The Impact of Producing Type and Dietary Crude Protein on Animal Performances and Microbiota Together with Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Growing Pigs
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals, Diets, Experimental Design, and Sampling Procedure
2.2. Laboratorial Analyses and Calculations
2.2.1. Chemical Composition
2.2.2. Chromium Detection
2.2.3. DNA Extraction and NGS
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Diet Composition
3.2. Performance Parameters
3.3. Coefficient of Total Tract Apparent Digestibility (CTTAD) of the Nutrients
3.4. Gas Emissions
3.5. Fecal Microbial Characterization
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Diet
4.2. Effect of Genotype
4.3. Use of Fecal Microbiota as Biomarker for Feed Efficiency
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Portejoie, S.; Dourmad, J.Y.; Martinez, J.; Lebreton, Y. Effect of lowering dietary crude protein on nitrogen excretion, manure composition and ammonia emission from fattening pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2004, 91, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive. Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.344.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L (accessed on 23 September 2020).
- Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.J.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; De haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006; Volume 24. [Google Scholar]
- Galassi, G.; Colombini, S.; Malagutti, L.; Crovetto, G.M.; Rapetti, L. Effects of high fibre and low protein diets on performance, digestibility, nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission in the heavy pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 161, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osada, T.; Takada, R.; Shinzato, I. Potential reduction of greenhouse gas emission from swine manure by using a low-protein diet supplemented with synthetic amino acids. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quiniou, N.; Primot, Y.; Peyronnet, C.; Quinsac, A. Interest of using synthetic amino acids, including l-valine, for formulating low crude protein pig diets based on rapeseed meal. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, Stavanger, Norway, 29 August–2 September 2011; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Ogino, A.; Osada, T.; Takada, R.; Takagi, T.; Tsujimoto, S.; Tonoue, T.; Matsui, D.; Katsumata, M.; Yamashita, T.; Tanaka, Y. Life cycle assessment of Japanese pig farming using low-protein diet supplemented with amino acids. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 59, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strid Eriksson, I.; Elmquist, H.; Stern, S.; Nybrant, T. Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production—The Impact of Feed Choice (12 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Asses. 2005, 10, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaskins, H.R. Intestinal bacteria and their influence on swine growth. In Swine nutrition; Lewis, A.J., Southern, L.L., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; p. 1032. [Google Scholar]
- McCormack, U.M.; Curião, T.; Buzoianu, S.G.; Prieto, M.L.; Ryan, T.; Varley, P.; Crispie, F.; Magowan, E.; Metzler-Zebeli, B.U.; Berry, D.; et al. Exploring a Possible Link between the Intestinal Microbiota and Feed Efficiency in Pigs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e00380-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FEDNA. Normas FEDNA para la formulación de piensos compuestos. In Fundación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal; de Blas, C., Mateos, G.G., Rebollar, P.G., Eds.; Fundación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal: Madrid, Spain, 2016. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Morazán, H.; Alvarez-Rodriguez, J.; Seradj, A.R.; Balcells, J.; Babot, D. Trade-offs among growth performance, nutrient digestion and carcass traits when feeding low protein and/or high neutral-detergent fiber diets to growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 207, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AMCA. Field Performance Measurement of Fan Systems; Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc.: Arlington Heights, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Seradj, A.R.; Balcells, J.; Morazan, H.; Alvarez-Rodriguez, J.; Babot, D.; De la Fuente, G. The impact of reducing dietary crude protein and increasing total dietary fiber on hindgut fermentation, the methanogen community and gas emission in growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 245, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cao, Z.; Gong, Y.L.; Liao, X.D.; Liang, J.B.; Yu, B.; Wu, Y.B. Effect of dietary fiber on methane production in Chinese Lantang gilts. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analyses: (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications); Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
- de Vega, A.; Poppi, D.P. Extent of digestion and rumen condition as factors affecting passage of liquid and digesta particles in sheep. J. Agric. Sci. 1997, 128, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgar, R.C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 996–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pareja-Tobes, P.; Manrique, M.; Pareja-Tobes, E.; Pareja, E.; Tobes, R. BG7: A New Approach for Bacterial Genome Annotation Designed for Next Generation Sequencing Data. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shannon, C.E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell. Sys. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 623–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, E.H. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodwell, G.M. Radiation and the Patterns of Nature. Science 1967, 156, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carter, S.D.; Cromwell, G.L.; Lindemann, M.D.; Turner, L.W.; Bridges, T.C. Reducing N and P excretion by dietary manipulation in growing and finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 59. [Google Scholar]
- Hobbs, P.J.; Pain, B.F.; Kay, R.M.; Lee, P.A. Reduction of Odorous Compounds in Fresh Pig Slurry by Dietary Control of Crude Protein. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1996, 71, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shriver, J.A.; Carter, S.D.; Sutton, A.L.; Richert, B.T.; Senne, B.W.; Pettey, L.A. Effects of adding fiber sources to reduced-crude protein, amino acid-supplemented diets on nitrogen excretion, growth performance, and carcass traits of finishing pigs12. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sutton, A.L.; Kephart, K.B.; Verstegen, M.W.A.; Canh, T.T.; Hobbs, P.J. Potential for reduction of odorous compounds in swine manure through diet modification3. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, J.D.; Nute, G.R.; Richardson, R.I.; Whittington, F.M.; Southwood, O.; Plastow, G.; Mansbridge, R.; da Costa, N.; Chang, K.C. Effects of breed, diet and muscle on fat deposition and eating quality in pigs. Meat Sci. 2004, 67, 651–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.; Fang, L.; Sun, Y.; Su, Y.; Zhu, W. Effects of the dietary protein level on the microbial composition and metabolomic profile in the hindgut of the pig. Anaerobe 2016, 38, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayashi, H.; Sakamoto, M.; Kitahara, M.; Benno, Y. Diversity of the Clostridium coccoides group in human fecal microbiota as determined by 16S rRNA gene library. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 257, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernalier, A.; Lelait, M.; Rochet, V.; Grivet, J.-P.; Gibson, G.R.; Durand, M. Acetogenesis from H2 and CO2 by methane- and non-methane-producing human colonic bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 1996, 19, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozupone, C.A.; Stombaugh, J.I.; Gordon, J.I.; Jansson, J.K.; Knight, R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 2012, 489, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sonnenburg, J.L.; Bäckhed, F. Diet-microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature 2016, 535, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommer, F.; Anderson, J.M.; Bharti, R.; Raes, J.; Rosenstiel, P. The resilience of the intestinal microbiota influences health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2017, 15, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de la Fuente, G.; Jones, E.; Jones, S.; Newbold, C.J. Functional Resilience and Response to a Dietary Additive (Kefir) in Models of Foregut and Hindgut Microbial Fermentation In Vitro. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Holman, D.B.; Brunelle, B.W.; Trachsel, J.; Allen, H.K. Meta-analysis To Define a Core Microbiota in the Swine Gut. mSystems 2017, 2, e00004–00017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de la Fuente, G.; Yañez-Ruiz, D.R.; Seradj, A.R.; Balcells, J.; Belanche, A. Methanogenesis in animals with foregut and hindgut fermentation: A review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 2109–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.H.; Su, Y.; Wright, A.G.; Zhang, L.; Smidt, H.; Zhu, W. Lean Breed Landrace Pigs Harbor Fecal Methanogens at Higher Diversity and Density than Obese Breed Erhualian Pigs. Archaea 2012, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Xia, X.; Tang, R.; Zhou, J.; Zhao, H.; Wang, K. Development of a real-time PCR method for Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes in feces and its application to quantify intestinal population of obese and lean pig. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 47, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ley, R.E.; Turnbaugh, P.J.; Klein, S.; Gordon, J.I. Human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 2006, 444, 1022–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ley, R.E.; Mahowald, M.A.; Magrini, V.; Mardis, E.R.; Gordon, J.I. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006, 444, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouchi, N.; Parker, J.L.; Lugus, J.J.; Walsh, K. Adipokines in inflammation and metabolic disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 11, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarri, L.; De la Fuente, G.; Seradj, A.R.; Estany, J.; Pena, R.N.; Balcells, J.; Tor, M. Determination of the real ∆9-desaturase activity in Duroc pigs by adding deuterated stearic acid in the diet. In Proceedings of the XVIII Jornadas Sobre Producción Animal, Zaragoza, Spain, 7–8 May 2019; pp. 272–274. [Google Scholar]
- Kostic, A.D.; Howitt, M.R.; Garrett, W.S. Exploring host–microbiota interactions in animal models and humans. Genes Dev. 2013, 27, 701–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hutchens, L.K.; Hintz, R.L.; Johnson, R.K. Breed Comparisons for Age and Weight at Puberty in Gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 1982, 55, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzler-Zebeli, B.U.; Lawlor, P.G.; Magowan, E.; Zebeli, Q. Interactions between metabolically active bacteria and host gene expression at the cecal mucosa in pigs of diverging feed efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 2249–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verschuren, L.; Calus, M.; Jansman, A.; Bergsma, R.; Knol, E.; Gilbert, H.; Zemb, O. Fecal microbial composition associated with variation in feed efficiency in pigs depends on diet and sex1. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1405–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Huang, X.; Fang, S.; He, M.; Zhao, Y.; Wu, Z.; Yang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, C.; Huang, L. Unraveling the Fecal Microbiota and Metagenomic Functional Capacity Associated with Feed Efficiency in Pigs. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serino, M.; Luche, E.; Grès, S.; Baylac, A.; Bergé, M.; Cénac, C.; Waget, A.; Klopp, P.; Iacovoni, J.; Klopp, C.; et al. Metabolic adaptation to a high-fat diet is associated with a change in the gut microbiota. Gut 2011, 61, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ingredients | Feeding Phase b | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | ||||
LP c | NP c | LP | NP | LP | NP | |
Barley | 181.6 | 144.4 | 380.0 | 120.0 | 216.7 | 150.0 |
Wheat | 400.0 | 400.0 | - | 300.0 | 200.0 | 200.0 |
Triticale | 54.8 | 32.1 | - | 100.0 | - | 121.1 |
Maize | 100.0 | 100.0 | 273.9 | 98.4 | 250.0 | 117.1 |
Bakery byproducts | 60.0 | 60.0 | 120.0 | 100.0 | 110.0 | 110.0 |
Rapeseed meal 00 | - | - | - | 100.0 | 36.7 | 100.0 |
Soybean meal 47% CP | 71.0 | 133.1 | 118.3 | 79.6 | 11.3 | 23.6 |
Sunflower meal | - | - | - | - | 60.0 | 56.7 |
Enersoy 3600 | 50.0 | 50.0 | - | - | - | - |
Rice b | - | - | 36.4 | 50.0 | 60.0 | 60.0 |
Sugar beet pulp | 30.0 | 30.0 | 8.0 | - | - | - |
Soybean oil | 10.9 | 14.0 | - | - | - | - |
Blended animal fat 3/5 acidity | - | - | 14.6 | 19.0 | 15.1 | 28.5 |
Calcium carbonate | 12.1 | 12.0 | 13.0 | 10.1 | 10.7 | 9.9 |
Monocalcium phosphate | 6.8 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 3.4 | 2.3 |
Sepiolite | - | - | 6.1 | - | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Vitamin-mineral premix a | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 |
Sodium bicarbonate | - | - | 3.2 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 0.5 |
Sodium chloride | 3.8 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.9 |
L-lysine, CP 50% | 10.0 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 5.9 | 8.4 | 6.1 |
DL-Methionine, 88% | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
L-Valine | - | - | - | - | 0.3 | - |
L-Threonine | 2.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.9 |
L-Tryptophan | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
SNutrients | Feeding Phase d | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | ||||
LP c | NP c | LP | NP | LP | NP | |
Calculated Values a | ||||||
ME (MJ/kg) | 13.3 | 13.5 | 13.0 | 13.2 | 13.0 | 13.2 |
SID Lysine | 10.2 | 10.1 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 7.6 | 7.6 |
SID Lysine/ME (g/MJ) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
SID Methionine | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.3 |
SID Methionine + cysteine | 6.4 | 6.3 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 4.8 |
SID Threonine | 6.5 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
SID Tryptophan | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
SID Isoleucine | 4.9 | 5.9 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 4.5 |
SID Valine | 5.7 | 6.7 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 |
Analyzed Values (g/kg) b | ||||||
DM | 889.5 | 892.5 | 875.8 | 877.4 | 879.3 | 881.5 |
CP | 153.0 | 173.0 | 140.0 | 155.0 | 126.0 | 147.0 |
CF | 35.0 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 39.0 | 46.0 | 54.0 |
aNDFom | 130.0 | 120.0 | 135.0 | 138.0 | 141.0 | 154.0 |
ADFom | 48.0 | 49.0 | 45.0 | 61.0 | 60.0 | 70.0 |
AEE | 49.0 | 57.0 | 52.0 | 59.0 | 46.0 | 66.0 |
Starch | 432.0 | 392.0 | 424.0 | 406.0 | 443.0 | 407.0 |
OM | 929.0 | 901.0 | 928.3 | 930.6 | 939.3 | 940.4 |
p | 4.6 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 5.1 | 4.6 | 5.1 |
k | 6.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 |
Parameters a | Genotype | SEM | Diet b | SEM | p-Value c | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duroc | F2 | LP | NP | PT | Di | Ph × PT | Ph × Di | |||
ADFI (Phase I), kg/day | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.66 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.07 | 0.92 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.01 |
ADFI (Phase II), kg/day | 2.3 | 2.6 | 0.66 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.07 | ||||
ADFI (Phase III), kg/day | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.66 | 3.2 e | 2.9 f | 0.07 | ||||
Overall ADFI, kg/day | 2.2 | 2.4 | 0.66 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.04 | ||||
Initial BW (at 9 weeks of age), kg | 23.3 | 24.5 | 1.17 | 23.9 | 23.9 | 1.14 | <0.01 | 0.70 | <0.01 | 0.08 |
BW (end of Phase I, 15 weeks of age), kg | 49.9 b | 52.9 a | 0.87 | 51.6 | 51.1 | 0.83 | ||||
BW (end of Phase II, 21 weeks of age), kg | 73.6 b | 80.5 a | 1.06 | 76.0 | 78.1 | 1.02 | ||||
Final BW (end of Phase III, 25 weeks of age), kg | 96.5 b | 103.8 a | 1.55 | 100.0 | 100.4 | 1.53 | ||||
ADG (Phase I), kg/day | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.023 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.023 | 0.01 | 0.74 | 0.03 | 0.16 |
ADG (Phase II), kg/day | 0.84 b | 0.99 a | 0.025 | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.024 | ||||
ADG (Phase III), kg/day | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.042 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.042 | ||||
Overall ADG, kg/d | 0.76 b | 0.85 a | 0.023 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.022 | ||||
Gain:feed (Phase I), g/g | 0.39 | 0.58 | 0.120 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.018 | 0.57 | 0.88 | 0.06 | 0.37 |
Gain:feed (Phase II), g/g | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.119 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.009 | ||||
Gain:feed (Phase III), g/g | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.120 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.010 | ||||
Overall gain:feed, g/g | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.119 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.008 |
CTTAD a | Phase of Study b | SEM | PT | Diet c | SEM | p-Value d | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | Duroc | F2 | LP | NP | Ph | PT | Di | |||
DM | 0.948 a | 0.945 a | 0.934 b | 0.0020 | 0.944 | 0.940 | 0.944 | 0.941 | 0.0018 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
CP | 0.736 a | 0.701 b | 0.683 c | 0.0117 | 0.689 b | 0.724 a | 0.703 | 0.710 | 0.0095 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.60 |
NDF | 0.304 a | 0.286 b | 0.216 c | 0.0164 | 0.273 | 0.264 | 0.281 | 0.257 | 0.0134 | 0.01 | 0.70 | 0.20 |
Emission (g/animal/day) | PT | Diet a | SEM | p-Value b | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duroc | F2 | LP | NP | PT | Di | ||
Methane | 10.7 a | 5.6 b | 7.6 | 8.7 | 0.53 | 0.01 | 0.2 |
Carbon Dioxide | 1496.8 | 1441.8 | 1619 | 1319.6 | 122.28 | 0.8 | 0.2 |
Nitrous Oxide | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.026 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
Ammonia | 3.3 a | 0.5 b | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.40 | 0.01 | 0.5 |
Indices | PT | Diet a | SEM | p-Value b | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duroc | F2 | NP | LP | PT | Di | ||
Shannon | 3.134 | 3.178 | 3.139 | 3.174 | 0.0238 | 0.19 | 0.36 |
Simpson | 0.894 | 0.889 | 0.889 | 0.894 | 0.0029 | 0.18 | 0.21 |
Richness | 542.4 | 579.5 | 575.6 | 546.2 | 11.28 | 0.02 | 0.07 |
Phyla | ADG 110d | ADG 150d | ADG 70d | CPd std 130d | DMd std 130d | NDFd std 130d | BW std 110d | BW std 150d | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Genus | |||||||||
Actinobacteria | Duroc | ||||||||
Bacteroidetes | Duroc | ||||||||
Deferribacteres | LP | LP | |||||||
Fibrobacteres | F2/LP | LP | |||||||
Proteobacteria | NP | ||||||||
Collinsella | LP | ||||||||
Coriobacterium | LP | LP | |||||||
Faecalibacterium | NP | Duroc | |||||||
Fibrobacter | F2/LP | LP | |||||||
Geobacter | F2 | ||||||||
Holdemanella | Duroc | ||||||||
Lactobacillus | Duroc | ||||||||
Mitsuokella | NP | Duroc | |||||||
Oribacterium | NP | ||||||||
Parabacteroides | Duroc | ||||||||
Prevotella | LP | ||||||||
Roseburia | Duroc | Duroc | |||||||
Ruminococcus | Duroc | ||||||||
Selenomonas | LP | ||||||||
F: B ratio | Duroc | ||||||||
P: (F+B) ratio | NP |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Seradj, A.R.; Balcells, J.; Sarri, L.; Fraile, L.J.; de la Fuente Oliver, G. The Impact of Producing Type and Dietary Crude Protein on Animal Performances and Microbiota Together with Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Growing Pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 1742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101742
Seradj AR, Balcells J, Sarri L, Fraile LJ, de la Fuente Oliver G. The Impact of Producing Type and Dietary Crude Protein on Animal Performances and Microbiota Together with Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Growing Pigs. Animals. 2020; 10(10):1742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101742
Chicago/Turabian StyleSeradj, Ahmad Reza, Joaquim Balcells, Laura Sarri, Lorenzo José Fraile, and Gabriel de la Fuente Oliver. 2020. "The Impact of Producing Type and Dietary Crude Protein on Animal Performances and Microbiota Together with Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Growing Pigs" Animals 10, no. 10: 1742. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101742