Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 37(8); 2024 > Article
Ouyang, Li, Feng, Hou, Jiang, Liu, Tang, Long, Yin, and Yin: Determination and prediction of amino acid digestibility in brown rice for growing-finishing pigs

Abstract

Objective

The experiment aimed to determine the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) in 10 brown rice samples fed to pigs, and to construct predictive models for SID of CP and AA based on the physical characteristics and chemical composition of brown rice.

Methods

Twenty-two cannulated pigs (initial body weight: 42.0±1.2 kg) were assigned to a replicated 11×3 incomplete Latin square design, including an N-free diet and 10 brown rice diets. Each period included 5 d adaptation and 2 d ileal digesta collection. Chromic oxide was added at 0.3% to all the diets as an indigestible marker for calculating the ileal CP and AA digestibility.

Results

The coefficients of variation of all detected indices for physical characteristics and chemical composition, except for bulk weight, dry matter (DM) and gross energy, in 10 brown rice samples were greater than 10%. The SID of CP, lysine (Lys), methionine, threonine (Thr), and tryptophan (Trp) in brown rice was 77.2% (62.6% to 85.5%), 87.5% (80.3% to 94.3%), 89.2% (78.9% to 98.9%), 55.4% (46.1% to 67.6%) and 92.5% (86.3% to 96.3%), respectively. The best prediction equations for the SID of CP, Lys, Thr, and Trp were as following, SIDCP = −664.181+8.484×DM (R2 = 0.40), SIDLys = 53.126+6.031×ether extract (EE)+0.893×thousand-kernel volume (R2 = 0.66), SIDThr = 39.916+7.843×EE (R2 = 0.41), and SIDTrp = −361.588+4.891×DM+0.387×total starch (R2 = 0.85).

Conclusion

Overall, a great variation exists among 10 sources of brown rice, and the thousand-grain volume, DM, EE, and total starch can be used as the key predictors for SID of CP and AA.

INTRODUCTION

Corn is the main energy feed ingredient for animal production [1]. However, corn shortages and distribution difficulties continue unabated due to its high usage in animal and human food, which affects national food security. Since 2020 in China, the National Animal Nutrition Guidance Committee has drawn up several strategies to reduce the utilization of corn and soybean meal in swine and poultry production. One of the strategies emphasized the utilization of paddy rice and its by-products as alternatives to corn. Brown rice contains more energy and protein and has better palatability and nutritional value compared with paddy rice [2,3]. The production of brown rice in China, approximate 2.4 million tons, ranks the first all over the world [2].
Brown rice, known as whole grain rice, consists of 2% to 3% germ, 6% to 7% of bran and 90% of endosperm after removal of the inedible outer hull and is commonly used in animal production [36]. However, the great variations in nutrient composition of brown rice have caused a significant difference between the “true value” and the “static parameters” in existing databases due to differences in sources, processing, and storage, making precision formulation difficult. Additionally, the limited studies on the amino acid (AA) digestibility of brown rice also affect the available use of brown rice in diets. Feed formulation can be formulated with precision by dynamically predicting the nutritional composition of ingredients via constructing prediction equations. Therefore, we conducted research to determine the physical and chemical composition, the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and AA in brown rice fed to pigs and to establish predicted equations for SIDAA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animal care

The animal experiment was carried out in the metabolism laboratory of the Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Changsha, China). All the experimental protocol was reviewed and approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IACUC#201302).

Sources of brown rice samples

Ten paddy rice samples were collected from Hunan (n = 4), Anhui (n = 1), Hubei (n = 1), Guangxi (n = 1), Henan (n = 1), Jiangxi (n = 1), and Guizhou (n = 1) province and were processed into brown rice after dehulling (Table 1). All brown rice were crushed and sieved through 40-mesh screen and stored at −20°C before chemical analysis [7].

Animals, diets, and experimental design

A total of 22 pigs (Duroc×[Yorkshire×Landrace], initial body weight: 42.0±1.2 kg) were installed a simple T-cannula in their distal ileum [8]. All pigs were placed in individual metabolism cages (1.4 m×0.7 m×0.5 m) in an environmentally controlled room (23°C±1°C). Pigs were allotted to a replicated 11×3 incomplete Latin square design with 3 consecutive periods and 11 diets. Ten brown rice diets containing the selected brown rice as the sole nitrogen source and a nitrogen-free diet for determination of basal endogenous losses of CP and AA were formulated (Table 2). All diets were supplemented with 0.3% of chromic oxide (Cr2O3) as an indigestible marker. All diets were fortified with vitamins and minerals to meet or exceed the nutritional requirements recommended by the NRC [9] for 20- to 50-kg pigs. The analyzed CP and AA composition of diets is represented in Table 3.
The diets were provided twice daily (0800 and 1700 h) at the equivalence of 4% of their average initial body weight recorded at the beginning of each period [10], including 5 days of adaptation followed by 2 days of ileal digesta collection [11].

Sample collection and preparation

Ileal digesta were collected on d 6 and d 7 for 8 h every day from 0800 to 1600 h according to the standard procedure [11]. Cannulas were opened and plastic bags were fastened with the help of a rubber band to collect the digesta flowing into the bags. The bags were replaced every 30 minutes, and the ileal digesta were promptly frozen at −20°C. During the collection, 5 mL of 10% (v/v) formic acid was added into each bag to minimize the bacterial fermentation. At the end of each period, all the digesta samples were thawed, mixed, and lyophilized in a Vacuum-Freeze Dryer (ACIENTZ-50F/A; Ningbo Xinzhi Lyophilization Equipment Co, Ltd, Ningbo, China) for 72 h and subsampled.

Sample analysis and calculation

The samples of brown rice and diets were analyzed using the procedures for bulk weight (GB 5498-85), thousand-kernel weight (GB/T 5519-88), and thousand-kernel volume (GB/T 5519-88). The AOAC [12] procedures were used to determine the contents of dry matter (DM, 930.15), CP (984.13), ether extract (EE, 920.39), crude ash (Ash, 942.05), calcium (Ca, 968.08), and total phosphorus (TP, 964.06). Total starch (TS) contents were analyzed with a commercial starch assay kit (Megazyme, Bure, Ireland). The contents of crude fiber (CF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined using a fiber analyzer (ANKOM A200i Fiber Analyzer; Beijing ANKOM Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing, China) in combination with fiber bags.
The samples of brown rice, diets and lyophilized ileal digesta were analyzed for the contents of DM, CP, and AA. The fifteen AA profiles were measured by the HPLC (Agilent 1200, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) after acid hydrolysis with 6 M HCl. Methionine (Met) and cysteine (Cys) were determined after oxidative hydrolysis (method 982.30 E(a); AOAC, 2006). Tryptophan (Trp) was measured after 10% of KOH hydrolysis for 16 to 18 h at 40°C using the spectrophotometric method of GB/T 15400-2018. The AID and SID of AA (%) in brown rice samples were determined using the method of Stein et al [11] described as following:
AID=[1-(AAd×Tr)/(AAr×Td)]×100%,
where AAd and Td represent the concentrations of AA and chromium in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM), respectively, and AAr and Tr are the concentrations of AA and chromium in the brown rice diets (g/kg of DM), respectively. The same equation was used to calculate the AID of CP.
IAAend=[AAd×(Tr/Td)],
where IAAend is the basal endogenous loss of each AA (g/kg of DM intake) and AAd and Td represent the concentrations of AA and chromium in the ileal digesta from the growing-finishing pigs fed the N-free diet, respectively. The Tr represents the concentration of chromium in the N-free diet. The same equation was used to calculate the endogenous loss of CP.
SID=[AID+(IAAend/AAd)×100%].

Statistical analysis

The normality and equal variance of data were assessed using the Descriptive Statistics procedure of SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) and outliers were identified by analyzing the Z-scores of the data. Correlation coefficients among the physical characteristics, chemical composition, and AA digestibility (AID and SID of lysine [Lys], Met, Trp, and threonine [Thr]) of brown rice samples were examined using the CORR procedure. The stepwise regression was employed to establish the prediction equations for the SID of Lys, Met, Trp, and Thr of the brown rice samples based on its the physical characteristics and chemical composition. The best-fit equations were selected depending on relative standard deviation (RSD), R2, and p-value; p<0.05 means significant difference and p<0.01 means extremely significant difference, when R2 is closer to 1 and p-value represent a significant difference, the equation is considered more accurate.

RESULTS

Physical characteristics, chemical composition, and AA profile of brown rice

On air-dry basis, the coefficient of variation (CV) of CP, EE, Ash, CF, NDF, ADF, Ca, TP, TS, thousand-kernel weight and thousand-kernel volume were greater than 10%, and the CV of EE, Ca, CF, NDF, and ADF were greater than 30%. The content of CP, EE, Ca, TP, CF, NDF, ADF, TS, thousand-kernel weight and thousand-kernel volume in 10 brown rices averaged 6.73% (5.34% to 8.39%), 1.97% (1.10% to 2.77%), 0.02% (0.01% to 0.03%), 0.17% (0.14% to 0.20%), 0.92% (0.20% to 1.53%), 5.04% (2.17% to 9.58%), 1.61% (0.74% to 2.49%), 69.08% (56.76% to 77.94%), 20.53 g/kg kernel (14.59 to 25.82 g/kg kernel) and 25.22 mL/1,000 grain (19.90 to 32.00 mL/1,000 grain), respectively (Table 4). The CV of all AA contents exceeded 10%. The concentrations of Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp in 10 brown rice samples were 0.34% (0.25% to 0.49%), 0.14% (0.07% to 0.26%), 0.24% (0.19% to 0.30%), and 0.07% (0.06% to 0.10%), respectively.

AID and SID of CP and AA

As shown in Table 5, the AIDCP wa6-181s 37.8% (20.0% to 54.6%). The AIDLys, AIDMet, AIDThr, and AIDTrp were 63.7% (49.7% to 73.9%), 73.9% (57.0% to 87.0%), 36.1% (25.4% to 47.0%), and 76.2% (68.6% to 81.3%), respectively. The SID of CP and AA of 10 brown rices were shown in Table 6. The SIDCP was 77.2% (62.6% to 85.5%), and the SID of Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp ranged from 80.3% to 94.3% (87.5%), 78.9% to 98.9% (89.2%), 46.1% to 67.6% (55.4%), and 86.3% to 96.3% (92.5%), respectively.

Correlation analysis and prediction equations for SID of CP and AA

The correlation among physical characteristics, chemical composition, and the SID of the first four limiting AA of brown rice is presented in Table 7. The SID of Thr was positively related to EE (p<0.05). As shown in Table 8, the best fit equations for SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDThr, and SIDTrp as following, SIDCP = −664.181+8.484×DM (R2 = 0.40; RSD = 6.46; p = 0.05), SIDLys = 53.126+6.031×EE+0.893×thousand-kernel volume (R2 = 0.66; RSD = 3.43; p<0.05), SIDThr = 39.916+ 7.843×EE (R2 = 0.41; RSD = 5.99; p<0.05) and SIDTrp = −361.588+4.891×DM+0.387×TS (R2 = 0.85; RSD = 1.66; p<0.01).

DISCUSSION

Physical characteristics, chemical composition, and AA profile of brown rice

Great variation in chemical composition and physical property was observed among 10 brown rice samples. The CV value for CP, Ash, TP, TS, 1,000 kernel weight and 1,000 kernel volume exceeded 10%, and EE, Ca, CF, NDF and ADF even surpassed 30%. The detected contents of gross energy (GE), DM, EE, Ca, and TS were within the range of the tabulated value [13,14], and most chemical compositions and physical properties were close to the values in previous literature [1519], indicating that our results were credible. However, bulk weight, 1,000 kernel weight and 1,000 kernel volume were not provided in tabulated value, the CP, Ash, and TP concentrations were lower than the tabulated value, and the content of CF, NDF, and ADF were higher than the tabulated value, which may be attributed to the incomplete shelling of paddy rice to obtain brown rice. This phenomenon was confirmed by the findings that a large number of hulls were not completely removed due to the inefficiency of sheller and the analyzed fiber (CF, NDF, and ADF) contents were relatively high in our study. The separation of different parts of grains during the milling process, might influence the physical and chemical properties of rice by-products [20]. Chen [21] pointed out that the quality of paddy rice is mainly related to varieties, starch content, storage, and environment. The nutrients of brown rice in this study are inconsistent with published data, which may be due to differences in paddy rice cultivation regions, periods, and environments. In addition, the variation of brown rice might result from processing and storage technology and different growth conditions, such as climate and soil conditions [22,23].
The AA and protein contents of brown rice varied greatly. The 10 brown rice samples were from different regions with multiple natural conditions in China, which provided an explanation for the deviation from uniformity. The analyzed CP and AA values in our study were close to the reported values in the database [16,24,25]. Lysine, Met, Thr, and Trp are the main limiting AAs in livestock and poultry, and play an irreplaceable role in pig growth [26]. He et al [27] analyzed and compared the AA content of 18 varieties of brown rice samples and found that the first, second and third limiting AA were Lys, Thr, and Ile when brown rice used in corn-brown rice-SBM fed to pigs. In our study, the content of Lys, Thr, and Ile in brown rice were similar to tabulated value [13,14].

SID of AA in brown rice

Diversified low-protein diets for swine production have been fully pushing ahead in China [28]. Accuracy estimation of AA availability in diets or feedstuffs is the basis for the comprehensive implementation of low-protein diets system. Standardized ileal digestibility of AA is recognized as the gold method for estimation of AA availability [11]. Lysine, Met, Thr, and Trp are the main limiting AA in poultry. In the study, the mean SID values of the Lys, Met, and Trp in brown rice samples were greater than those in the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [11]. Meanwhile, the analyzed SID of the Lys, Met, and Trp contents fell within the range of the reports by Li [24], Wu et al [25], and Zhang et al [29].

Correlation analysis and prediction equations for SID of AA in brown rice

The SID was calculated by correcting AID for the ileal basal endogenous losses and dietary composition, especially dietary protein, and fiber, is responsible for ileal basal endogenous CP and AA losses [30,31]. In the current study, the SIDThr was positively correlated with EE. The increase in dietary fat delayed gastric emptying [32], and the slower gastric emptying may result in slower rate of passage of the diet, causing an increase in the time of exposure of feed to proteolytic enzymes, thus providing longer time for peptides and AA to be digested and absorbed, and increase in AID of AA [33,34]. The addition of oil to diets fed to growing pigs increased not only the AID but also the SID of AA [35,36]. Imbeah and Sauer [37] concluded that the level of fat may affect ileal AA digestibility. Additionally, positive correlation trends between SIDLys or SIDThr and EE, and SIDTrp with DM and TS were observed. The release rate of glucose during the digestion process of feed starch from different sources varies, and the synchronization degree of glucose and AA supply varies. Therefore, the AA absorption of feed starch from different sources are also different [38]. The digestibility of starch also directly affects the absorption of AA in the intestine [38]. Also, we obtained that DM and GE are closely related in brown rice, and with the raise of DM, the GE and TP will also increase, and then affect the SID of AA [39]. Unfortunately, there is no literature specifically explaining the interaction between DM and SIDAA, nor the mechanism by which DM has a negative impact on CP and AA digestibility, which may be one of the questions that we need to explore in our subsequent experiments. Our findings suggest that EE, DM, and TS might be key predictors for SID of Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp.
The research on a prediction model of AA digestibility in brown rice for pigs is limited. Nutritional Requirements of Chinese Pigs [13] reported that CP was the key predictors to estimate the SID of the first four limiting AA in brown rice. Yu et al [40] found that there is no correlation between biomimetic digestion and biological measurements of Thr, histidine, arginine, and Cys. However, Liu et al [41] established a prediction equation for SIDLys, SIDMet, and SIDThr in sunflower seeds, showed a positive correlation between SIDLys and Met, and a negative correlation between SIDLys and Trp, the SIDMet was negatively correlated with EE and positively with Ca and Met, the SIDThr was positive with Met. Yun et al [42] established a prediction equation for SIDLys and SIDMet in wheat, showing a positive correlation between SIDLys, SIDMet, and NDF. In the present study, we selected 10 brown rice to do a similar study and got one prediction equation for SIDCP, two equations for SIDLys, one equation for SIDThr and two equations for SIDTrp, respectively. Meanwhile, the key predictors for the SID of CP and AA are DM, EE, 1,000-kernel volume, and TS. Until now, the prediction equations of SID of AA are not as applicable as the available energy in practice due to the complex factors, mainly including accurate assessment of endogenous nitrogen losses and determination of AA, and more effort and work are required for the future.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the physicochemical properties of 10 brown rice showed a huge difference. The SID of CP and the first four limiting AA could be estimated from the analyzed contents of EE, DM, 1,000-kernel volume and total starch.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

FUNDING

This study is supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program (2021YFD1300201), the Key Project of Science and Technology of Yunnan Province (202202AE090032), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2022JJ40532), the Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ISA2021103, ISA 2023201)

Table 1
Sources of brown rice
Sample numbers Sources
BR1 Yueyang city, Hunan
BR2 Guangde city, Anhui
BR3 Zhijiang city, Hubei
BR4 Liuzhou city, Guangxi
BR5 Zhumadian city, Henan
BR6 Jishou city, Hunan
BR7 Yongzhou city, Hunan
BR8 Jingde city, Jiangxi
BR9 Qiannan prefecture, Guizhou
BR10 Changsha city, Hunan

BR, Brown rice.

Table 2
Ingredients composition of experimental diet and nitrogen-free diet (air-dry basis, %)
Items Experimental diet Nitrogen-free diet
Corn starch 42.90 78.90
Brown rice 40.00 -
Soybean oil 3.00 3.00
Cellulose acetate - 4.00
Sucrose 10.00 10.00
Limestone 0.50 0.50
Calcium phosphite (Ca(H2PO4)2) 1.90 1.90
Chromium oxide (Cr2O3) 0.30 0.30
Sodium chloride (NaCl) 0.40 0.40
Potassium carbonate (K2CO3) 0.40 0.40
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 0.10 0.10
Vitamin and mineral premix1) 0.50 0.50
Total 100.00 100.00

1) The vitamin and mineral premix provided the following per kg of diets: vitamin A 4,200 IU, vitamin D3 400 IU, vitamin E 36 IU, vitamin K3 1.2 mg, vitamin B12 23 μg, vitamin B2 5.63 mg, vitamin B5 20.5 mg, vitamin B3 28 mg, choline chloride 1.00 g, folic acid 0.8 mg, vitamin B1 3.4 mg, vitamin B6 2.7 mg, vitamin H 0.18 mg, Mn (as manganese sulfate) 40.0 mg, Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 70.0 mg, Zn (as copper sulfate) 70 mg, I (as potassium iodide) 0.3 mg, Se (as sodium selenite) 0.3 mg.

Table 3
Analyzed chemical composition of experiment diets (air-dry basis, %)
Items Brown rice diet Mean CV (%) N-free diet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DM (%) 89.71 89.46 89.23 88.84 89.29 89.46 89.11 89.28 89.52 89.57 89.35 0.281 90.21
CP (%) 3.01 2.59 3.31 4.24 4.60 4.35 4.96 2.80 3.07 2.80 3.57 24.39 0.51
Essential amino acids (%)
 Arginine 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.35 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.26 27.13 0.03
 Histidine 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.12 28.03 -
 Isoleucine 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15 26.76 -
 Leucine 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.32 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.30 24.90 0.03
 Lysine 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.20 36.56 0.03
 Methionine 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.05 39.03 -
 Phenylalanine 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.23 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.20 26.78 0.02
 Threonine 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.13 27.91 0.03
 Tryptophan 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 19.69 0.02
 Valine 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.19 23.68 0.02
Non-essential amino acids (%)
 Alanine 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.21 18.85 0.03
 Aspartate 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.38 0.50 0.47 0.51 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.36 28.69 0.03
 Cystine 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 60.82 -
 Glutamine 0.60 0.59 0.52 0.78 0.99 0.94 0.95 0.55 0.67 0.58 0.72 25.58 0.06
 Glycine 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.17 24.17 0.02
 Proline 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.18 0.23 0.18 0.22 27.14 0.06
 Serine 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.15 28.32 0.02
 Tyrosine 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 28.26 0.03

CV, coefficient of variation; DM, dry matter; CP, crude protein.

Table 4
Analyzed chemical composition, physical characteristics of 10 brown rice samples (air-dry basis, %)
Items Brown rice number Mean CV (%)

BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 BR6 BR7 BR8 BR9 BR10
DM 88.40 87.22 86.82 87.75 87.11 87.99 87.52 87.26 86.40 87.42 87.39 0.66
GE (MJ/kg) 15.90 15.18 15.15 15.95 15.37 15.64 15.71 15.28 15.07 14.98 15.42 2.28
CP 6.63 6.30 5.34 8.39 8.05 5.90 6.37 7.11 6.64 6.55 6.73 13.68
EE 2.62 2.41 1.10 2.08 1.50 1.65 1.32 2.77 1.64 2.59 1.97 30.63
Ash 1.22 1.09 1.05 1.00 1.29 1.14 0.95 1.13 0.87 0.87 1.06 13.41
CF 0.85 0.82 0.60 1.26 1.19 0.90 0.98 1.53 0.85 0.20 0.92 39.90
NDF 4.46 4.00 4.49 5.00 4.22 5.09 7.21 9.58 4.17 2.17 5.04 40.05
ADF 1.71 1.87 1.46 1.09 1.76 2.08 1.04 2.49 1.82 0.74 1.61 32.85
Ca 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 34.76
TP 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.17 11.39
Total starch 69.38 69.01 75.01 58.36 56.76 69.00 66.22 76.38 72.77 77.94 69.08 10.30
Bulk weight (kg/L) 0.77 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.76 1.73
Thousand -kernel weight (g/kg kernel) 18.3 21.4 21.0 14.6 18.8 24.4 19.7 20.2 25.8 21.0 20.5 15.3
Thousand -kernel volume (mL/1,000 grain) 22.6 26.0 27.0 19.9 24.7 32.0 25.9 24.5 22.1 27.5 25.2 13.3
Essential amino acids (%)
 Arginine 0.57 0.40 0.44 0.55 0.57 0.47 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.39 0.48 14.28
 Histidine 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.34 0.20 0.21 0.17 0.23 20.47
 Isoleucine 0.31 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.25 0.63 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.30 39.66
 Leucine 0.60 0.47 0.52 0.62 0.65 0.52 0.11 0.49 0.53 0.44 0.50 30.35
 Lysine 0.35 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.34 0.49 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.34 19.77
 Methionine 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.26 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.14 37.30
 Phenylalanine 0.44 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.46 0.37 0.43 0.35 0.37 0.31 0.39 13.27
 Threonine 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.24 15.67
 Tryptophan 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 16.60
 Valine 0.41 0.32 0.36 0.42 0.43 0.36 0.49 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.38 14.37
Non-essential amino acids (%)
 Alanine 0.43 0.34 0.38 0.44 0.46 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.40 12.57
 Aspartate 0.68 0.53 0.60 0.69 0.74 0.60 0.97 0.59 0.58 0.50 0.65 20.80
 Cystine 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 28.65
 Glutamine 1.38 1.10 1.21 1.46 1.50 1.21 1.62 1.10 1.23 0.98 1.28 15.97
 Glycine 0.35 0.28 0.30 0.34 0.37 0.30 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.32 14.45
 Proline 0.36 0.29 0.34 0.39 0.37 0.33 0.40 0.32 0.30 0.26 0.34 13.72
 Serine 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.22 0.29 15.57
 Tyrosine 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.14 26.70

BR, brown rice; CV, coefficient of variation; DM, dry matter; GE, gross energy; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; Ash, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; Ca, calcium; TP, total phosphorus.

Table 5
Apparent ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP) and amino acids in brown rice fed to growing-finishing pigs (%)
Items Brown rice SEM p-value

BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 BR6 BR7 BR8 BR9 BR10
CP (%) 33.1bc 32.7b 33.0bc 32.8a 34.0bc 51.7a 54.6a 30.0bc 20.0c 30.9bc 3.71 <0.001
Essential amino acids (%)
 Arginine 38.8abc 31.6bc 26.0c 40.7ab 35.5abc 39.8abc 39.9a 38.4abc 31.0bc 39.6abc 1.50 0.044
 Histidine 68.3bc 67.4bcd 61.2de 69.7ab 73.9ab 80.8a 78.5ab 64.8cd 56.3e 67.8bcd 2.24 <0.001
 Isoleucine 63.4d 73.5ab 66.8bc 75.0a 73.4ab 78.5a 76.9ab 72.1ab 64.4cd 73.9ab 1.55 <0.001
 Leucine 77.9bcd 77.7abc 72.4d 79.0a 78.0abc 82.8a 79.9ab 77.1abcd 74.4cd 81.3a 0.92 <0.001
 Lysine 63.1cd 60.2cd 52.5de 64.9abc 67.0abc 73.9a 73.8a 63.4bc 49.7e 68.1abc 2.39 <0.001
 Methionine 59.1c 87.0a 77.5ab 71.6b 78.1ab 81.3ab 69.6b 70.9b 57.0c 87.0a 3.11 <0.001
 Phenylalanine 79.4bc 82.4abc 75.9bc 80.6bc 79.3abc 85.5ac 84.1a 80.3ab 77.3bc 79.1ab 0.89 <0.001
 Threonine 36.4b 32.1b 25.4b 32.3ab 29.8ab 27.4b 44.4ab 45.2ab 40.7ab 47.0a 2.35 0.042
 Tryptophan 79.5ab 72.3c 74.2c 74.1bc 71.8c 80.9a 81.3a 80.6a 68.6d 78.8ab 1.35 <0.001
 Valine 65.6d 66.8abc 64.5bcd 76.2a 71.6abc 77.7ab 75.4ab 68.7bcd 65.5cd 73.8ab 1.49 <0.001
Non-essential amino acids (%)
 Alanine 52.4abc 41.8bc 44.0c 56.2a 43.2c 56.7a 56.6a 51.0abc 36.4c 57.2ab 2.28 <0.001
 Aspartate 61.9cd 63.1de 56.0e 66.5ab 64.9abcd 72.3a 72.0abc 62.7bcd 54.9de 69.7abc 1.80 <0.001
 Cystine 43.0 29.5 40.3 46.3 27.8 52.7 46.8 44.2 28.3 55.6 2.98 0.066
 Glutamine 77.0bc 74.7bc 71.4d 77.5a 74.5bc 80.5a 79.6abc 77.1abc 75.3c 79.8ab 0.85 <0.001
 Glycine 54.0b 47.6c 42.9bc 70.7a 56.5b 74.9a 75.1a 48.3bc 41.4bc 54.4b 3.82 <0.001
 Proline 41.6bc 38.7c 34.0c 54.6ab 38.9bc 67.3a 58.6a 60.7bc 31.4c 42.8bc 3.56 <0.001
 Serine 52.0bc 38.9cd 20.3e 59.8ab 51.8bc 67.9a 59.0ab 37.1d 39.0cd 54.2ab 4.21 <0.001
 Tyrosine 38.0bc 51.9ab 37.7bc 31.7c 35.2bc 41.8bc 31.0c 47.2abc 49.1bc 62.8a 3.02 0.015

BR, brown rice; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–e Means in the same row with common letters are not different at p<0.05.

Table 6
Standardlized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) in brown rice fed to growing-finishing pigs (%)
Items Brown rice SEM p-value

BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 BR6 BR7 BR8 BR9 BR10
CP (%) 78.4ab 85.3a 73.9bc 77.7ab 65.7c 85.5a 83.9ab 79.4ab 62.6c 79.5ab 2.34 <0.001
Essential amino acids (%)
 Arginine 86.1 77.3 72.0 82.3 70.6 78.6 79.1 90.1 75.4 79.5 1.79 0.125
 Histidine 84.5a 86.7ab 82.4bc 85.9a 88.5ab 93.3a 90.7ab 86.2ab 76.2c 89.7ab 1.43 <0.001
 Isoleucine 83.8d 95.0c 87.8bcd 92.7ab 85.9cd 92.9abc 90.3abc 94.0abc 86.7d 93.0a 1.17 <0.001
 Leucine 93.1bcd 93.4abcd 87.3d 90.9ab 87.3cd 92.6abc 89.6abcd 93.5abcd 88.8d 93.3a 0.77 <0.001
 Lysine 84.3abc 90.7abc 81.2cd 87.6ab 82.6bcd 92.5abc 88.5abc 94.3a 80.3d 93.1a 1.54 <0.001
 Methionine 78.9b 96.7a 89.0ab 88.9ab 86.2ab 89.9ab 86.5b 94.0ab 83.1b 98.9a 1.83 0.024
 Phenylalanine 93.4 98.1 91.4 91.9 90.7 95.7 93.7 95.7 91.5 94.1 0.71 0.079
 Threonine 56.5bc 49.7bc 46.1c 50.6bc 48.6bc 53.2c 55.5abc 67.6ab 58.5abc 67.1a 2.21 0.014
 Tryptophan 95.7a 89.9bc 94.2ab 91.1ab 86.3c 96.3a 92.9ab 96.0a 87.2c 95.8a 1.13 <0.01
 Valine 86.5c 90.4ab 87.5abc 93.4a 85.5bc 92.6ab 90.2abc 92.7abc 87.3c 91.6a 0.86 0.010
Non-essential amino acids (%)
 Alanine 95.2ab 84.0abc 85.7bc 94.0ab 71.0d 90.0abc 89.4abc 94.0ab 76.6cd 100.2a 2.68 <0.001
 Aspartate 84.7abcd 86.9abcd 82.6cd 89.4ab 81.9d 90.5abc 88.7bcd 95.2ab 84.9cd 94.4a 1.38 <0.001
 Cystine 62.1 55.8 62.5 73.5 69.5 65.0 64.2 77.5 65.9 79.6 2.23 0.277
 Glutamine 92.7bc 92.5bc 87.2cd 91.0ab 87.3d 91.8abc 90.6bcd 96.4ab 90.9bcd 95.9a 0.91 <0.001
 Glycine 74.1abc 66.9bc 63.7c 86.1a 68.6bc 87.8a 87.7a 69.9bc 60.4bc 74.8ab 3.02 <0.001
 Proline 70.2ab 71.1ab 71.1ab 79.3a 75.1b 84.9a 84.4a 79.2ab 58.0b 72.0ab 2.39 0.013
 Serine 89.4a 88.5abc 80.7c 87.7a 81.9bc 96.7a 88.2abc 95.9ab 82.8c 93.6a 1.69 <0.001
 Tyrosine 68.9bcd 84.6ab 74.8abcd 55.1d 65.7d 62.2cd 55.4d 86.9abc 72.4bcd 90.5a 3.79 <0.001

BR, brown rice; SEM, standard error of the mean.

Values for SID were calculated by correcting the apparent ileal digestibility values with the basal endogenous losses (IAA end). IAA end (g/kg dry matter intake) averaged as CP, 16.72; Arg, 1.11; His, 0.24; Ile, 0.31; Leu, 0.44; Lys, 0.53; Met, 0.08; Phe, 0.30; Thr, 0.24; Trp, 0.09; Val, 0.42; Ala, 0.86; Asp, 0.98; Cys, 0.08; Glu,1.21; Gly, 0.32; Pro, 0.59; Ser, 0.69; Tyr, 0.22.

a–e Means in the same row with common letter, are not different at p<0.05.

Table 7
Correlation coefficients (r) among physical characteristics, chemical constituents and the standardlized ileal digestibility (SID) of the first four limiting amino acids of the 10 brown rice samples
Items SIDCP1) SIDLys SIDMet SIDThr SIDTrp Gross energy Dry matter Crude protein Ether extract Crude ash Crude fiber Neutral detergent fiber Acid detergent fiber Calcium Total phosphorus Total starch Bulk weight Thousand -kernel weight
SIDLys 0.774**
SIDMet 0.452 0.723*
SIDThr 0.099 0.538 0.297
SIDTrp 0.664* 0.579 0.236 0.433
Gross energy 0.164 −0.025 −0.452 −0.273 0.167
Dry matter 0.624 0.402 −0.163 0.051 0.582 0.743*
Crude protein −0.325 −0.021 −0.108 0.040 −0.454 0.425 0.101
Ether extract 0.322 0.578 0.349 0.641* 0.361 0.197 0.391 0.248
Crude ash 0.020 −0.067 −0.272 −0.356 −0.008 0.499 0.390 0.206 0.076
Crude fiber 0.215 0.219 −0.244 −0.078 −0.020 0.352 0.239 0.302 −0.177 0.343
Neutral detergent fiber 0.235 0.315 −0.053 0.262 0.250 0.072 0.059 0.097 0.067 0.191 0.794**
Acid detergent fiber −0.062 0.083 −0.104 0.044 −0.014 0.119 −0.083 −0.067 0.174 0.564 0.430 0.494
Calcium 0.170 0.260 −0.187 0.049 0.331 0.455 0.495 −0.009 0.091 0.686* 0.463 0.252 0.621
 Total phosphorus 0.590 0.097 −0.183 −0.352 0.244 0.388 0.667* −0.124 0.116 0.454 0.141 0.046 −0.114 0.090
Total starch 0.159 0.274 0.364 0.602 0.565 −0.536 −0.224 −0.685* 0.301 −0.418 −0.456 0.042 0.116 −0.108 −0.287
Bulk weight −0.281 −0.110 −0.491 0.388 0.306 0.159 0.066 −0.038 −0.059 0.195 0.405 0.533 0.468 0.556 −0.314 0.227
Thousand -kernel weight −0.137 −0.030 0.072 0.181 −0.027 −0.553 −0.451 −0.641* −0.221 −0.278 −0.158 −0.128 0.364 0.174 −0.458 0.554 0.229
Thousand -kernel volume 0.470 0.426 0.415 −0.009 0.449 −0.309 0.107 −0.660* −0.220 0.085 −0.018 −0.081 0.118 0.455 0.054 0.345 0.007 0.535

1) CP, crude protein; AA, amino acid; Lys, Lysine; Thr, Threonine; Met, methionine; Trp, Tryptophan; SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDMet, SIDThr, and SIDTrp, SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp, respectively.

* Means significant difference (p<0.05);

** means extremely significant difference (p<0.01).

Table 8
Stepwise regression equations for SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp based upon the chemical characteristics of the 10 brown rice samples (air-dry basis, %)
Items Prediction equations RSD R2 p-value
SIDCP SIDCP = −664.181+8.484×DM 6.46 0.40 0.05
SIDLys SIDLys =77.794+4.939×EE 4.46 0.33 0.08
SIDLys SIDLys = 53.126+6.031×EE+0.893×Thousand-kernel volume 3.43 0.66 <0.05
SIDThr SIDThr = 39.916+7.843×EE 5.99 0.41 <0.05
SIDTrp SIDTrp = −240.795+3.814×DM 3.24 0.34 0.08
SIDTrp SIDTrp = −361.588+4.891×DM+0.387×Total starch 1.66 0.85 <0.01

SID, standardized ileal digestibility; CP, crude protein; Lys, Lysine; Thr, Threonine; Trp, Tryptophan; RSD, relative standard deviation; R2, R-square; DM, dry matter; EE, ether extract.

p<0.05 means significant difference; p<0.01 means extremely significant difference.

REFERENCES

1. Yang G, Li R, Feng GY, et al. Evaluation and prediction model establishment of digestible energy and metabolizable energy of cassava for growing-finishing pigs. Chinese J Anim Nutr 2022; 34:1486–94.

2. Piao XS, Li DF, Han IK, et al. Evaluation of chinese brown rice as an alternative energy source in pig diets. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002; 15:89–93. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.89
crossref
3. Peña-Rosas JP, Mithra P, Unnikrishnan B, et al. Fortification of rice with vitamins and minerals for addressing micronutrient malnutrition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10:CD009902 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009902.pub2
crossref
4. Naveed A, Zubair M, Baig A, et al. Effect of storage on the nutritional and antioxidant properties of brown basmati rice. Food Sci Nutr 2022; 11:2086–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2962
crossref pmid pmc
5. Nawaz MA, Fukai S, Prakash S, Bhandari B. Effect of soaking medium on the physicochemical properties of parboiled glutinous rice of selected Laotian cultivars. Int J Food Prop 2018; 21:1896–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2018.1503301
crossref
6. Li MC, Ren A. Nutritional and digestive characteristics of brown rice and its advance on application of growing-finishing pigs. Feed Rev 2022; 1:16–32.

7. Li R, Hou GF, Song ZH, et al. Nutritional value of enzyme-treated soybean meal, concentrated degossypolized cottonseed protein, dried porcine solubles and fish meal for 10-to-20 kg pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2019; 252:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.04.002
crossref
8. Stein HH, Shipley CF, Easter RA. Technical note: a technique for inserting a T-cannula into the distal ileum of pregnant sows. J Anim Sci 1998; 76:1433–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7651433x
crossref pmid
9. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th edWashington, DC, USA: National Academies Press; 2012.

10. Adeola O. Digestion and balance techniques in pigs. Lewis DJ, Southern LL, editorsSwine Nutrition. 2nd edBoca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2001. p. 903–16. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420041842.ch40
crossref
11. Stein HH, Sève B, Fuller MF, Moughan PJ, de Lange CFM. Invited review: amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: terminology and application. J Anim Sci 2007; 85:172–80. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-742
crossref pmid
12. Horwitz W, Latimer GW. AOAC International Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th edGaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2005.

13. Li DF. Nutrient requirements of swine in China. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 2020.

14. China Feed Database. Chinese feed composition and nutritive value table. 31st edHangzhou, China: China Food Regulatory Database; 2020.

15. Li D, Zhang DF, Piao XS, et al. Effects of replacing corn with Chinese brown rice on growth performance and apparent fecal digestibility of nutrients in weanling pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002; 15:1191–7. https://doi.org/10.5713/AJAS.2002.1191
crossref
16. Casas GA, Stein HH. Effects of microbial xylanase on digestibility of dry matter, organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, and energy and the concentrations of digestible and metabolizable energy in rice coproducts fed to weanling pigs. J Anim Sci 2016; 94:1933–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-0064
crossref pmid
17. Robles A, Ewan RC. Utilization of energy of rice and rice bran by young pigs. J Anim Sci 1982; 55:572–7. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1982.553572x
crossref
18. Cervantes-Pahm SK, Liu YH, Stein HH. Comparative digestibility of energy and nutrients and fermentability of dietary fiber in eight cereal grains fed to pigs. J Sci Food Agric 2014; 94:841–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6316
crossref pmid
19. Liu KL, Wang LM, Bu GH. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis of brown rice based on the physical characteristics. Cereals Oils 2014; 27:56–60.

20. Casas GA, Lærke HN, Knudsen KEB, Stein HH. Arabinoxylan is the main polysaccharide in fiber from rice coproducts, and increased concentration of fiber decreases in vitro digestibility of dry matter. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2019; 247:255–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.11.017
crossref
21. Chen DT. Studies on main nutrient and available energy of rice protein for swine [Doctor’s thesis]. Hunan, China: Hunan Agricultural university; 2015.

22. Wu SB. Evaluation of energy concentration and amino acid digestibility of feed rice and brown ricr growing pigs [Master’s thesis]. Hunan, China: Hunan Agricultural University; 2020.

23. Samuel M, Coradi PC, Maldaner V, et al. Drying and intermittence processes on the polished and brown rice physicochemical and morphological quality by near-infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and scanning electron microscopy. Food Chem: X 2023; 19:100753 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100753
crossref pmid pmc
24. Li CX. Study on Determination of amino acids digestibility of feed ingredients based on simulated gastrointestinal digestion process for growing pigs [Master’s thesis]. Inner Mongolia, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University; 2022.

25. Wu SB, Duan JQ, Xiao J, et al. Evaluation of available energy and amino acid digestibility of different varieties of feed rice brown rice for growing pigs. Chinese J Anim Nutr 2020; 32:5636–45.

26. Zhu PJ, Zhao QF, Yuan WJ. Effects of supplementing limiting acids in low crude protein diets on growth performance of broilers. China Feed 2023; 18:79–82. https://doi.org/10.15906/j.cnki.cn11-2975/s.20231819
crossref
27. He JH, Xu QG, Huang MH, Hong J, Shuyuan Z. Nutritional characteristics of feeder rice grain and brown rice. Chin J Rice Sci 2000; 04:229–32. https://doi.org/10.16819/j.1001-7216.2000.04.008
crossref
28. Qiao SY. Promoting of grain conservation-great reduction potential of corn and soybean meal. Beijing, China: Farmers Daily (Nongmin Ribao); 2022.

29. Zhang SR, Zhou HL, Tian KX. Comparative determination of ileal terminal amino acid digestibility of different types of grain feed in pigs. Feed Industr 2001; 9:34–5.

30. Fan MZ, Sauer WC. Determination of true ileal amino acid digestibility and the endogenous amino acid outputs associated with barley samples for growing-finishing pigs by the regression analysis technique. J Anim Sci 2002; 80:1593–605. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8061593x
crossref pmid
31. Spindler HK, Mosenthin R, Rosenfelder P, Jørgensen H, Bach Knudsen KE, Eklund M. Determination of basal ileal endogenous losses and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in barley fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2016; 7:56 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-016-0115-7
crossref pmid pmc
32. Hunt JN, Knox MT. A relation between the chain length of fatty acids and the slowing of gastric emptying. J Physiol 1968; 194:327–36. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008411
crossref pmid pmc
33. Huang BB, Huang CF, Lyu ZQ, et al. Available energy and amino acid digestibility of defatted rice bran fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2018; 96:3138–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky191
crossref pmid pmc
34. Li S, Sauer WC. The effect of dietary fat content on amino acid digestibility in young pigs. J Anim Sci 1994; 72:1737–43. https://doi.org/10.2527/1994.7271737x
crossref pmid
35. Cervantes-Pahm SK, Stein HH. Effect of dietary soybean oil and soybean protein concentration on the concentration of digestible amino acids in soybean products fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2008; 86:1841–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0721
crossref pmid
36. Kil DY, Stein HH. Dietary soybean oil and choice white grease improve apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in swine diets containing corn, soybean meal, and distillers dried grains with solubles. Rev Colomb Cienc 2011; 24:248–53.

37. Imbeah M, Sauer WC. The effect of dietary level of fat on amino acid digestibilities in soybean meal and canola meal and on rate of passage in growing pigs. Livest Prod Sci 1991; 29:227–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(91)90068-2
crossref
38. Dai QZ. The effect of dietary starch source on ileum digestibility, net portal absorption and pattern of amino acid in growing pigs [Master’s thesis]. Sichuang, China: Sichuang Agricultural University; 2004.

39. Xue PC, Ragland D, Adeola O. Influence of dietary crude protein and phosphorus on ileal digestion of phosphorus and amino acids in growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2017; 95:2071–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1293
crossref pmid
40. Yu Y. Study on determination of the digestibility of amino acid in grain and by-products based on simulating the protein digestion pross in roosters [Master’s thesis]. Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Dissertation; 2021.

41. Liu JD, Li QY, Zeng ZK, et al. Determination and prediction of the amino Acid digestibility of sunflower seed meals in growing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015; 28:86–94. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0109
crossref pmid pmc
42. Yun XL, Liu XB, Cheng ZC, et al. Determination and prediction of standardized ileal amino acid digestibility of wheat in broilers. Poult Sci 2023; 102:102383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102383
crossref pmid


Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : editor@animbiosci.org               

Copyright © 2024 by Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next