Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effects of replacing soybean meal with enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed on growth performance, apparent digestibility of nutrients, carcass traits, and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology volume 15, Article number: 127 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Addressing the shortage of high-quality protein resources, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of replacing soybean meal (SBM) with different levels of enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed (EFCP) in the diets of growing-finishing pigs, focusing on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, carcass traits, and meat quality.

Methods

Sixty DLY (Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire) pigs with an initial body weight of 42.76 ± 2.05 kg were assigned to 5 dietary treatments in a 2 × 2 + 1 factorial design. These dietary treatments included a corn-soybean meal diet (CON), untreated compound protein feed (UCP) substitution 50% (U50) and 100% SBM (U100) diets, and EFCP substitution 50% (EF50) and 100% SBM (EF100) diets. Each treatment had 6 pens (replicates) with 2 pigs per pen, and the experiment lasted 58 d, divided into phase I (1–28 d) and phase II (29–58 d). Following phase I, only the CON, U50, and EF50 groups were continued for phase II, each with 5 replicate pens. On d 59, a total of 15 pigs (1 pig/pen, 5 pens/treatment) were euthanized.

Results

During phase I, the EF50 group had a higher average daily gain (ADG) in pigs (P < 0.05) compared to the CON group, whereas the U50 group did not have a significant difference. As the substitution ratio of UCP and EFCP increased in phase I, there was a noticeable reduction in the final body weight and ADG (P < 0.05), along with an increase in the feed-to-gain ratio (F/G) (P < 0.05). In phase II, there were no significant differences in growth performance among the treatment groups, but EF50 increased the apparent digestibility of several nutrients (including dry matter, crude protein, crude fiber, acid detergent fiber, ash, gross energy) compared to U50. The EF50 group also exhibited significantly higher serum levels of neuropeptide Y and ghrelin compared to the CON and U50 groups (P < 0.05). Moreover, the EF50 group had higher carcass weight and carcass length than those in the CON and U50 groups (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in meat quality.

Conclusions

The study findings suggest that replacing 50% SBM with EFCP during the growing-finishing period can improve the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and carcass traits of pigs without compromising meat quality. This research offers valuable insights into the modification of unconventional plant protein meals and developing alternatives to SBM.

Background

Soybean meal (SBM) is commonly used in the global feed industry due to its high protein content and well-balanced amino acid (AA) composition [1, 2]. However, the rising prices of SBM and escalating competition for feed ingredients between humans and monogastric animals pose significant challenges to the livestock industry’s economic viability and long-term growth. To address these challenges, it is crucial to explore alternative plant proteins as substitutes for SBM.

Unconventional plant protein meals (UPPMs), such as rapeseed meal (RSM), cottonseed meal (CSM), and brewer’s spent grains (BSG), are used in animal feed due to their cost-effectiveness and wide availability [3, 4]. RSM is rich in protein, and sulfur-containing AA, and the AA profile is well-balanced [5, 6]. However, the presence of glucosinolates (GLs), phytic acid, fiber, and other anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) [5, 7, 8] limits its inclusion in animal diets, due to potential toxicity risks, reduced nutrient digestibility, and impaired growth performance [9,10,11,12,13,14]. CSM, a by-product of cottonseed oil production, contains a crude protein (CP) content ranging from 30% to 50%, and is rich in various AA, vitamin B, mineral elements, and carbohydrates [15, 16], making it an economically viable substitute for SBM. Nevertheless, its application in monogastric animals is restricted by ANFs such as free gossypol (FG), phytin, cyclopropene fatty acids, crude fiber (CF), and others [17], which can negatively impact growth performance, feed conversion, and fertility, and also cause abnormalities in intestinal development and internal organs [18,19,20,21,22]. BSG, a by-product of beer manufacturing, contains approximately 70% fiber, 20% CP, 10% lipids, as well as AAs, vitamins, minerals, and phenolic compounds [23,24,25]. Despite being used in cattle [26], poultry [27, 28], pig [29], and fish feed [30], its degradation rate remains limited due to its high fiber content (including 28.35% hemicellulose, 16.25% cellulose, and 7.27% lignin) [31], thus restricting its broader application. To overcome these limitations and enhance the applicability of CSM, RSM, and BSG in animal feed, pretreatment of these UPPMs is essential.

Microbial fermentation and enzymolysis are two primary methods used to reduce the ANFs (e.g., GLs, FG, and fibers) and improve the nutritional value of UPPMs [32,33,34,35,36]. These approaches are known for their environmental friendliness, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Microbial fermentation, which typically involving the use of fungi, yeast, and bacteria, can degrade ANFs and macromolecules (proteins, fibers) through the action of enzymes released by rapidly growing microorganisms [4, 37]. However, the hydrolysis rate during fermentation is very slow [38], leading to a time-consuming process (often lasting 48 h or more) [39, 40], possibly due to inadequate enzyme secretion by microorganisms during fermentation. Enzymolysis entails directly adding commercial enzymes to specificity degrade macromolecules and ANFs. Nevertheless, the enzymes currently utilized, mainly non-starch polysaccharide enzymes and protease [41,42,43] are not sufficiently efficient, possibly due to the presence of ANFs [39]. From the highlights and challenges of microbial fermentation and enzymolysis methods discussed above, it is evident that while each pretreatment method makes a significant contribution individually, no single method yields efficient results with its inherent limitations. Therefore, the combination of both pretreatment strategies could mitigate these drawbacks effectively, ultimately resulting in the desired outcomes. Combining enzymolysis with microbial fermentation has been demonstrated to better improve the nutritional quality of UPPMs. For example, Li et al. [34] found that pretreating RSM with protease enzymolysis and Bacillus subtilis fermentation resulted in more significant effects on increased peptides and organic acids content, while decreasing GLs and erucic acid content, compared to RSM treated with only enzymolysis or only fermentation.

