26-4-2016

Digestion and energetic utilization of

dietary fibres in pigs

Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University

Walter Gerrits & Sonja de Vries

SEGES Pig Feeding Seminar, April 27, 2016

Fiber an important dietary ingredient

Contributes to nutritive value of diet

Direct and indirect, positive and negative

Chemical Nutritive value

composition Energy supply (fermentation products)
of the diet Energy dilution

Physical
1
properties
of the diet Digestive processes
Reduced/increased
Digesta matrix digestion of other
e.g. WBC nutrientsbarrier
Physical
Viscosity Reduced/Increased
Endogenous energy
secretions and needs
losses
Bulk Digesta flow and retention time
Microbial population/fermentation
products
GIT development

Feed intake, activity..

1 From: www.dreamstime.com

1
 26-4-2016

Contents

Defenitions and analyses

Fibre fermentation and passage

Recalcitrant fibres from DDGS and rapeseed meal

Defenitions and analyses

1 From: www.qainsight.net 4

2
 26-4-2016

Fiber Fiber

Resistant starch
Lignin
NSP > chemically diverse
Cellulose
Hemicellulose
glucans, (hetero)xylans, xyloglucans,
glucomannans
Pectic polysaccharides
Homogalacturonans, rhamnogalacturonans,
arabinans, arabinogalactans
Chemical composition doesnt tell it all

Fibre analysis: method determines outcome...

Commonly used gravimetric fiber analyses

Crude fiber (CF)
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF)
LIGNIN Acid detergent fiber (ADF)
Acid detergent lignin (ADL)
INSOLUBLE NSP Note influence of
RESISTANT e.g. cellulose,
STARCH (hetero)xylans, physical properties
(DERIVATIVES) xyloglucans, pectic e.g. particle size
polysaccharides

SOLUBLE NSP
e.g.-glucans,
pectic
polysaccharides, Total dietary fiber / Total NSP + lignin
arabinoxylans Enzymatic - chemical methods (e.g. Englyst or Uppsala)
Enzymatic - gravimetric methods (e.g. AOAC 2009)
DM-CP-Ash-Cfat-Starch-Sugars (CVB)
OLIGOSACCHARIDES
1
1 Figure modified from Zielinski et al. 2013.

6
de Vries, S. Proc Eur Symp Poult Nutr. 20: 40 47. 2015.

3
 26-4-2016

Method determines ranking of ingredients

400 Crude Fiber (CF)

Fiber content (g/kg)

350 Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF)

300 Total Dietary Fiber (TDF)
250 Soluble Dietary Fiber
200

150

100

50

0
Barley Wheat Soybean meal* Rapeseed meal Peas

Fiber content of feed ingredients1,2

1 Crude fiber and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) reported by CVB, 2011. If no SD is
reported sample size was < 5.
2 Total dietary fiber (TDF) and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) as reported by Bach 7
Knudsen, 1997.
* Trading class CF 45-70, CP < 450 g/kg.

Particle size interferes with CF and NDF

35

30 Small particles
Fiber content (g/kg)

lost during
25 analyses

20
Crude Fiber
15
Neutral Detergent Fiber
1942 >2002
10
Non-Starch Polysaccharides

5
162
0
Whole Fine Coarse
Fiber contents of fractionated1 rapeseed meal as analyzed
by different methods
1 Rapeseed meal was fractionated using air classification.
2 Geometric Mean Diameter (m)
8
de Vries et al. unpublished.

4
 26-4-2016

Resistant Starch, an NSP ??

Resistant by definition but various chemical

structures:
RS1: physically inaccessible starch (entrapped in cell wall
matrix): beans, coarsely ground cereal grains
RS2: resistant starch granules/molecular structure
(crystalline): potato, banana, high-amylose starches
RS3: retrograded starch
RS4: chemically modified starch (branching, cross-
linking)
RS5: amylose-lipid complex

Fiber fiber
Summary

Look beyond generic fiber fractions

Assembly of structures
Chemical composition doesnt tell it all
Keep in mind analytical constraints
Make sure analytical method matches purpose
TDF for routine analysis
NSP for scientific purpose
Know your methods (i.e. know what fibers
recovered)

5
 26-4-2016

Fermentation and energy value

Fermentation as
related to fiber
composition
Competition
between
degradation and
passage
Energy value of
fiber

11

90% of variation in energy value of fibers

is related to variation in fermentability
Apparent
Total Tract
Digestibility

Subjected to digestive processes:

Grinding/mastication, moisture, pH
changes, digestive enzymes, microbial
fermentation, ...

6
 26-4-2016

Variation in botanical structure

120

100
NSP digestibility (%)

80

60

40
Ileal DC
20 Fecal DC

-20

1 Canibe & Bach Knudsen, 2002

2 Glitso et al., 1998
3 Bach Knudsen & Hansen, 1991

Effects of soluble and insoluble fibers

Soluble NSP Insoluble NSP

Stomach
Viscosity +++ +
Water binding ++ +++
Retention time ++

Small intestine
Viscosity ++
Water binding ++ +++
Glucose absorption _

Large intestine
Fermentation +++ ++
Bulking + +++
Retention time --

Modified from: Bach Knudsen, KE. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 90: 3 20. 2000.

7
 26-4-2016

Effect of wheat bran on transit behaviour

1.8 5
Stomach 4.5
Small intestine
1.6

Mean retention time (h)

Mean retention time (h)

1.4 4
3.5
1.2
3
1
2.5 Solid
0.8
2 Soluble
0.6
1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
0 0
Low fiber Medium fiber High fiber Low fiber Medium fiber High fiber

50
45
Large intestine
Mean retention time (h)

40
35
30
25 Solid
20 Soluble
15
10
5
0
Low fiber Medium fiber High fiber
15
Data from: Wilfart et al., Br J Nutr 98:54-62. 2007.

Soluble DF mainly affects gastric retention

of liquid digesta

100
Cr2O3 PEG
90
Wheat flour Oat flour Rolled oats Oat bran
80
Recovery of marker, %

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.5 1 2 3 5 0.5 1 2 3 5
Time after feeding (h) Time after feeding (h)

16
Data from: Johansen et al., Br J Nutr 75:339-351. 1996.

8
 26-4-2016

But also solid digesta can be affected

450
MRT of solid digesta (min)

400
350
300
250 Control
200 Reduced MRT -glucan
solid digesta RS
150
100
50 Effect of fiber source

0 P -value
Raw material 0.36
CM DDGS
-glucan < 0.01
RS 0.04
Interaction 0.20

17
de Vries, S. 2014. PhD Thesis, chapter 9

Digesta transit in growing pigs and sows

100
47
Control
69
Mean retention time (h)

80 57 maize bran
50 wheat bran
60 sugarbeet pulp

68
40 47
48 65 48 44
43 44

20

0
35 kg pig 75 kg pig sow

ATTD
digestibility
Le Goff et al. J Anim Sci 74: 503 515. 2002.

9
 26-4-2016

Fiber Fiber interactions

-Glucans
increased
ATTD of NGP
100 from CM
But not DDGS! Resistant starch
decreased ATTD
ATTD NGP (%)

80
of NGP

60 Control
-Glucans
40 Resistant starch

20
Effect of fiber source
P -value
0
Raw material < 0.01
CM DDGS
-glucan 0.04
RG < 0.01
Interaction 0.13

19

Net energy value of fermentation end-

products
HP VFA infused

ER VFA infused
HP control

ER control

ER (kJ)
= 80%
VFA infused (kJ)
Jrgensen et al. Br J Nutr 77: 745 756. 1997.

