Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:26:17.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of chicory inclusion in a cereal-based diet on digestibility, organ size and faecal microbiota in growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2012

E. Ivarsson ,
H. Y. Liu ,
J. Dicksved ,
S. Roos  and
J. E. Lindberg
E. Ivarsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7024, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
H. Y. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7024, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
J. Dicksved
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7024, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
S. Roos
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
J. E. Lindberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7024, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A total of 30 7-week-old pigs were used to evaluate the effects of chicory inclusion on digestibility, digestive organ size and faecal microbiota. Five diets were formulated: a cereal-based control diet and four diets with inclusion of 80 and 160 g/kg chicory forage (CF80 and CF160), 80 g/kg chicory root (CR80) and a mix of 80 g/kg forage and 80 g/kg chicory root (CFR). Generally, the pigs showed a high growth rate and feed intake, and no differences between the different diets were observed. The coefficients of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) of energy, organic matter and CP did not differ between the control and CF80, whereas they were impaired in diet CF160. The CTTAD of non-starch polysaccharides and especially the uronic acids were higher (P < 0.05) with chicory inclusion, with highest (P < 0.05) values for diet CF160. Coliform counts were lower and lactobacilli : coliform ratio was higher (P < 0.05) in diet CFR than in the control. Global microbial composition was investigated by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism combined with cloning and sequencing. Analysis of gut microbiota pattern revealed two major clusters where diet CF160 differed from the control and CR80 diet. Chicory forage diets were correlated with an increased relative abundance of one species related to Prevotella and decreased abundance of two other species related to Prevotella. For diet CFR, the relative abundance of Lactobacillus johnsonii was higher than in the other diets. This study shows that both chicory forage and root can be used as fibre sources in pig nutrition and that they modulate the composition of the gut microbiota differently.

Keywords

pigfibrechicorydigestibilitymicrobiota
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , 28 May 2012 , pp. 1077 - 1085
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anguita, M, Canibe, N, Perez, JF, Jensen, BB 2006. Influence of the amount of dietary fiber on the available energy from hindgut fermentation in growing pigs: use of cannulated pigs and in vitro fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2766–2778.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, K 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M, Harper, JL, Townsend, CR 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Castellini, C, Cardinali, R, Rebollar, PG, Bosco, AD, Jimeno, V, Cossu, ME 2007. Feeding fresh chicory (Chicoria intybus) to young rabbits: performance, development of gastro-intestinal tract and immune functions of appendix and Peyer's patch. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134, 56–65.Google Scholar
Castillo, M, Skene, G, Roca, M, Anguita, M, Badiola, I, Duncan, SH, Flint, HJ, Martin-Orue, SM 2007. Application of 16S rRNA gene-targetted fluorescence in situ hybridization and restriction fragment length polymorphism to study porcine microbiota along the gastrointestinal tract in response to different sources of dietary fibre. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 59, 138–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dicksved, J, Halfvarson, J, Rosenquist, M, Jarnerot, G, Tysk, C, Apajalahti, J, Engstrand, L, Jansson, JK 2008. Molecular analysis of the gut microbiota of identical twins with Crohn's disease. ISME Journal 2, 716–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flickinger, EA, Van Loo, J, Fahey, GC 2003. Nutritional responses to the presence of inulin and oligofructose in the diets of domesticated animals: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 43, 19–60.Google Scholar
Flint, HJ 1997. The rumen microbial ecosystem – some recent developments. Trends in Microbiology 5, 483–488.Google Scholar
Foster, L 1988. Herbs in pasture, development and research in Britain 1850–1984. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 5, 97–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, GR, Probert, HM, Loo, JV, Rastall, RA, Roberfroid, MB 2004. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: updating the concept of prebiotics. Nutrition Research Reviews 17, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halas, D, Hansen, CF, Hampson, DJ, Mullan, BP, Wilson, RH, Pluske, JR 2009. Effect of dietary supplementation with inulin and/or benzoic acid on the incidence and severity of post-weaning diarrhoea in weaner pigs after experimental challenge with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Archives of Animal Nutrition 63, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halas, D, Hansen, CF, Hampson, DJ, Mullan, BP, Kim, JC, Wilson, RH, Pluske, J 2010. Dietary supplementation with benzoic acid improves apparent ileal digestibility of total nitrogen and increases villous height and caecal microbial diversity in weaner pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160, 137–147.Google Scholar
Högberg, A, Lindberg, JE, Leser, T, Wallgren, P 2004. Influence of cereal non-starch polysaccharides on ileo-caecal and rectal microbial populations in growing pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 45, 87–98.Google Scholar
Ivarsson, E, Frankow-Lindberg, BE, Andersson, HK, Lindberg, JE 2011. Growth performance, digestibility and faecal coliform bacteria in weaned piglets fed a cereal-based diet including either chicory (Cichorium intybus L) or ribwort (Plantago lanceolata L) forage. Animal 5, 558–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennische, P, Larsson, K 1990. Traditionella svenska analysmetoder för foder och växtmaterial, Rapport 60. Statens Lantbrukskemiska Laboratorium, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Konstantinov, SR, Favier, CF, Zhu, W, Williams, BA, Kluss, J, Souffrant, WB, Vos, WMD, Akkermans, ADL, Smidt, H 2004. Microbial diversity studies of the porcine gastrointestinal ecosystem during weaning transition. Animal Research 53, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laar, HV, Tamminga, S, Williams, BA, Verstegen, MWA 2000. Fermentation of the endosperm cell walls of monocotyledon and dicotyledon plant species by faecal microbes from pigs the relationship between cell wall characteristics and fermentability. Animal Feed Science and Technology 88, 13–30.Google Scholar
Leser, TD, Amenuvor, JZ, Jensen, TK, Lindecrona, RH, Boye, M, Mller, K 2002. Culture-independent analysis of gut bacteria: the pig gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, 673–690.Google Scholar
Loh, G, Eberhard, M, Brunner, RM, Hennig, U, Kuhla, S, Kleessen, B, Metges, CC 2006. Inulin alters the intestinal microbiota and short-chain fatty acid concentrations in growing pigs regardless of their basal diet. Journal of Nutrition 136, 1198–1202.Google Scholar
Metzler, BU, Vahjen, W, Baumgartel, T, Rodehutscord, M, Mosenthin, R 2009. Changes in bacterial populations in the ileum of pigs fed low-phosphorus diets supplemented with different sources of fermentable carbohydrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 148, 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molist, F, de Segura, AG, Gasa, J, Hermes, RG, Manzanilla, EG, Anguita, M, Perez, JF 2009. Effects of the insoluble and soluble dietary fibre on the physicochemical properties of digesta and the microbial activity in early weaned piglets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 149, 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mølbak, L, Thomsen, LE, Jensen, TK, Knudsen, KEB, Boye, M 2007. Increased amount of Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum and Megasphaera elsdenii in the colonic microbiota of pigs fed a swine dysentery preventive diet containing chicory roots and sweet lupine. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103, 1853–1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J, Le Goff, G 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 35–52.Google Scholar
Nordic Committee on Feed Analysis 2003. Determination in feeds and faeces according to Kjeldahl, 4th edition, Method no. 6 – Nitrogen. NMKL, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1998. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th edition. National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Patterson, JK, Yasuda, K, Welch, RM, Miller, DD, Lei, XG 2010. Supplemental dietary inulin of variable chain lengths alters intestinal bacterial populations in young pigs. Journal of Nutrition 140, 2158–2161.Google Scholar
Pluske, JR, Black, B, Pethick, DW, Mullan, BP, Hampson, D 2003. Effects of different sources and levels of dietary fibre in diets on performance, digesta characteristics and antibiotic treatment of pigs after weaning. Animal Feed Science and Technology 107, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, WC, Fan, MZ, Moesenthin, R, Drochner, W 2000. Methods for measuring ileal amino acid digestibility in pigs. In Farm animal metabolism and nutrition (ed. JPF D'Mello), pp. 279–306. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Schedle, K, Plitzner, C, Ettle, T, Zhao, L, Domig, KJ, Windisch, W 2008. Effects of insoluble dietary fibre differing in lignin on performance, gut microbiology, and digestibility in weanling piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 62, 141–151.Google Scholar
Short, FJ, Gorton, P, Wiseman, J, Boorman, KN 1996. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59, 215–221.Google Scholar
Sun, XZ, Joblin, KN, Andrew, IG, Hoskin, SO, Harris, PJ 2008. Degradation of forage chicory by ruminal fibrolytic bacteria. Journal of Applied Microbiology 105, 1286–1297.Google Scholar
Tajima, K, Aminov, RI, Nagamine, T, Matsui, H, Nakamura, M, Benno, Y 2001. Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, 2766–2774.Google Scholar
Verdonk, JMAJ, Shim, SB, van Leeuwen, P, Verstegen, MWA 2005. Application of inulin-type fructans in animal feed and pet food. British Journal of Nutrition 93, S125–S138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voragen, F, Beldman, G, Schols, H 2001. Chemistry and enzymology of pectins. In Advanced dietary fibre technology (ed. BV McCleary and L Prosky), pp. 379–398. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Wang, JF, Zhu, YH, Li, DF, Wang, M, Jensen, BB 2004. Effect of type and level of dietary fibre and starch on ileal and faecal microbial activity and short-chain fatty acid concentrations in growing pigs. Animal Science 78, 109–117.Google Scholar
Wellock, IJ, Fortomaris, PD, Houdijk, JGM, Wiseman, J, Kyriazakis, I 2008. The consequences of non-starch polysaccharide solubility and inclusion level on the health and performance of weaned pigs challenged with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. British Journal of Nutrition 99, 520–530.Google Scholar
Wenk, C 2001. The role of dietary fibre in the digestive physiology of the pig. Animal Feed Science and Technology 90, 21–33.Google Scholar
Zoetendal, EG, Collier, CT, Koike, S, Mackie, RI, Gaskins, HR 2004. Molecular ecological analysis of the gastrointestinal microbiota: a review. Journal of Nutrition 134, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed