animal care - NCBI Bookshelf.http://cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/1985_texts_of_guidelines.htm.
  11. Diario Oficial de la Federación: Especificaciones técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-062-ZOO-1999. México, D.F. Diario Oficial de la Federación, Miércoles 2 de Agosto. 2001Google Scholar
  12. INRA: L’alimentation des animaux monogastriques: porc, lapin, volailles. 1984, Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueGoogle Scholar
  13. Adeola O: Digestion and balance technique in pigs. Swine Nutrition. Edited by: Lewis AJ, Southern LL. 2001, Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, 903-916. 2Google Scholar
  14. Le Bellego L, van Milgen J, Dubois S, Noblet J: Energy utilization of low-protein diets in growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2001, 79: 1259-1271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. de Souza RTC, Mar BB, Mariscal LG: Canulación de cerdos posdestete para pruebas de digestibilidad ileal: Desarrollo de una metodología. Téc Pecu Méx. 2000, 38: 143-150.Google Scholar
  16. Fan MZ, Sauer WC, Hardin RT, Lien KA: Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs: effect of dietary amino acid level. J Anim Sci. 1994, 72: 2851-2859.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. AOAC: Official Methods of Analysis. 2000, Arlington, VA. USA: Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem, 17Google Scholar
  18. Fenton TW, Fenton M: An improved procedure for determination of chromic oxide in feed and feces. Can J Anim Sci. 1979, 59: 631-634.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson JH, Ricker RD, Bidlingmeyer BA, Woodward C: Rapid, accurate and reproducible HPLC analysis of amino acids. Amino acid analysis using Zorbax Eclipse AAA columns and the Agilent 1100 HPLC. Agilent Technologies. 2000, Part No5980-1193E 2000: 10-Agilent technologies home page at: http://www.agilent.com/chem/suppliesGoogle Scholar
  20. Fan MZ, Sauer WC: Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in barley and canola meal for pigs with the direct, difference, and regression methods. J Anim Sci. 1995, 73: 2364-2374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Furuya S, Kaji Y: Estimation of the true ileal digestibility of amino acids and nitrogen from their apparent values for growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1989, 26: 271-285.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Mariscal-Landín G, de Souza RTC: Endogenous ileal losses of nitrogen and amino acids in pigs and piglets fed graded levels of casein. Arch Anim Nutr. 2006, 60: 454-466.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Steel RGD, Torrie JH: Principles and procedures of statistics. A Biometrical approach. 1980, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2Google Scholar
  24. SAS version 9.2: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute User’s guide. 2008, SAS Institute Inc, 92Google Scholar
  25. Moore SM, Stalder KJ, Beitz DC, Stahl CH, Fithian WA, Bregendahl K: The correlation of chemical and physical corn kernel traits with growth performance and carcass characteristics in pigs. J Anim Sci. 2008, 86: 592-601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wong JH, Marx DB, Wilson JD, Buchanan BB, Lemaux PG, Pedersen JF: Principal component analysis and biochemical characterization of protein and starch reveal primary targets for improving sorghum grain. Plant Sci. 2010, 179: 598-611.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhou Z, Wan HF, Li Y, Chen W, Qi ZL, Peng P, Peng J: The influence of the amylopectin/amylose ratio in samples of corn on the true metabolizable energy value for ducks. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010, 157: 99-103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibbon BC, Wang X, Larkins BA: Altered starch structure is associated with endosperm modification in Quality Protein Maize. PNAS. 2003, 100: 15329-15334.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kil D, Kim B, Stein H: Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2013, 26: 1205-1217.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Szabó C, Halas V: Shortcomings of the energy evaluation systems in pigs: a review. Agric Conspec Sci. 2013, 78: 153-158.Google Scholar
  31. Noblet J, van Milgen J: Energy value of pig feeds: effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. J Anim Sci. 2004, 82 (E-Suppl): E229-E238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Cowieson AJ: Factors that affect the nutritional value of maize for broilers. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005, 119: 293-305.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Susenbeth A, Dickel T, Diekenhorst A, Höhler D: The effect of energy intake, genotype, and body weight on protein retention in pigs when dietary lysine is the first-limiting factor. J Anim Sci. 1999, 77: 2985-2989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Burgoon KG, Hansen JA, Knabe DA, Bockolt AJ: Nutritional value of quality protein maize for starter and finisher swine. J Anim Sci. 1992, 70: 811-817.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sullivan JS, Knabe DA, Bockholt AJ, Gregg EJ: Nutritional value of quality protein maize and food corn for starter and growth pigs. J Anim Sci. 1989, 67: 1285-1292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Gunaratna NS, de Groote H, Nestel P, Pixley KV, McCabe GP: A meta-analysis of community-based studies on quality protein maize. Food Policy. 2010, 35: 202-210.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Azevedo RA, Arruda P: High-lysine maize: the key discoveries that have made it possible. Amino Acids. 2010, 39: 979-989.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zarkadas CG, Yu JZ, Hamilton RI, Pattison PL, Rose NGW: Comparison between the protein quality of northern adapted cultivars of common maize and quality protein maize. J Agric Food Chem. 1995, 43: 84-93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Stein HH, Sève B, Fuller MF, Moughan PJ, de Lange CFM: Invited review: amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: terminology and application. J Anim Sci. 2007, 85: 172-180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein HH, Fuller MF, Moughan PJ, Sève B, Moshentin R, Jansman AJM, Fernandez JA, de Lange CFM: Deffinition of apparent, true and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in pigs. Livest Sci. 2007, 109: 282-285.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. de Souza RTC, Aguilera BA, Mariscal-Landín G: Estimation of endogenous protein and amino acid ileal losses in weaned piglets by regression analysis using diets with graded levels of casein. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2013, 4: 36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Mariscal-Landín G, Sève B, Collèaux Y, LeBreton Y: Endogenous amino nitrogen collected from pigs with end to end ileorectal anastomosis is affected by the method of estimation and altered by dietary fiber. J Nutr. 1995, 125: 136-146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Yin Y-L, Li T-J, Huang R-L, Liu Z-Q, Kong XF, Chu W-Y, Tan B-E, Deng D, Kang P, Yin F-G: Evaluating standardized ileal digestibility in growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2008, 140: 385-401.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedersen C, Boisen S: Establishement of tabulated values for standardized ileal digestibility of crude protein and essential amino acids in common feedstuffs for pigs. Acta Agric Scand Sect A Anim Sci. 2002, 52: 121-140.Google Scholar
  45. Urbaityte R, Mosenthin R, Eklund M, Piepho HP, Rademacher M: Determination of standardized ileal crude protein and amino acid digestibilities in protein supplements for piglets. Animal. 2009, 3: 1696-1705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin Y, Gurung NK, Jeaurond E, Sharpe P, de Lange C: Digestible energy and amino acid contents in Canadian varieties of sorghum, pearl millet, high-oil corn, high-oil-high-protein corn and regular corn samples for growing pigs. Can J Anim Sci. 2002, 82: 385-391.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Furuya S, Kaji Y: Additivity of the apparent and true digestible amino acid supply in barley, maize, wheat or soya bean based diets for growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1991, 32: 321-331.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Mariscal-Landín et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement