You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Animals
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

20 October 2025

The Addition of an Acid Protease Improved the Digestibility of Crude Protein and Amino Acids of Soybean Meal, but Not of Corn, in Piglets

,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Animal Science, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil
2
Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, Pirassununga 13635-900, SP, Brazil
3
Department of Animal Production and Preventive Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University, Botucatu 18618-681, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals2025, 15(20), 3037;https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15203037
This article belongs to the Special Issue Feed Additives and Micronutrients on Performance, Nutrient Utilization, Immunity, Oxidative Stress, Gut Health and Microbiome of Pigs and Sows: Third Edition
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Simple Summary

After weaning, young pigs do not produce adequate amounts of enzymes to digest the proteins from vegetable feed ingredients, which are major constituents of their diets. The addition of exogenous protease to pig diets may increase the digestion of dietary protein, improving the utilization of protein and amino acids from the animals’ diets. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate two different proteases (P1 and P2) on the digestibility of the protein and amino acids from corn and two sources of soybean meal, with 46% and 48% crude protein, in piglets (13.52 ± 1.96 kg body weight). The two proteases did not influence the digestion of corn protein and amino acids, and P1 did not affect the digestion of protein and amino acids of the two sources of soybean meal. The addition of P2, an acid protease, in soybean meal diets increased the digestion of leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, alanine, cystine, and glutamate, and their respective digestible values, from 7.5% to 22%, compared to soybean meal without proteases. Thus, P2 was effective in improving the utilization of several amino acids from soybean meal in piglets, enhancing the nutritional value of soybean meal for piglets.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate two proteases (P1 and P2) on the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility (AID and SID, respectively), of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AAs) and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients and gross energy (GE) of corn and soybean meal, with 46% and 48% CP, in pigs by the index method. Ninety crossbred castrated male piglets (13.52 ± 1.96 kg body weight) were fed a nitrogen-free diet, or diets containing corn or soybean meal as the sole sources of CP and AAs, supplemented or not with 0.05% of P1 or 0.01% of P2, an acid protease. Treatment differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. The inclusion of proteases in corn and of P1 in soybean meal diets did not improve the digestibility of nutrients and energy. Otherwise, the addition of P2, an acid protease, in soybean meal diets increased (p < 0.05) the AID and SID of Lys, Met, Phe, Ala, Cys, and Glu, and the respective digestible AA values, from 7.5% to 22%, compared to soybean meal without proteases. The use of the acid protease can be an important tool to enhance the digestibility of the AAs of soybean meal in piglets.

