Journal of Animal Science and Technology

Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology (한국축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Enzyme Complex Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Profiles and Economic Feed Cost in Growing Pigs

복합효소제의 첨가가 육성돈의 생산성, 영양소 소화율, 혈액성상 및 사료비용에 미치는 영향

  • Hong, Seong-Min (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Jang, Hae-Dong (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Hyo-Jin (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Yoo, Jong-Sang (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Je-Hyun (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, In-Ho (Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University)
  • 홍성민 (단국대학교 동물자원학과) ;
  • 장해동 (단국대학교 동물자원학과) ;
  • 김효진 (단국대학교 동물자원학과) ;
  • 유종상 (단국대학교 동물자원학과) ;
  • 이제현 (단국대학교 동물자원학과) ;
  • 김인호 (단국대학교 동물자원학과)
  • Received : 2010.02.17
  • Accepted : 2010.12.03
  • Published : 2011.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate effects of enzyme complex on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profiles and feed cost in growing pigs. Ninety-six pigs [(Landrace ${\times}$ Yorkshire) ${\times}$ Duroc, $22.96{\pm}0.79$ kg average initial body weight] were used in 42d growth assay. Dietary treatments included:1) HC (high energy and nutrient density diet), 2) CON (control, basal diet), 3) CE1 (CON + 0.05% enzyme complex) and 4) CE2 (CON + 0.1% enzyme complex). Four pigs were allotted per pen with six replicate pens per treatment by completely randomized design. The ADG was higher in CE1 and CE2 treatments than CON treatment (P<0.05). The ADFI was linearly increased by CE treatments compared to HC treatment. The CE1 treatment had highest DM, N and GE digestibility (P<0.05). Digestibility of DM, N and GE were quadratic enhanced by enzyme complex level. No differences were found among treatments for creatinine and BUN. The enzyme complex treatments (CE1 and CE2) showed lower feed cost/body weight gain than HC treatment. In conclusion, enzyme complex can improve ADG and reduce feed cost/body weight gain when low energy diet was used. Furthermore adding 0.05% enzyme complex had highest nutrient digestibility.

