View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Calculated and analyzed chemical composition (%, as-fed basis, unless otherwise indicated) and the physicochemical properties of the fiber sources

 
Item Straw Oats hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings
Calculated composition
    DM 91.7 90.9 89.9 87.7
    NE, Mcal/kg 1.48 0.26 0.47 1.60
    Total ash 7.2 4.9 6.6 5.0
    CP 3.7 3.8 9.2 15.1
    Starch 0.7 8.7 19.7
    Ether extract 1.6 1.4 0.8 3.5
    Crude fiber 36.0 30.1 18.2 9.8
    NDF 72.0 69.0 42.8 38.5
    ADF 46.4 36.9 22.9 12.2
    ADL 8.4 6.2 1.7 3.4
    SID1 AA
        Arg 0.10 0.17 0.82
        Ile 0.05 0.17 0.33
        Lys 0.06 0.24 0.41
        Met 0.02 0.08 0.17
        Met + cys 0.03 0.11 0.38
        Thr 0.05 0.10 0.30
        Trp 0.01 0.03 0.15
        Val 0.08 0.20 0.48
Analyzed composition2
    DM 93.6 92.6 91.1 89.4
    GE, Mcal/kg 4.08 4.10 3.88 4.05
    Total ash 7.1 4.0 5.8 4.8
    CP 2.9 3.9 9.6 14.3
    Starch 1.3 9.2 1.0 18.6
    NDF 74.4 71.9 40.5 38.1
    ADF 45.9 35.4 21.3 10.9
    ADL 7.6 5.4 3.0 3.1
    Total dietary fiber 78.5 71.3 59.0 37.2
    Insoluble fiber 74.7 70.6 47.4 32.1
    Soluble fiber 3.8 0.7 11.6 5.1
Physicochemical properties
    Dgw3 ± Sgw4 570 ± 2.01 610 ± 1.9 796 ± 2.1 637 ± 1.7
    WHC5 ± SD 5.2 ± 0.411 4.6 ± 0.75 9.8 ± 0.21 7.7 ± 0.38
    SWC6 ± SD 2.4 ± 0.51 2.4 ± 0.40 5.3 ± 0.78 2.1 ± 0.22
1SID = standardized ileal digestibility.
2Analyzed in duplicate.
3Dgw = geometric mean diameter (μm).
4Sgw = log normal geometric SD.
5WHC = water holding capacity (mL/g DM).
6SWC = swelling water capacity (mL/g DM).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Ingredient composition and calculated and determined analyses (%, as-fed basis, unless otherwise indicated) of the experimental diets

 
Straw
Oat hulls
Sugar beet pulp
Wheat middlings
Item Control 2.5% 5% 2.5% 5% 2.5% 5% 2.5% 5%
Ingredient
    Corn 55.2 51.3 47.5 51.4 47.5 52.2 49.2 52.4 49.6
    Soybean meal, 47% CP 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
    Fermented soybean meal, 54% CP 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.0 7.3 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.5
    Fish meal, 67% CP 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
    Fiber source 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0 2.5 5.0
    Dried whey 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4
    Soy oil 2.30 3.34 4.31 3.29 4.41 2.75 3.21 2.71 3.15
    Calcium carbonate 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.20
    Monocalcium phosphate 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.29
    Sodium chloride 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.28
    dl-Met, 99% 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
    l-Lys HCl, 78% 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.32
    l-Thr, 99% 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
    l-Trp, 98% 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
    l-Val, 96.5% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
    Celite1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
    Formic acid, 70.7% 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
    Vitamin and mineral premix2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Calculated composition
    NE, Mcal/kg 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
    CP 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8
    Ether extract 5.37 6.34 7.30 6.29 7.20 5.78 6.20 5.81 6.24
    NDF 6.39 7.83 9.27 7.84 9.30 7.23 8.07 7.12 7.85
    ADF 2.93 3.92 4.90 3.76 4.58 3.41 3.90 3.14 3.35
    ADL 0.55 0.69 0.83 0.67 0.79 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.67
    SID3 AA
        Ile 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
        Lys 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
        Met 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
        Met + Cys 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
        Thr 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
        Trp 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
        Val 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
    Ca 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
    Digestible P 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Determined composition4
    DM 90.3 90.7 90.2 90.5 90.7 90.9 90.7 90.4 90.1
    GE, Mcal/kg 4.13 4.15 4.13 4.13 4.16 4.13 4.10 4.11 4.13
    CP 20.6 20.1 21.3 20.2 20.1 20.5 20.6 21.0 20.9
    Total ash 5.40 5.70 6.10 5.80 5.80 5.70 5.90 5.60 5.60
    NDF 6.10 8.90 9.85 9.05 9.60 8.90 9.35 8.10 8.50
    ADF 2.60 4.60 5.05 4.95 5.20 4.50 4.70 3.90 4.05
    ADL 0.40 0.87 0.95 0.75 0.88 0.65 0.70 0.58 0.75
1Acid-washed diatomaceous earth (Celite Hispánica S.A., Alicante, Spain).
2Provided the following (per kilogram of diet): 12,000 IU vitamin A (trans-retinyl acetate), 1,900 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), 30 IU vitamin E (all-rac-tocopherol-acetate), 1.8 mg vitamin B1 (thiamine-mononitrate), 5 mg riboflavin, 25 g niacin, 2.4 mg pyridoxine (pyridoxine HCl), 0.03 mg vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), 1.8 mg vitamin K3 (bisulfate menadione complex), 15 mg pantothenic acid (d-Ca pantothenate), 0.6 mg folic acid, 0.1 mg d-biotin, 0.2 mg Se (Na2SeO3), 1 mg I (KI), 160 mg Cu (CuSO4·5H2O), 85 mg Fe (FeSO4·7H2O), 70 mg Mn (MnSO4·H2O), 120 mg Zn (ZnO), 6 g and 100 mg Natuphos 5000 (300 FTU/kg; supplied by BASF Española S.A, Tarragona, Spain).
3SID =standardized ileal digestibility.
4According to De Blas et al. (2010).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Influence of fiber inclusion in the diet on growth performance and postweaning diarrhea (PWD) of pigs reared under optimum hygienic conditions from d 0 to 21 on trial (Exp. 1)

 
Fiber source
Fiber level
P-value2,3
Item Control Straw Oat hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings 2.5% 5.0% SEM1 1 2 3
0 to 7 d
    ADG, g 433 377 384 367 409 386 383 26.9 0.342 0.435 0.876
    ADFI, g 421 400 387 368 400 384 393 17.4 0.108 0.186 0.436
    G:F 1.029 0.943 0.992 0.997 1.023 1.005 0.975 0.04 0.050 0.288 0.227
    PWD4 0.9 0.9 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.4 2.4 0.068 0.176 0.169
7 to 14 d
    ADG, g 630 560 562 554 602 580 559 44.1 0.249 0.665 0.495
    ADFI, g 785 697 725 718 737 723 716 33.1 0.127 0.686 0.760
    G:F 0.803 0.803 0.775 0.772 0.817 0.802 0.781 0.03 0.746 0.258 0.909
    PWD 0.6 1.5 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.7 2.8 0.044 0.779 0.248
14 to 21d
    ADG, g 655 564 569 587 586 596 557 33.6 0.059 0.871 0.126
    ADFI, g 883 797 758 797 838 830 768 49.6 0.076 0.713 0.203
    G:F 0.742 0.708 0.751 0.737 0.699 0.718 0.725 0.03 0.336 0.385 0.462
    PWD 1.8 2.7 4.4 2.9 3.0 2.3 4.5 0.075 0.432 0.061
0 to 21 d
    ADG, g 573 500 505 503 532 523 502 24.3 0.041 0.683 0.318
    ADFI, g 696 630 623 628 658 649 629 28.0 0.035 0.764 0.327
    G:F 0.822 0.793 0.810 0.801 0.809 0.806 0.798 0.01 0.040 0.586 0.886
    P W D 1.2 1.7 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.8 3.2 0.006 0.208 0.009
1Pooled SEM (4 pens of 6 pigs each per treatment).
21: control diet vs. average of the 8 fiber-containing diets; 2: main effect of fiber source; 3: main effect of fiber level.
3The interaction between fiber source and fiber level were not significant for all traits studied (P > 0.10).
4Expressed as percentage of days in which piglets had symptoms of diarrhea with respect to total number of days on trial (Mateos et al., 2006).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Influence of fiber inclusion in the diet on apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD; %) and apparent ileal digestibility (AID; %) of nutrients, and ileum mucosa morphology in of pigs reared under optimum hygienic conditions on d 21 d on trial (Exp. 1)

 
Fiber source
Fiber level
P-value2,3
Item Control Straw Oat hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings 2.5% 5.0% SEM1 1 2 3
ATTD
    OM 88.4 86.0b 85.8b 87.7a 87.3a 87.2a 86.1b 0.45 0.001 0.007 0.005
    DM 86.4 83.9b 83.6b 85.8a 85.4a 85.2a 84.2b 0.46 0.001 0.004 0.007
    CP 81.6 81.2 80.9 81.1 80.9 81.3 80.8 0.84 0.514 0.986 0.387
    GE 86.5 84.1b 84.2b 86.1a 85.5a 85.3a 84.7b 0.44 0.001 0.006 0.040
AID
    OM 80.8 75.7 80.1 78.7 77.8 77.7 78.4 1.76 0.137 0.136 0.618
    DM 77.2 72.1b 75.9a 72.6b 74.3ab 74.1 73.4 1.20 0.015 0.017 0.437
    CP 78.8 73.1 78.6 71.8 73.1 74.8 74.3 3.03 0.144 0.171 0.778
    GE 83.0 78.1b 82.4a 78.4b 80.7ab 79.9 79.9 1.33 0.023 0.007 0.981
Mucosa
    VH4 471 432 484 476 475 453 480 25.8 0.401 0.236 0.163
    CD5 195 187ab 213a 200ab 178b 196 193 11.7 0.352 0.031 0.804
    VH:CD6 2.41 2.31 2.28 2.38 2.67 2.32 2.48 0.17 0.246 0.157 0.245
a,bWithin a row, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Pooled SEM (4 pens of 6 pigs each per treatment).
21: control diet vs. average of the fiber-containing diets; 2: main effect of fiber source; 3: main effect of fiber level.
3The interaction between fiber source and fiber level were not significant for all traits studied (P > 0.10).
4VH = villus height (μm).
5CD = crypt depth (μm).
6VH:CD = villus height to crypt depth ratio.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Influence of inclusion of 5% of a fiber in the diet on cecum bacterial count (log cfu/g wet digesta) in pigs reared under optimum hygienic conditions on d 21 d on trial (Exp. 1)

 
Fiber source
P-value1
Item Control Straw Oat hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings 1 2
Lactobacillus 14.4 14.7d 15.6a 15.1b 14.9c <0.001 <0.001
Escherichia coli 7.7 10.6c 10.7b 7.8d 12.0a <0.001 <0.001
Lactobacillus:Escherichia coli2 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.4 0.728 0.852
a–dWithin a row, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
11: control diet vs. average of the 4 fiber-containing diets; 2: main effect of fiber source.
2Ratio between Lactobacillus and E. coli counts expressed as ratio of cfu.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 6.

Influence of fiber inclusion in the diet on growth performance and postweaning diarrhea (PWD) of piglets reared under poor hygienic conditions from 0 to 21 d on trial (Exp. 2)

 
Fiber source
Fiber level
P-value2, 3
Item Control Straw Oat hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings 2.5% 5.0% SEM1 1 2 3
0 to 7 d
    ADG, g 373 355 378 375 387 382 365 18.4 0.326 0.171 0.500
    ADFI, g 395 375 396 402 408 402 388 15.2 0.211 0.203 0.178
    G:F 0.944 0.947 0.955 0.933 0.949 0.950 0.941 0.03 0.982 0.855 0.787
    PWD4 2.4 4.2 4.6 3.0 3.6 4.7 3.0 0.266 0.707 0.156
7 to 14 d
    ADG, g 411 384 383 401 380 388 386 34.6 0.681 0.939 0.438
    ADFI, g 556 499 515 530 516 517 513 34.8 0.885 0.861 0.266
    G:F 0.739 0.770 0.744 0.757 0.736 0.750 0.752 0.03 0.525 0.722 0.814
    PWD 5.4 5.4 7.0 5.6 3.3 5.7 5.7 0.976 0.134 0.502
14 to 21 d
    ADG, g 420 412 466 444 476 447 452 34.8 0.541 0.287 0.707
    ADFI, g 558 573 633 611 631 614 610 34.6 0.695 0.337 0.355
    G:F 0.753 0.719 0.736 0.727 0.754 0.728 0.741 0.02 0.487 0.463 0.403
    PWD 6.5 11.5 11.4 8.9 10.7 11.1 10.6 0.060 0.641 0.581
0 to 21 d
    ADG, g 401 384 409 407 414 406 401 21.8 0.697 0.531 0.329
    ADFI, g 503 482 515 514 518 511 514 21.8 0.667 0.379 0.187
    G:F 0.798 0.795 0.795 0.791 0.799 0.794 0.796 0.01 0.787 0.938 0.546
    PWD 4.8 7.0 7.7 5.8 5.8 7.2 6.5 0.070 0.305 0.135
1Pooled SEM (4 pens of 6 pigs each per treatment).
21: control diet vs. average of the fiber-containing diets; 2: main effect of fiber source; 3: main effect of fiber level.
3The interaction between fiber source and fiber level were not significant for all traits studied (P > 0.10).
4Expressed as percentage of days in which piglets had symptoms of diarrhea with respect to total number of days on trial (Mateos et al., 2006).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 7.

Influence of fiber inclusion in the diet on the apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients on d 21 on trial (Exp. 2)

 
Fiber source
Fiber level
P-value2,3
Item Control Straw Oat hulls Sugar beet pulp Wheat middlings 2.5% 5.0% SEM1 1 2 3
OM 88.3 85.3 85.3 86.8 86.1 86.4 85.4 0.71 0.086 0.166 0.705
DM 86.6 82.9b 83.3ab 84.7a 83.8ab 84.0 83.3 0.60 0.047 0.048 0.144
CP 83.3 80.2 80.5 78.9 79.8 80.4 79.2 0.94 0.160 0.379 0.103
GE 86.8 83.3 83.6 84.7 84.1 84.1 83.7 0.60 0.045 0.161 0.252
a,bWithin a row, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Pooled SEM (4 pens of 6 pigs each per treatment).
21: control diet vs. average of the fiber-containing diets; 2: main effect of fiber source; 3: main effect of fiber level.
3The interaction between fiber source and fiber level were not significant for all traits studied (P > 0.10).