10
 26-4-2016

Energy value of RS, relative to pregelatinized

Reduced
physical 100
activity
80

60
Pregelatinized
Shift from 40 Retrograded
urine to
fecal 20
energy loss
0
DE ME NE

Gerrits et al. J Nutr 142: 238 244. 2012.

Fermentation and energy value of fibers

Summary

Fermentation depends on:

Chemical composition
e.g chain length, linkages b/w sugar molecules
Structural arrangements in cell wall
Crosslinks b/w polysaccharides, protein and lignin
Clear interactions between ingredients
Fibers affect retention time, digestion and absorption of other
diet components Need to reconsider
addititvity approach in
Energy value follows fermentability.... feed evaluation?

11
 26-4-2016

Recalcitrant fibers from DDGS

and rapeseed meal

Corn Dried distillers grain with

solubles (DDGS)

Rapeseed meal (RSM)

23

Fiber structures in rapeseed meal

Originating from rapeseed

Cellulose
Hemicellulose
Xyloglucan, glucuronoxylan, galactomannan
Pectic polysaccharides
Homogalacturonan, rhamnogalacturonan, arabinan,
arabinogalactan

Tightly bound within a lignin-cellulose network

> Rigid cell wall matrix

Pustjens et al. Carbohydr Polym. 98: 1650 1656. 2013.

12
 26-4-2016

Fermentation of NSP from RSM in swine

100

90

80
Undegraded NSP (% of inatke)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Feed Ileum Cecum Colon Feces
Mannose Uronic acid Arabinose Galactose Glucose Xylose Rhamnose

Pustjens et al. Indust Crop Prod 58: 271 279. 2014.

Detailed characterziation of recalcitrant fiber

27% of Linear arabinan
NSP water Linear galactan
soluble
(xylo)glucan
Galactomannan
Rhamnogalacturonan
<5% of
Tightly bound pectins unfermented
NSP
Cellulose
Water
soluble
Alkaline 32%
~45% of insoluble of RSM
unfermented
(Residue) Water NSP
NSP insoluble
Tightly bound
in cellulose-
lignin matrix < 14 kDa > 14 kDa Xylan
Alkaline Branched arabinan
~50% of soluble <5% of
unfermented unfermented
Small uronyl-rich NSP NSP
carbohydrates Galactomannan
Ester-
linkages or
H-bondings
Xyloglucan
26
Pustjens et al. Indust Crop Prod 58: 271 279. 2014.

13
 26-4-2016

Fibre structures in maize DDGS

Originating from maize

Cellulose
Hemicellulose
Highly substituted glucuronoarabinoxylans (GAX)
Single unit side chains (ara, UA)
Oligomeric side chains of (ara, xyl, gal)
Ferulic acid, coumaric acid
Ester-linked to ara
> Cross-links between xylan structures

Appeldoorn et al. J Agric Food Chem 58: 11294-11301.2010

Huisman et al. Carbohydr Polym 43: 269 279. 2000.

Fermentation of NSP from DDGS

Undegraded consituent sugars (% of inatke)

Cellulose
+ GAX

de Vries et al. J Anim Sci 92:5496-5506. 2014.

14
 26-4-2016

Degradation of phenolic acids

Less well degraded than
100
NSP > associated with
recalcitrant fibre fraction?
90
Undegraded phenolic acids (% of intake)

80 coumaric acid
monoferulic acid
70 diferulic acid

60

50

40

30

20 NSP
10

0
ileum colon total tract

de Vries et al. J Anim Sci 92:5496-5506. 2014.

Recalcitrant fibres
Take home message

RSM: large fraction of low MW uronyl-rich CHO

DDGS: phenolic acids concentrate in unfermented fraction;
cross-links between xylan structures limit fermentation
Detailed analysis of recalcitrant (i.e. non-fermented) fibres
needed for progress in understanding of fermentation (and
thus of energy value)

15
 26-4-2016

Thank you for

your attention

Contact:
walter.gerrits@wur.nl

16