Abstract
Simple SummaryTraditional proximate analysis measures (i.e., moisture, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash) have little value for estimating the actual nutritional and economic value of feed ingredients fed to swine, yet they unfortunately continue to be commonly used in research studies, feed label regulations, and commodity-trading contract guarantees. Increasing energy and nutritional efficiency while simultaneously reducing negative environmental impacts of pork production requires the adoption of precision nutrition practices in global pork production systems. Precision swine nutrition can only be achieved by using more accurate and comprehensive methods and measures to determine the true nutri-physiological value of feed ingredients used in swine diets. There are several characteristics in some types of feed ingredients that are detrimental to swine health and performance, but they are seldom measured and deserve greater consideration. Likewise, there are also several value-added benefits provided by some functional feed ingredients that are not given enough consideration when formulating swine diets. The purpose of this review is to provide a holistic assessment of the benefits and limitations of existing chemical analysis methods and measures used to evaluate feed ingredients for swine and explore the benefits of using additional measurements to more accurately assess their true nutri-physiological value.Many types of feed ingredients are used to provide energy and nutrients to meet the nutritional requirements of swine. However, the analytical methods and measures used to determine the true nutritional and physiological (“nutri-physiological”) value of feed ingredients affect the accuracy of predicting and achieving desired animal responses. Some chemical characteristics of feed ingredients are detrimental to pig health and performance, while functional components in other ingredients provide beneficial health effects beyond their nutritional value when included in complete swine diets. Traditional analytical procedures and measures are useful for determining energy and nutrient digestibility of feed ingredients, but do not adequately assess their true physiological or biological value. Prediction equations, along with ex vivo and in vitro methods, provide some benefits for assessing the nutri-physiological value of feed ingredients compared with in vivo determinations, but they also have some limitations. Determining the digestion kinetics of the different chemical components of feed ingredients, understanding how circadian rhythms affect feeding behavior and the gastrointestinal microbiome of pigs, and accounting for the functional properties of many feed ingredients in diet formulation are the emerging innovations that will facilitate improvements in precision swine nutrition and environmental sustainability in global pork-production systems.
Highlights
Multifaceted approach is emerging for selecting and sourcing feed ingredients in the global feed industry to achieve biosecure, econutritional, precision swine-feeding programs without the use of growth-promoting antibiotics
Nonviscous, Fermentable a Soluble fiber has the ability to dissolve in water. b Insoluble fiber does not dissolve in water and remains as discrete particles. c Viscosity is the ability of some polysaccharides to thicken and form a gel when hydrated. d Fermentability is the extent of fiber that resisted digestion in the small intestine be degraded by microbiota in the cecum and colon to produce short-chain fatty acids and gas
Theuse of the net energy system, Standardized ileal digestibility (SID) AA content, and STTD phosphorus content measures are encouraged for evaluating feed ingredients and formulating swine diets, but additional measures should be considered in feed ingredient databases, including: (1) water activity; (2) solubility, fermentability, viscosity, and prebiotic effects of dietary fiber; (3) lipid and protein oxidation measures; and (4) estimates of true bioavailability of amino acids, vitamins, and minerals
Summary
Multifaceted approach is emerging for selecting and sourcing feed ingredients in the global feed industry to achieve biosecure, econutritional, precision swine-feeding programs without the use of growth-promoting antibiotics. As a result of these improvements, safety margins used in feed formulation can be reduced while feeding diets that more precisely meet the daily requirements of animals [25] Despite these nutritional advances, some limitations of using conventional evaluation and analytical methods remain for assessing the utilization of dietary energy [29], AAs [30], and phosphorus [31]. Nutrient content and digestibility estimates of various types of plant-based feed ingredients have been summarized [34] All of these reviews are useful, they fail to explore additional chemical components that affect the true nutri-physiological value of feed ingredients beyond the use of traditional chemical measurements. More thoughtful consideration is needed when selecting analytical methods and measures to ensure they are as closely associated with physiological responses as possible when assessing the true feeding value of various types of feed ingredients
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