본시험은 복합효소제 첨가 급여에 따른 육성돈의 생산성, 영양소소화율, 혈액성상 및 사료비용에 관하여 평가하였다. 시험 동물은 3원교잡종 [(Landrace ${\times}$ Yorkshire) ${\times}$ Duroc] 육성돈 96두를 공시하여 6주간 실시하였고, 시험 개시체중은 $22.96{\pm}0.79$kg이었다. 시험 사료는 고에너지 사료와 대조구 사료를 이용하여 고에너지 사료(HC) 처리구, 일반 사료(CON)인 대조구, 대조구 사료에 복합효소제 0.05%와 0.1%을 첨가한 CE1과 CE2로 4처리구 각 처리당 4마리씩 6반복으로 완전임의 배치하여 실시하였다. 생산성에서 일당 증체량은 CE1와 CE2 처리구들이 대조구보다 유의적으로 높게 나타내었다(P<0.05). 일당사료섭취량에서는 CE2 처리구가 HC 처리구보다 유의적으로 높게 나타내었고(P<0.05), 대조구에 복합효소제를 첨가할수록 증가하는 Linear 효과를 나타내었다(P<0.05). 사료효율에서는 처리구간의 유의적인 차이를 보이지 않았다(P>0.05). 영양소 소화율에 있어서는 건물, 질소 및 총 에너지 소화율 모두 CE1 처리구가 CON 처리구보다 유의적으로 높게 나타내었고(P<0.05), 대조구에 복합효소제가 첨가될수록 증가하는 Linear 효과를 나타내었다 (P<0.05). 혈액특성에서는 시험기간동안 혈액내 Creatinine과 blood urea nitrogen의 함량에 있어서는 유의적인 차이를 보이지 않았다(P>0.05). 경제성 분석에 있어서는 대조구 사료에 복합효소제 첨가시 기초 사료보다 사료비용이 절감되는 것으로 나타났으며, 특히 복합효소제가 0.05% 첨가된 CE1 처리구에서 사료비용이 절감되었다. 결론적으로 일반적인 육성돈 사료내 0.05% 복합효소제 첨가 급여시 일당증체량, 영양소 소화율 증가되고, 고에너지 사료와 비교하여 150 kcal의 효과와 사료비용을 절감시키는 것으로 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC. 1995. Official method of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemest. Washington. DC.
  2. Bedford, M. R. 1996. Interaction between ingested feed and the digestive system in poultry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 5:86-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/5.1.86
  3. Bedford, M. R., Patience, J F., Classen, H. L. and Inborr, J. 1992.The effects of dietary enzyme supplementation of rye- and barley-based diet on digestion and subsequent performance in weanling pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:97. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas92-011
  4. Campbell, G. L and Bedford, M. R. 1992. Enzyme applications for monogastric feeds: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:449-466. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas92-058
  5. Choi, J. H. 1984. Nutritive values of full-fat soybean and soybean oil meals. Kor J. Anim. Nutr. Feed. 8(2):259-266.
  6. Collier, B. and Hardy, B. 1986. The use of enzymes in pig and poultry feeds. Feed Compounder 6. pp.28-30.
  7. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F testes. Biometrics.
  8. Han, I. K., Choi, Y. J., Ryu, Y. S. and Yun, C. H. 1990. Studies on effect of dietary supplementation with KEMZYME in weanling pigs. Kor J. Anim. Nutr. Feed 14(1):8-13.
  9. Hong, J. W. and Kim, I. H. 2001. Recent in the use of enzymes for environment‐friendly swine diets. Kor. J. Org. Agric. 9:55-67.
  10. Kim, H. J., Cho, J. H., Chen, Y. J., Yoo, J. S., Min, B. J., Jang, J.S., Kang, K. R. and Kim, I. H. 2007. Effects of mud flat bacteria origin protease supplementation by crude protein level on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, total protein and BUN concentration in broiler. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 34(3):227-222. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2007.34.3.217
  11. Kim, H. J., Min, B. J., Cho, J. H., Chen, Y. J., Yoo, J. S., Kim, I. H., Jang, J. S. and Lee. Y. K. 2006. Effects of mud flat bacteria origin protease supplementation on growth performance, amino acid digestibility, blood characteristics, meat quality, fecal VFA and NH3-N concentration in finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. & Technol. (Kor). 48(1):49-58. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2006.48.1.049
  12. Kwon, O. S., Kim, I. H., Hong, J. W., Hong, E. C. and Lee, S. H.2000. Effects of high-low nutrient density diet in performance in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. & Technol. (Kor). 42(5):571-578.
  13. Lazaro, R., Garcia, M., Araníbar, M. J. and Mateos, G. G. 2003.Effect of enzyme addition to wheat, barley and rye based diets on nutrient digestibility and performance of laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 44:256-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007166031000085616
  14. Len, N. T., Ngoc, T. B., Ogle, B. and Lindberg, J. E. Ileal and total tract digestibility in local (Mong Cai) and exotic (Landrace ${\times}$ Yorkshire) piglets fed low and high-fibre diets, with or without enzyme supplementation. 2009. Livest. Sci. 126:73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.06.002
  15. Lewis, C. J., Carton, D. V., Lui, G. H., Speer, V. C. and Ashtton,G. C. 1955. Enzyme supplementation of baby pig diets. J. Agr. and Food Chem. 3:1047. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60058a012
  16. Lynch, M. B., Callan, J. J. and O’Doherty, J. V. 2008. The interaction between lactose level and enzyme supplementation and form of barley processing on performance, digestibility and faecal volatile fatty acid concentration of weanling pigs fed barley-based diets. Anim. Feed Sci. and Technol. 140:349-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.03.008
  17. Marsman, G. J., Gruppen, H., Van der Poel, A. F., Kwakkel, R. P.,Verstegen, M. W. and Voragen, A. G. 1997. The effects of thermal processing and enzyme treatments of soybean meal on growth performance, ileal nutrient digestibilities and chyme characteristics in broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 76:864-872. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.6.864
  18. Min, T. S., Han, I. K., Chung, I. B. and Kim, I. B. 1992. Effects of dietary supplementation with antibiotics, sulfur compound, copper sulfate, enzyme and probiotics on the growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs. Kor J. Anim. Nutr. Feed. 16(5):265-274.
  19. NRC. 1998. Nutrient requirement of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  20. Peterson, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel dekkor. New Yolk.
  21. SAS. 1995. SAS/STAT User’s Guide : Version 6, 11th edition. SAS Institute Inc.,Cary, NC.
  22. Selle, P. H. and Ravindran, V. Phytate-degrading enzymes in pig nutrition. 2008. Livest. Sci. 113:99-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.05.014
  23. Shim, Y. H., Chae, B. J. and Lee, J. H. 2003. Effects of dietary carbohydrase enzyme complex and microbial phytase supplementation on productivity and nutrient digestibility in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. & Technol. (Kor). 45(4):569-576. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2003.45.4.569