At present, the research mainly focuses on the modification and application of individual UPPM, which have a less balanced AA composition compared to SBM. To improve the utilization rate of UPPMs, there are mainly two different methods that can be used. One is to directly add crystalline AAs, and the other alternative method is to compound UPPMs based on their individual AA content and proportion, to alleviate their nutritional deficiencies. In this study, we formulated RSM-CSM-BSG compound protein feeds by combining RSM (with low arginine content), CSM (with high arginine content), and BSG (with high nitrogen-free extract content) in a ratio of 45%:40%:15%. Additionally, there is limited literature on the effect of mixed UPPMs feed pretreated with enzymes and probiotics in vitro; as well as few studies on the application of enzymolysis-fermentation UPPMs in growing-finishing pigs.

It’s known that fermented or enzymolysis feeds can improve animal growth performance [40, 44], nutrient digestibility [40], carcass traits [45], and meat quality [44, 46]. Based on previous studies, it’s hypothesized that the combination of enzymolysis and fermentation can improve the quality and feeding efficiency of UPPMs. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of combining complex enzymes and Lactobacillus plantarum on the nutritional values and ANFs of RSM-CSM-BSG compound protein feeds. The study also aimed to assess the potential for replacing SBM with enzymolysis-fermentation RSM-CSM-BSG compound protein feeds in growing-finishing pig diets. The objective was to establish a theoretical foundation for the broader application of UPPMs.

Materials and methods

Preparation of enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed

Lactobacillus plantarum strain was sourced from Beijing Beina Chuanglian Biotechnology Institute (Beijing, China). After the strain activation, a single colony was inoculated into 600 mL de Man, Rogosa, Sharpe broth (Hope Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China) in a 1000-mL Erlenmeyer flask and cultured statically at 37 °C for 24 h. Subsequently, the absorbance value (OD600) of the solution was adjusted to 1.4–1.5 for future use. Enzymes including cellulase (1 × 104 U/g), xylanase (2 × 105 U/g), pectinase (3 × 104 U/g), and β-glucanase (3 × 104 U/g) were purchased from Bestzyme Bio-Engineering Co., Ltd. (Shandong, China). Alkaline protease, neutral protease, and acid protease with enzyme activities of 2 × 106 U/g, 5 × 105 U/g, and 5 × 105 U/g respectively, were obtained from Qingdao GBW Group Co., Ltd. (Shandong, China).

The compound protein feed (CPF) consisted of 45% RSM, 40% CSM, and 15% BSG. For the preparation of enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed (EFCP), the CPF was hydrolyzed with 0.6% of complex enzymes (including 12 U/g cellulase; 120 U/g xylanase; 9 U/g pectinase; 3 U/g β-glucanase; 300 U/g alkaline protease; 37.5 U/g neutral protease; 37.5 U/g acidic protease) for 8 h under a feed to water ratio of 1:2 at a temperature 55 °C. Then, each kilogram of CPF was inoculated 60 mL Lactobacillus plantarum and fermented at 37–40 °C for 16 h.

Experimental design and diets

A total of 60 growing-finishing pigs (Duroc × Landrace × Yorkshire, DLY) with an initial body weight of 42.76 ± 2.05 kg were used in a 2 × 2 + 1 factorial experiment. The two factors were: the proportion of SBM replaced by CPF (50% vs. 100%) and the source of the CPF (untreated compound protein feed (UCP) vs. EFCP). Pigs were allocated using a randomized complete block design, with the initial body weight as the blocking factor. Within blocks, pigs were assigned to 5 dietary treatments consisting of a corn-soybean meal basal diet (CON), UCP substitution 50% (U50) and 100% SBM (U100) diets, and EFCP substitution 50% (EF50) and 100% SBM (EF100) diets. Each treatment consisted of 6 pens (replicates) with 2 pigs per pen. The feeding experiment lasted 58 days which were divided into phase I (1–28 d) and phase II (29–58 d). After phase I (1–28 d), only three treatment groups CON, U50, and EF50 were continued for phase II (29–58 d), each with 5 replicate pens. The diets for phase I and phase II were formulated according to the NRC (2012) [47], as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Composition and nutrient levels of experimental diets (air dry basis, %)
Full size table

Feeding management

Pigs were housed in a controlled environment room with 36 pens (2.0 m × 3.0 m). The room was equipped with a temperature-controlled system, to maintain temperatures ranging from 22 to 28 °C for each phase. The diets provided to pigs were liquid diets, which were prepared immediately before feeding by mixing dry feed and water in a 1:2 ratio. During the experimental period, pigs were fed two times daily, at 8:00 and 16:00. All pigs were individually weighed at the 28 and 59th days of the experiment after 12 h of fasting, to calculate the average daily gain (ADG). Feed intake was measured by pen, and the average daily feed intake (ADFI) was calculated by dividing the total feed intake of each pen by the number of pig-days in that pen. The feed-to-gain ratio (F/G) was then calculated by dividing ADFI by ADG.

Sample collection

During phase II, fecal samples were collected in self-sealing bags for 4 consecutive days (from d 44 to 47). For every 100 g of fresh feces, 10 mL of 10% dilute sulfuric acid and two drops of toluene were added, thoroughly mixed, and stored at −20 °C. At the end of the experiment, the feces were mixed according to treatment and oven-dried at 65 °C to a constant weight, then smashed to pass through a 1.0-mm screen for chemical analysis. In the morning of d 59 after fasting for 12 h, blood samples were obtained via anterior vena cava puncture and collected into the non-anticoagulative tube. Serum was collected after centrifugation at 3,500 r/min for 15 min at 4 °C and stored at −20 °C until analysis. After blood collection, 15 pigs (1 pig/pen, 5 pens/treatment) were slaughtered in an industrial slaughterhouse. Samples of the longissimus dorsi muscle (LDM) were used for meat quality and intramuscular fat (IMF) content analysis.

Analysis of carcass traits

Following slaughter, the hot carcass weight of each pig was measured and used to calculate the dressing percentage. The carcass length was defined as the distance between the united phalanges and the first cervical vertebra. The backfat thickness at the thickest part of the shoulder, thoracolumbar junction, and lumbar-sacral junction were recorded and used to calculate the average backfat value. The fat thickness and muscle thickness at the penultimate 3–4 ribs were recorded and a formula was used to calculate lean meat rate. Loin muscle area was measured at the tenth rib on the right side of carcass.

Measurement of meat quality

The evaluation of meat quality was conducted following established protocols [48]. Briefly, meat color (brightness, L*; redness, a*; yellowness, b*) was measured 45 min and 24 h after slaughter using a colorimeter (NR10QC, 3nh, Shenzhen, China). The pH values of the meat at 45 min and 24 h post-slaughter were determined using a calibrated pH meter (testo 205, Testo Inc, Lenzkirch, Germany). Cooking loss was calculated by measuring the weight change of muscle samples before and after cooking, starting from 45 min post-slaughter. The method for determining the drip loss percentage followed previous descriptions [49]. Approximately 45 min postmortem, a cuboid (5 cm × 3 cm × 2.5 cm) weighing about 30 g was manually trimmed from the LDM and weighed. This sample was then suspended in an inflated plastic bag at 2–4 °C and weighed after 24 h. Drip loss was quantified as the percentage of weight change. The IMF content of samples was determined by Soxhlet extraction.

Chemical analysis

The contents of dry matter (DM), CP, ether extract (EE), CF, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), ash, and acid insoluble ash (AIA) in UCP, EFCP, fecal and diets were analyzed according to the national standards of the People’s Republic of China GB/T 6435–2014 [50], GB/T 6432–2018 [51], GB/T 6433–2006 [52], GB/T 6434–2006 [53], GB/T 20806–2006 [54], GB/T 6438–2007 [55] and GB/T 23742–2009 [56], respectively. The acid detergent fiber (ADF) was determined following the agricultural industry standard of the People’s Republic of China, NY/T1459–2022 [57]. The gross energy (GE) of all samples was determined using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Parr6400 Instrument Co., Moline, IL, USA). The trichloroacetic acid-soluble protein (TCA-SP) was measured according to the agricultural industry standard of the People’s Republic of China, NY/T 3801–2020 [58]. The peptides were calculated by subtracting free amino acids from TCA-SP. The AA profiles of UCP and EFCP were analyzed using an AA analyzer (L-8800; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). The content of GLs was determined following the agricultural industry standard of the People’s Republic of China, NY/T 1582–2007 [59]. The content of FG, isothiocyanates (ITC), and oxazolidinethione (OZT) were ascertained referencing the national standards of the People’s Republic of China GB/T 13086–2020 [60], GB/T 13087–2020 [61], and GB/T 13089–2020 [62], respectively. AIA was used as an endogenous indicator and the endogenous indicator method was used to calculate the apparent nutrient digestibility.

Calculations

The calculation formulas for apparent nutrient digestibility and dressing precentage are as follows:

$$\begin{aligned}&\mathrm{Apparent}\;\mathrm{nutrient}\;\mathrm{digestibility}\;\left(\%\right)=100-\left[\left(\mathrm{AIA}\;\mathrm{content}\;\mathrm{in}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{feed}/\mathrm{AIA}\;\mathrm{content}\;\mathrm{in}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{fecal}\right) \right. \\ & \left. \times\left(\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{content}\;\mathrm{of}\;\mathrm a\;\mathrm{nutrient}\;\mathrm{in}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{fecal}/\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{content}\;\mathrm{of}\;\mathrm a\;\mathrm{nutrient}\;\mathrm{in}\;\mathrm{the}\;\mathrm{feed}\right)\right]\times100.\\ \\ & \mathrm{Dressing}\;\mathrm{percentage}\;\left(\%\right)=\left(\mathrm{carcass}\;\mathrm{weight}/\mathrm{live}\;\mathrm{weight}\;\mathrm{at}\;\mathrm{slaughter}\right)\times100. \end{aligned}$$

Serum parameters

The concentrations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total protein (TP), albumin (ALB), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), glucose (GLU), urea (UREA), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in serum were determined using the fully automatic biochemistry analyzer 3100 (Hitachi, Japan) and the kits used in the analyzer were obtained from Maccura Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Chengdu, China).

The levels of serum immunoglobulin A (IgA), triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), leptin, cholecystokinin (CCK), ghrelin, neuropeptide Y (NPY), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interferon-γ (IFN-γ), interleukin-4 (IL-4), and interleukin-10 (IL-10) were determined using the corresponding ELISA kits (Jiangsu Meimian Industrial Co., Ltd., Jiangsu, China). The assay was based on the double-antibody sandwich method, and all procedures were conducted following the provided instruction manual.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). For phase I, the experimental data were subjected to both one-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA using the Mixed model. The primary factors in the model included the proportion of CPF replacement and the source of the CPF, as well as their interaction. For phase II, data were exclusively analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Multiple comparisons were performed using the LSD method. Results are presented as means with their corresponding standard error of the mean (SEM). A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, while 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10 was regarded as a significant trend.

Results

Nutrient composition of UCP and EFCP

The nutrient composition of UCP and EFCP were shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In EFCP, the contents of TCA-SP, peptides, and total free amino acids were higher by 261.75%, 300.00%, and 164.24%, respectively, compared to those in UCP. Conversely, the total amino acid in EFCP (34.79%) was lower than that in UCP (35.65%). Concentrations of CF, NDF, ADF, and GLs in EFCP decreased by 10.52%, 45.96%, 6.52%, and 94.92%, respectively, compared with UCP. ITC was not detected. However, the content of FG in the EFCP was elevated by 210.34% more than that in the UCP.

Table 2 Nutrient and anti-nutritional factor contents of CPF before and after enzymolysis-fermentation (dry matter basis)
Full size table
Table 3 Amino acid content of CPF before and after enzymolysis-fermentation (dry matter basis, %)
Full size table
Table 4 Free amino acid content of CPF before and after enzymolysis-fermentation (dry matter basis, %)
Full size table

Growth performance

The effects of replacing SBM with EFCP on the growth performance are shown in Table 5. During phase I, it was observed that the source of the CPF (EFCP vs. UCP) had no significant effect on growth performance. However, as the replacement ratio of SBM with EFCP increased, there was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in ADG and body weight on d 28, accompanied by an increase (P < 0.05) in the F/G. There was no interaction between the substitution ratio of CPF and the source of CPF on growth performance. The EF50 group exhibited a higher ADG compared to the CON group (P < 0.05). Both U100 and EF100 groups showed no significant difference in body weight on d 28, ADG, and ADFI when compared to the CON group; however, their F/G were significantly higher (P < 0.05).

Table 5 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on the growth performance of growing-finishing pigs (1–58 d)
Full size table

In phase II, there were no significant differences in growth performance among the treatment groups. However, the final body weight of the EF50 group was numerically higher than that of the CON and U50 groups.

Apparent digestibility of nutrients

The effects of replacing SBM with EFCP on the apparent digestibility of nutrients are presented in Table 6. The U50 group showed lower digestibility of DM, CP, CF, NDF, ADF, ash, and GE compared to the CON group (P < 0.05). Additionally, except for EE and NDF, the apparent digestibility of other nutrients in the U50 group was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that in the EF50 group. In the EF50 group, the digestibility of EE, CF, and ash was significantly higher (P < 0.05), while that of NDF was significantly lower (P < 0.05) compared to the CON group. However, no significant differences were observed in the digestibility of other nutrients between the EF50 and CON groups.

Table 6 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on apparent nutrient digestibility of growing-finishing pigs in the phase II
Full size table

Carcass traits

As presented in Table 7, the U50 group had no significant effects on carcass traits compared with the CON group. However, the EF50 group had significantly higher carcass weight and length (P < 0.05) than those in the CON and U50 groups.

Table 7 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on carcass traits of growing-finishing pigs
Full size table

Meat quality

The result of meat quality is shown in Table 8, the b*45min value was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the U50 and EF50 groups compared to the CON group. However, there were no significant differences observed in the other indexes among the treatment groups.

Table 8 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on meat quality of growing-finishing pigs
Full size table

Serum biochemistry

According to Table 9, there were no significant differences in serum biochemical parameters among treatment groups. The U50 group showed no significant differences in serum levels of inflammatory factors compared to the CON group. However, the level of IL-6 was significantly higher in the EF50 group than in the CON group (P < 0.05).

Table 9 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on serum biochemical parameter on d 59 of growing-finishing pigs
Full size table

Serum appetite-regulating hormones

The levels of appetite-regulating hormones in serum on d 59 are shown in Table 10. There were no significant differences in the levels of leptin, CCK, NPY, and ghrelin between the CON group and the U50 group. Additionally, the EF50 group demonstrated significantly higher levels of NPY and ghrelin compared to both CON and U50 groups (P < 0.05).

Table 10 Effects of replacing soybean meal with EFCP on the level of appetite-regulating hormones in serum on d 59 of growing-finishing pigs
Full size table

Discussion

SBM is a widely utilized protein ingredient in pig feed [63]. However, given the rising costs and fluctuating availability of SBM over the years, it urgently calls for the development of suitable alternatives to SBM. UPPMs are commonly used as a substitute for SBM, but their application in pig diets is limited by factors such as high fiber and lower protein contents, as well as the presence of ANFs (including CF, tannins, GLs, ITC, phytate, and FG) in UPPMs that can adversely affect feed digestibility and animal growth performance. Lee et al. [64] found that increasing dietary cold-pressed canola cake from 0 to 40% by reducing corn and SBM levels resulted in a linearly reduced FW, ADG, and ADFI, an increased F/G, and a reduction in the serum T4 level of pigs. Similarly, Velayudhan et al. [14] observed that increasing dietary expeller extracted canola meal from 0 to 30% led to a linear decrease in ADFI, an increase in thyroid weight and serum T3 level, while showing a linear reduction in serum T4, possibly due to GLs presented in expeller-extracted canola meal. Moreover, the replacement of soybean meal with UPPMs in pig diets can reduce nutrient digestibility [13, 65], and carcass traits [66], but usually has no adverse effect on meat quality [67, 68].

In order to enhance the utilization rate of UPPMs in pig diets and reduce the negative impacts, it is essential to employ processing technology to modify UPPMs. Currently, technologies such as microbial fermentation and enzymolysis are commonly employed for this purpose. Both techniques have been shown to increase CP content while simultaneously decreasing the content of CF, NDF, and ADF, as well as other ANFs presented in UPPMs [4, 34, 39, 69, 70]. In this experiment, a combined enzymolysis and microbial fermentation method was used to modify CPF. After adding non-starch polysaccharidases and proteases for enzymolysis over an 8-h period, followed by a 16-h fermentation with Lactobacillus plantarum, there was a significant increase in the content of TCA-SP, total free amino acids, and peptides in the EFCP. Meanwhile, the contents of CF, NDF, ADF, GLs, and ITC decreased. In general, microbial fermentation can reduce FG in the cottonseed meal [70, 71]. However, in our present study, it was interestingly found that the content of FG increased from 134.89 mg/kg to 418.62 mg/kg after enzymolysis-fermentation treatment. This phenomenon might be attributed to the addition of various proteases during the enzymolysis-fermentation process, which led to the degraded proteins in bound gossypol and the subsequent release of FG.

In the current study, replacing 50% SBM with EFCP during phase I was found to increase the ADG of pigs, which is in line with previous findings [40]. For instance, Tang et al. [72] found that diets fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum, Pseudomonas prionis, Bacillus subtilis, and Aspergillus niger significantly increased FW, ADG, and ADFI in pigs while concurrently decreased F/G. The observed increase in the ADG might be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the fermentation process of lactic acid bacteria would reduce the bitterness and astringency of the substrate and produce aromatic substances [73], thereby improving palatability of the EFCP, and promoting pig feed intake. Secondly, the enzymolysis-fermentation treatment degraded the complex proteins in EFCP into peptides or even AA, which can be more efficiently digested and absorbed by animals [74]. Moreover, the various ANFs in EFCP were extensively degraded by the enzymolysis-fermentation treatment. All of these factors contribute to the observed increase in ADG during phase I.

Intuerestingly, this study revealed that during phase I, replacing 50% of SBM with UCP did not have a negative impact on the growth performance of pigs compared to the CON group. However, in phase II, although UCP did not significantly affect growth performance, ADG was numerically reduced by 5.49% and F/G increased by 5.39% compared to the CON group. The observed effects may be attributed to the cumulative effects of various ANFs such as tannins, GLs, ITC, and FG present in the UCP with a longer feeding period. Additionally, replacing 50% of SBM with EFCP increased FW, ADG, and ADFI in phase II compared to the replacement with UCP. The increase in ADFI in pigs may be attributed to an increase in the serum level of appetite stimulators. In the current study, the levels of the appetite stimulators NPY and ghrelin in the EF50 group showed a significant increase, which may explain the elevation of ADFI in the EF50 group. Nakazato et al. [75] found that administering ghrelin to mice could promote feeding and increase body weight. Similarly, Gao et al. [76] observed that dietary supplementation of ghrelin could stimulate feed intake, growth, and NPY mRNA expression in grouper Epinephelus coioides. Given that ghrelin can enhance NPY gene expression [75, 76], and considering NPY which is a crucial factor for stimulating feed intake in mammals [77], may explain the observed increase in ADFI. Meanwhile, nutrient digestibility is an important factor influencing animal growth performance. The study found that improvement in growth performance corresponded with improved nutrient digestibility. These results are consistent with previous findings showing that the inclusion of fermented RSM or fermented CSM in pig diets can increase nutrient digestibility, resulting in improved pig growth performance [40, 74, 78].

Serum biochemical parameters serve as indicators of nutritional metabolism and the functional status of tissues and organs within an animal, providing valuable insights into the health status of pigs [79]. In this study, there were no significant differences in serum parameters and most inflammatory factors among the three diet groups. This finding is consistent with previous research, which reported that feeding fermented feeds improved the growth performance of pigs without affecting blood profile [80]. In short, replacing 50% of SBM with EFCP in the diets of growing-finishing pig did not lead to significant alterations in the serum biochemical parameters of pigs, demonstrating the feasibility and safety of using EFCP in pig diets to a certain extent in this study.

Carcass traits are important indicators of pig fattening efficiency. Previous studies have shown that supplementing pig diets with fermented feeds can improve carcass traits in finishing pigs [72, 81]. The results of this study revealed that replacing 50% of SBM with EFCP significantly increased carcass weight and length, which correlated with the highest FW in the EF50 group. Consumers heavily rely on meat color as a key indicator of freshness, wholesomeness, and quality at the point of sale, thereby influencing their purchase decisions [82, 83]. Therefore, meat color is a crucial determinant of meat quality and is typically assessed using L*, a*, and b* values. In this study, replacing 50% of SBM with either UCP or EFCP resulted in a reduction in the b*45min value without affecting b*24h or other meat color values. Generally, the b* value reflects the degree of browning in meat, which can make it less appealing [84]. The findings presented in this study suggested that EFCP can improve carcass traits without adversely impacting meat quality.

Conclusion

Our findings indicated that enzymolysis-fermentation pretreatment of CPF resulted in an increase in the content of TCA-SP, free amino acids, and peptides, as well as a reduction in the content of CF, NDF, GLs, and ITC. Substituting 50% SBM with EFCP during the growing-finishing period improved growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and carcass traits without adverse effects on meat quality, and health status. These results could be used as a reference for developing high-quality protein feed resources to address challenges posed by the scarcity of high-quality protein resources. Furthermore, our study provided new perspectives and solutions for viable alternatives to SBM.

Availability of data and materials

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

ANF:

Anti-nutritional factor

AA:

Amino acid

ADFI:

Average daily feed intake

ADG:

Average daily gain

ADF:

Acid detergent fiber

AIA:

Acid insoluble ash

AKP:

Alkaline phosphatase

ALT:

Alanine aminotransferase

AST:

Aspartate aminotransferase

ALB:

Albumin

BSG:

Brewer’s spent grains

CON:

Control diet based on corn and soybean mea

CP:

Crude protein

CF:

Crude fiber

CCK:

Cholecystokinin

CSM:

Cottonseed meal

CPF:

Compound protein feed

DM:

Dry matter

EFCP:

Enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed

EF50:

Diets were made by EFCP substituting for 50% soybean meal

EF100:

Diets were made by EFCP substituting for 100% soybean meal

EE:

Ether extract

F/G:

Feed-to-gain ratio

FG:

Free gossypol

GLs:

Glucosinolates

GE:

Gross energy

Glu:

Glucose

HDL-C:

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol

IMF:

Intramuscular fat

ITC:

Isothiocyanates

IL-1β:

Interleukin1-β

IL-6:

Interleukin-6

IFN-γ:

Interferon-γ

IL-4:

Interleukin-4

IL-10:

Interleukin-10

IgA:

Immunoglobulins A

LDM:

Longissimus dorsi muscle

LDL-C:

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

NPY:

Neuropeptide Y

NDF:

Neutral detergent fiber

OZT:

Oxazolidinethione

RSM:

Rapeseed meal

SBM:

Soybean meal

SEM:

Standard error of the mean

TCA-SP:

Trichloroacetic acid-soluble protein

TP:

Total protein

TG:

Triglyceride

TC:

Total cholesterol

T3:

Triiodothyronine

T4:

Thyroxine

TNF-α:

Tumor necrosis factor-α

UPPM:

Unconventional plant protein meals

UCP:

Untreated compound protein feed

U50:

Diets were made by UCP substituting for 50% soybean meal

U100:

Diets were made by UCP substituting for 100% soybean meal

References

  1. Stein HH, Berger LL, Drackley JK, Fahey Jr GC, Hernot DC, Parsons CM. Nutritional properties and feeding values of soybeans and their coproducts. Soybeans. 2008:613–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-893997-64-6.50021-4.

  2. Eklund M, Sauer N, Rink F, Rademacher M, Mosenthin R. Effect of soybean meal origin on standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in piglets. J Anim Sci. 2012;90(4):188–90. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.53896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. San Martin D, Orive M, Iñarra B, Castelo J, Estévez A, Nazzaro J, et al. Brewers’ spent yeast and grain protein hydrolysates as second-generation feedstuff for aquaculture feed. Waste Biomass Valori. 2020;11(10):5307–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-01145-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Yusuf HA, Piao M, Ma T, Huo R, Tu Y. Enhancing the quality of total mixed ration containing cottonseed or rapeseed meal by optimization of fermentation conditions. Fermentation-Basel. 2021;7(4):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Feng D, Zuo J. Nutritional and anti-nutritional composition of rapeseed meal and its utilization as a feed ingredient for animal. Rapeseed Conference 12th IRC. Wuhan: International Consultative Group for Research on Rapeseed; 200. p. 265–70.

  6. Ivanova P, Kalaydzhiev H, Rustad T, Silva C, Chalova V. Comparative biochemical profile of protein-rich products obtained from industrial rapeseed meal. Emir J Food Agr. 2017;29(3):170–8. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2016-11-1760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tripathi MK, Mishra AS. Glucosinolates in animal nutrition: A review. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2007;132(1–2):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.03.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Verkerk R, Schreiner M, Krumbein A, Ciska E, Holst B, Rowland I, et al. Glucosinolates in Brassica vegetables: the influence of the food supply chain on intake, bioavailability and human health. Mol Nut Food Res. 2008;53:S219–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200800065.

  9. Khajali F, Slominski BA. Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poultry Sci. 2012;91(10):2564–75. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02332.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jannathulla R, Dayal JS, Vasanthakumar D, Ambasankar K, Muralidhar M. Effect of fermentation methods on amino acids, fiber fractions and anti-nutritional factors in different plant protein sources and essential amino acid index for Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. Indian J Fish. 2017;64(2):40–7. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2017.64.2.60341-07.

  11. Liu YG, Zhou MQ, Liu ML. A survey of nutrients and toxic factors in commercial rapeseed meal in China and evaluation of detoxification by water extraction. Anim Feed Sci tech. 1994;45(3–4):257–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90031-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McDonnell P, O’Shea C, Figat S, O’Doherty JV. Influence of incrementally substituting dietary soya bean meal for rapeseed meal on nutrient digestibility, nitrogen excretion, growth performance and ammonia emissions from growing-finishing pigs. Arch Anim Nutr. 2010;64(5):412–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2010.496947.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Torres-Pitarch A, Moset V, Ferrer P, Cambra-López M, Hernández P, Coma J, et al. The inclusion of rapeseed meal in fattening pig diets, as a partial replacer of soybean meal, alters nutrient digestion, faecal composition and biochemical methane potential from faeces. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2014;198:215–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.09.017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Velayudhan DE, Schuh K, Woyengo TA, Sands JS, Nyachoti CM. Effect of expeller extracted canola meal on growth performance, organ weights, and blood parameters of growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 2017;95(1):302–7. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1046.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. He ZQ, Zhang HL, Olk DC. Chemical composition of defatted cottonseed and soy meal products. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129933.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang YH, Zhang ZY, Dai L, Liu Y, Cheng M, Chen L. Isolation and characterization of a novel gossypol-degrading bacteria Bacillus subtilis strain Rumen Bacillus Subtilis. Asian Austral J Anim Sci. 2018;31(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0018.

  17. Phelps RA. Cottonseed meal for poultry: from research to practical application. World Poultry Sci J. 1966;22(2):86–112. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19660016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mudarra RA, Tsai TCC, Hansen C, Littlejohn BP, Maxwell CV, Rorie R. 135 Effect of gossypol from cottonseed meal on growth performance, plasma gossypol, and complete blood cell counts in commercial growing pigs: A preliminary study on feral hog control. J Anim Sci. 2021;99:73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab054.120.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Santos JEP, Villasenor M, Robinson PH, DePeters EJ, Holmberg CA. Type of cottonseed and level of gossypol in diets of lactating dairy cows: plasma gossypol, health, and reproductive performance. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86(3):892–905. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73672-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. El-Sharaky AS, Newairy AA, Elguindy NM, Elwafa AA. Spermatotoxicity, biochemical changes and histological alteration induced by gossypol in testicular and hepatic tissues of male rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48(12):3354–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2010.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang JW, Sun H, Yao XH, Wu YF, Wang X, Feng J. Effects of replacement of soybean meal by fermented cottonseed meal on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters and immune function of Yellow-feathered Broilers. Asian Austral J Anim. 2012;25(3):393–400. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.11381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Francis G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Antinutritional factors present in plant-derived alternate fish feed ingredients and their effects in fish. Aquaculture. 2001;199(3):197–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00526-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooray ST, Chen WN. Valorization of brewer’s spent grain using fungi solid-state fermentation to enhance nutritional value. J Funct Foods. 2018;42:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.12.027.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Farcas AC, Socaci SA, Dulf FV, Tofana M, Mudura E, Diaconeasa Z. Volatile profile, fatty acids composition and total phenolics content of brewers’ spent grain by-product with potential use in the development of new functional foods. J Cereal Sci. 2015;64:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.04.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooray ST, Lee JJL, Chen WN. Evaluation of brewers’ spent grain as a novel media for yeast growth. AMB Express. 2017;7:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-017-0414-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rogers JA, Conrad HR, Dehority BA, Grubb JA. Microbial numbers, rumen fermentation, and nitrogen utilization of steers fed wet or dried brewers’ grains. J Dairy Sci. 1986;69(3):745–53. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80463-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Denstadli V, Westereng B, Biniyam HG, Ballance S, Knutsen SH, Svihus B. Effects of structure and xylanase treatment of brewers’ spent grain on performance and nutrient availability in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2010;51(3):419–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.495745.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Oh JCS, Chng AL, Jesudason RB, Sim TS. Incorporation of microbiologically treated spent brewery grains into broiler rations. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1991;13(3):150–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.1991.tb00594.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mukasafari MA, Ambula MK, Karege C, King’ori AM. Effects of substituting sow and weaner meal with brewers’ spent grains on the performance of growing pigs in Rwanda. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2018;50(2):393–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-017-1446-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jayant M, Hassan MA, Srivastava PP, Meena DK, Kumar P, Kumar A, et al. Brewer’s spent grains (BSGs) as feedstuff for striped catfish, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus fingerlings: An approach to transform waste into wealth. J Clean Prod. 2018;199:716–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.213.

  31. Kavalopoulos M, Stoumpou V, Christofi A, Mai S, Barampouti EM, Moustakas K, et al. Sustainable valorisation pathways mitigating environmental pollution from brewers’ spent grains. Environ Pollut. 2021;270:116069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116069.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ahmed A, Zulkifli I, Farjam AS, Abdullah N, Liang JB, Awad EA. Effect of solid state fermentation on nutrient content and ileal amino acids digestibility of canola meal in broiler chickens. Ital J Anim Sci. 2014;13(2):3293. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Weng XY, Sun JY. Biodegradation of free gossypol by a new strain of Candida tropicalis under solid state fermentation: Effects of fermentation parameters. Process Biochem. 2006;41(7):1663–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.03.015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Li P, Ji X, Deng X, Hu S, Wang J, Ding K, et al. Effect of rapeseed meal degraded by enzymolysis and fermentation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility and health status of broilers. Arch of Anim Nutr. 2022;76(3–6):221–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2022.2162801.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Eliopoulos C, Arapoglou D, Chorianopoulos N, Markou G, Haroutounian SA. Conversion of brewers’ spent grain into proteinaceous animal feed using solid state fermentation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(20):29562–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15495-w.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Paz A, Outeiriño D, Pérez Guerra NP, Domínguez JM. Enzymatic hydrolysis of brewer’s spent grain to obtain fermentable sugars. Bioresource Technol. 2018;275:402–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.082.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Shi CY, He J, Yu J, Yu B, Mao X, Zheng P, et al. Physicochemical properties analysis and secretome of aspergillus niger in fermented rapeseed meal. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0153230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mitri S, Salameh SJ, Khelfa A, Leonard E, Maroun RG, Louka N, et al. Valorization of brewers’ spent grains: pretreatments and fermentation, a review. Fermentation-basel. 2022;8(2):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8020050.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang Y, Liu J, Wei F, Liu X, Yi C, Zhang Y. Improvement of the nutritional value, sensory properties and bioavailability of rapeseed meal fermented with mixed microorganisms. LWT - Food Sci Technol. 2019;112:108238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.06.005.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shuai C, Chen DW, Yu B, Luo YH, Zheng P, Huang ZQ, et al. Effect of fermented rapeseed meal on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and intestinal health in growing pigs. Anim Nutr. 2023;15:420–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Härkönen H, Lehtinen P, Suortti T, Parkkonen T, Siika-aho M, Poutanen K. The effects of a xylanase and α β-glucanase from Trichoderma reesei on the non-starch polysaccharides of whole meal rye slurry. J Cereal Sci. 1995;21(2):173–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0733-5210(95)90033-0.

  42. Niu YX, Rogiewicz A, Shi L, Patterson R, Slominski BA. The effect of enzymatically-modified canola meal on growth performance, nutrient utilization, and gut health and function of broiler chickens. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2023;305:115760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115760.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Poolsawat L, Yang H, Sun YF, Li XQ, Liang GY, Leng XJ. Effect of replacing fish meal with enzymatic feather meal on growth and feed utilization of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus × O. aureus). Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2021;274:114895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114895.

  44. Xu X, Li LM, Li B, Guo WJ, Ding XL, Xu FZ. Effect of fermented biogas residue on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, and meat quality in pigs. Anim Biosci. 2017;30(10):1464–70. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0777.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kong FG, Wu FY, Liu YH, Lai NJ, Wang GZ, Shen SF, et al. Effects of enzymolytic soybean meal on the growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, some serum indexes, carcase performance and meat quality of Rex rabbits. Ital J Anim Sci. 2022;21(1):1307–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2022.2109521.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ahmed ST, Mun HS, Yang CJ. Effects of probiotic bacteria-fermented herbal combinations on growth performance, immunity, and meat quality of grower-finisher pigs. Livest Sci. 2023;273:105258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2023.105258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhang C, Luo JQ, Yu B, Zheng P, Huang ZQ, Mao XB, et al. Dietary resveratrol supplementation improves meat quality of finishing pigs through changing muscle fiber characteristics and antioxidative status. Meat Sci. 2015;102:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Honikel KO, Kim CJ, Hamm R, Roncales P. Sarcomere shortening of prerigor muscles and its influence on drip loss. Meat Sci. 1986;16(4):267–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(86)90038-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 6435–2014 Determination of moisture in feedstuffs. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2014.

  51. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 6432–2018 Determination of crude protein in feeds-Kjeldahl method. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2018.

  52. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 6433–2006 Determination of crude fat in feeds. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2006.

  53. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 6434–2006 Feeding stuffs-Determination of crude fiber content—Method with intermediate filtration. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2006.

  54. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 20806–2006 Determination of netrual detergent fiber in feedstuffs. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2006.

  55. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 6438–2007 Animal feeding stuffs-Determination of crude ash. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2007.

  56. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 23742–2009 Animal feeding stuffs-Determination of ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2009.

  57. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. NY/T 1459–2022 Determination of acid detergent fiber (ADF) in feeds. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2022.

  58. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. NY/T 3801–2020 Determination of acid-soluble protein in feed materials. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2020.

  59. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. NY/T 1582–2007 Rapeseed-Determination of glucosinolates content-Method using high-performance liquid chromatography. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2007.

  60. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 13086–2020 Method for determination of free gossypol in feeds. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2020.

  61. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 13087–2020 Determination of isothiocyanates in feeds. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2020.

  62. National Feed Industry Standardization Technical Committee of China. GB/T 13089–2020 Method for determination of oxazolidinethione in feeds. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2020.

  63. Jezierny D, Mosenthin R, Bauer E. The use of grain legumes as a protein source in pig nutrition: A review. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2010;157(3–4):111–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee JW, Woyengo TA. Growth performance, organ weights, and blood parameters of nursery pigs fed diets containing increasing levels of cold-pressed canola cake. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(11):4704–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky317.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. de Nanclares MP, Trudeau MP, Hansen JO, Mydland LT, Urriola PE, Shurson GC, et al. High-fiber rapeseed co-product diet for Norwegian Landrace pigs: Effect on digestibility. Livest Sci. 2017;203:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2017.06.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Berenchtein B, Abdalla AL, Paim TD, Sbardella M, Louvandini H, Filho ALA, et al. Effects of detoxified Jatropha curcas kernel meal in finishing pig diets on their performance, carcass traits, meat quality and intoxication. Livest Sci. 2014;165:100–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Caine WR, Aalhus JL, Dugan MER, Lien KA, Larsen IL, Costello F, et al. Growth performance, carcass characteristics and pork quality of pigs fed diets containing meal from conventional or glyphosate-tolerant canola. Can J of Anim Sci. 2007;87(4):517–26. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS07028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Zmudzinska A, Bigorowski B, Banaszak M, Roslewska A, Adamski M, Hejdysz M. The effect of diet based on legume seeds and rapeseed meal on pig performance and meat quality. Animals. 2020;10(6):1084. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Tie Y, Li L, Liu J, Liu CL, Fu JJ, Xiao XJ, et al. Two-step biological approach for treatment of rapeseed meal. J Food Sci. 2020;85(2):340–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15011.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhang ZT, Yang DL, Liu L, Chang ZB, Peng N. Effective gossypol removal from cottonseed meal through optimized solid-state fermentation by Bacillus coagulans. Microb Cell Fact. 2022;21(1):252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-022-01976-1.

  71. Li J, Gao TG, Hao ZM, Guo XJ, Zhu BC. Anaerobic solid-state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis for digesting free gossypol and improving nutritional quality in cottonseed meal. Front Nutr. 2022;9:1017637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1017637.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Tang XP, Liu XG, Zhang K. Effects of microbial fermented feed on serum biochemical profile, carcass traits, meat amino acid and fatty acid profile, and gut microbiome composition of finishing pigs. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:744630. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.744630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Qiu LQ, Zhang M, Chang L. Effects of lactic acid bacteria fermentation on the phytochemicals content, taste and aroma of blended edible rose and shiitake beverage. Food Chem. 2022;405:134722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134722.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Czech A, Wlazlo L, Lukaszewicz M, Florek M, Nowakowicz-Debek B. Fermented rapeseed meal enhances the digestibility of protein and macro- and microminerals and improves the performance of weaner pigs. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2023;300:115656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115656.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Nakazato M, Murakami N, Date Y, Kojima M, Matsuo H, Kangawa K, et al. A role for ghrelin in the central regulation of feeding. Nature. 2001;409:194–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/35051587.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Gao YJ, Tian LX, Yang HJ, Liang GY, Yue YR, Liu YJ. The influence of ghrelin and des-ghrelin on feed intake, growth performance and hypothalamic NPY mRNA expression of grouper Epinephelus coioides. Aquaculture. 2012;364:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.07.029.

  77. Jensen J. Regulatory peptides and control of food intake in non-mammalian vertebrates. Comp Biochem Phys A. 2001;128(3):471–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(00)00329-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Gu XL, Li ZQ, Wang J, Chen JS, Jiang Q, Liu N, et al. Fermented cottonseed meal as a partial replacement for soybean meal could improve the growth performance, immunity and antioxidant properties, and nutrient digestibility by altering the gut microbiota profile of weaned piglets. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:734389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.734389.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Lu Y, Zhang RY, Lei HL, Hang YQ, Xue HQ, Cai X, et al. Supplementation with fermented feedstuff enhances orexin expression and secretion associated with increased feed intake and weight gain in weaned pigs. Animals. 2022;12(10):1329. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12101329.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Ahn J, Ding Z, Kim IH. Effects of fermented soybean meal on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, blood profile and fecal microflora in weaning pigs. J Anim Sci. 2019;97(Suppl 2):201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz122.352.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Liu SQ, Du M, Tu Y, You WJ, Chen WT, Liu GL, et al. Fermented mixed feed alters growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality and muscle fatty acid and amino acid profiles in finishing pigs. Anim Nutr. 2022;12:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2022.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Mancini RA, Hunt MC. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 2005;71(1):100–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Brewer MS, Zhu LG, McKeith FK. Marbling effects on quality characteristics of pork loin chops: consumer purchase intent, visual and sensory characteristics. Meat Sci. 2001;59(2):153–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00065-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Yang XY, Xu BC, Lei HM, Lou X, Zhu LX, Zhang YM, et al. Effects of grape seed extract on meat color and premature browning of meat patties in high-oxygen packaging. J Integr Agr. 2022;21(8):2445–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63854-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Shirui Yang and Yushan Zheng for their help during the animal trial.

Funding

This work was supported by the Major Science and Technology Program of Sichuan Province (No. 2021ZDZX0009) and Key Research and Development Program of Sichuan Province (No. 2020YFN0147).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Animal Disease-Resistant Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya’an, 625014, People’s Republic of China

    Yu Cheng, Jun He, Ping Zheng, Jie Yu, Junning Pu, Zhiqing Huang, Xiangbing Mao, Yuheng Luo, Junqiu Luo, Hui Yan, Aimin Wu, Bing Yu & Daiwen Chen

Authors
  1. Yu Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ping Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jie Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Junning Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhiqing Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiangbing Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuheng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Junqiu Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hui Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Aimin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bing Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Daiwen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DWC and BY: conceptualized and designed the experiments; YC: carried out the experiment, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript; JY and JH: resources; ZQH, XBM, YHL, HY, JQL, AMW, and JNP: provided conceptual advice; DWC and BY: revised the manuscript; DWC, BY, and PZ: supervision and funding acquisition.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bing Yu or Daiwen Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experimental protocols used in the animal experiment were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Sichuan Agricultural University (No. SYXK (Sichuan) 2019-187).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, Y., He, J., Zheng, P. et al. Effects of replacing soybean meal with enzymolysis-fermentation compound protein feed on growth performance, apparent digestibility of nutrients, carcass traits, and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs. J Animal Sci Biotechnol 15, 127 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-024-01080-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-024-01080-x

Keywords

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology

ISSN: 2049-1891