1. Introduction

Weaning is a critical moment for piglets, as the animals are submitted simultaneously to immunological, environmental, social, and nutritional stress [1,2]. Specifically, the change from the sow’s milk, which is very nutritious, digestible, and palatable for piglets, to a dry diet, composed mainly of vegetable feed ingredients, which are less digestible and palatable than milk, is challenging for the piglets, and can damage the intestinal villi and disrupts intestinal health [3,4,5]. Piglets can lose from 100 to 250 g body weight on the first day post-weaning and require up to two weeks to recover to pre-weaning energy intake levels [5].
Corn and soybean meal are the most used feedstuffs in swine feeding, but are not properly digested by young pigs, due to the unsatisfactory synthesis of enzymes for degrading its chemical components [6]. Moreover, soybean meal, even after thermal processing, may contain antinutritional factors (ANFs) such as lectins, glycinin, β-conglycinin, and residual trypsin inhibitors [7,8,9,10]. These compounds can impair protein digestibility and, in the case of glycinin and β-conglycinin, may also trigger hypersensitivity reactions in piglets [8,10]. Therefore, significant undigested fractions of these vegetable feed ingredients will remain in the animals’ intestine and can serve as a substrate for harmful microorganisms. These dietary changes can compromise the intestinal health of piglets, cause diarrhea, and reduce growth performance [11].
There are some dietary strategies to increase the nutrient digestibility of vegetable feedstuff and to eliminate the detrimental effects of their ANFs in piglets, including the supplementation of exogenous enzymes to diets [6]. Exogenous enzymes are not produced by pigs, and their addition in pig feeding can be a tool to maximize the use of low-nutritional-value ingredients, avoiding enteric problems, reducing environmental issues, and production costs [12,13]. Among the available enzymes to be used in animal feeding, exogenous proteases have the potential to improve the digestibility of amino acids (AAs) and crude protein (CP) of feed ingredients, consequently reducing nitrogen excretion [14], assisting the action of endogenous enzymes, especially in newly weaned piglets that have insufficient production of digestive enzymes [15]. In addition, proteases may degrade the ANFs of protein origin, such as allergenic proteins and trypsin inhibitors [16].
In most studies, exogenous enzymes were supplied to piglets as enzyme cocktails, and the effects of specific proteases on monogastric animals were not clearly studied [17,18]. Another relevant factor is that the potential increase in AA digestibility derived from proteolytic enzymes must be tested and precisely quantified, allowing the creation of nutritional matrices of the feed enzymes [19,20,21]. In other words, it is essential to account for the surplus of nutrients resulting from the dietary addition of feed enzymes, allowing precise feed formulation, and enabling the nutritional valorization of feed ingredients. Such points would permit the reduction in the inclusion of crystalline AA or protein sources in diets, formulating them with lower CP contents [22,23].
Proteases differ in their optimal pH of activity, which determines the site and potential efficacy of their action in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Acid proteases act in the stomach at low pH, facilitating the early denaturation and hydrolysis of dietary proteins before the chyme reaches the small intestine, reducing the activity of protein ANFs in this site of the gastrointestinal tract [12,24,25]. In contrast, neutral or alkaline proteases act primarily in the small intestine, complementing the effects of pancreatic enzymes like trypsin and chymotrypsin [26].
The evaluation of alkaline and acid proteases will allow for the determination of which type of enzyme supplementation is more effective to improve the digestibility of nutrients in piglets. Additionally, it will be possible to elaborate the nutritional matrices of the enzymes, potentially improving the use of vegetable feed ingredients in piglets feeding. Thus, the aim of this study was to test the supplementation of two proteases, an alkaline and an acid source, on the apparent and standardized ileal digestibility (AID and SID, respectively), of AAs, CP, dry matter (DM), and on apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of CP, DM, and gross energy (GE) of corn and soybean meal, with 46% and 48% crude protein (SBM46 and SBM48, respectively), in young piglets.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ), University of São Paulo (USP), protocol number 2018.5.1576.11.5. The trial was conducted at the research facilities of the Swine Production Sector of the Department of Animal Science of ESALQ-USP, located in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. The animals remained healthy during the experiment and no adverse events were observed.
A total of 90 castrated male pigs (13.52 ± 1.96 kg body weight (BW)), originating from the AGPIC 337 X Camborough crossbreed (Agroceres PIC, Patos de Minas, MG, Brazil), were allotted according to their initial BW in a randomized complete block design experiment, with 9 dietary treatments and a nitrogen-free (NF) diet, 9 repetitions per treatment, and 1 pig per experimental unit. The animals were housed individually in 3 m2 pens with partially slatted floors, equipped with a semi-automatic feeder, a nipple drinker, and an infrared lamp for heating. The ambient temperature was monitored with two Testo 174H NTC Dataloggers (Texto Inc.,Titisee-Neustadt, BW, Germany), distributed within the experimental facility.
The animals were fed one of ten diets (Table 1): a NF diet to determine the ileal endogenous losses of AAs and CP, composed mainly of corn starch, sugar, cellulose, and soybean oil; or diets that contained one of the test ingredients, corn, SBM46, and SBM48, as the sole sources of protein and AA, with or without protease 1 (P1) or protease 2 (P2). Corn was included at 95.74% and soybean meal at 30% in the test diets, replacing the cornstarch, sugar, cellulose, and soybean oil of NF diets. The P1 was obtained from Bacillus licheniformis, with an enzymatic activity of 600,000 u/g, and was included in the diets at 0.05%. The P2, which is an acid protease, had an enzymatic activity of 50,000 u/g and was added at 0.01% to the diets. Both enzymes were added to the diets according to the recommendations of the manufacturer, replacing the inert ingredient of the diets. Chromium oxide was included in all diets at 0.5% as an indigestible indicator. The diets were formulated to meet the nutritional requirements of minerals, vitamins and energy of the pigs [27].
Table 1. Ingredient and analyzed composition of experimental diets.
The test feed ingredients, corn, SBM46, and SBM48, and the diets evaluated in this study were ground in a knife mill (model MA680, Marconi, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil) with a 1 mm sieve and analyzed for dry matter (DM; Method 934.01 [28]); gross energy (GE) in an adiabatic calorimeter (Model C5003 Control, IKA-Works, Wilmington, NC, USA); nitrogen (N; Method 990.03 [28]) to estimate crude protein (CP) content; neutral detergent insoluble fiber (NDF [29]) and acid detergent insoluble fiber (ADF [29]); ether extract (EE, Method 945.16 [28]); ash (Method 942.05 [28]); calcium (Ca; Method 968.08 [28]); phosphorus (P; Method 965.17 [28]); and AAs by high performance liquid chromatography (Method 982.30E [28]). The analyzed chemical composition of the test ingredients is in Table 2.
Table 2. Analyzed chemical composition of feed ingredients (%, or otherwise indicated, dry matter basis).
The experimental period lasted twelve days, seven days for the adaptation of animals to the diets and facilities, followed by four days for partial feces collection, and one day for ileal digesta collection, after the animals were euthanized. During feces collection, the animals were observed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and feces were collected from the floor of the pens immediately after defecation, stored in plastic bags and frozen. Feces that had mixed with hair, urine, and feed leftovers were discarded. Ileal digesta collection was performed after the animals were euthanized, approximately 11 h after their last meal [30]. The animals were stunned by electronarcosis and sacrificed by exsanguination. Sequentially, a longitudinal ventral incision was made in the pigs to expose the digestive tract. The ileocecal junction was identified and from there towards the jejunum, a portion of approximately one linear meter was separated. All the digesta contained in this fraction of the ileum was collected and stored in a container containing formic acid solution (5%) and frozen.
At the end of the collection period, fecal samples were thawed, homogenized per experimental unit, subsampled, and dried at 55 °C in a forced air circulation oven (model MA035, Marconi, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil) for 72 h and were ground and analyzed for DM, GE, and total nitrogen, as previously described. The digesta samples were lyophilized (model LH 0401, Terroni, São Carlos, SP, Brazil), ground in an analytical mill (A11 Basic, IKA, Shanghai, China) to a fraction of 2 mm in diameter, and then subjected to DM and nitrogen determinations, as described for the other samples. The test feed ingredients and digesta samples were analyzed for AA content (method 994.12 [28]). Chromium quantifications were performed on diets, digesta, and feces samples after digestion in a solution containing nitric and perchloric acids, and hydrogen peroxide (4:2:2 v/v), under heating in a digestion block (model MA 850, Marconi, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil), and chromium readings were performed on an optical emission spectrophotometer with inductively coupled plasma (model Optima 8300, Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT, USA).
The AID and SID of AAs and CP in all test diets, and the ATTD of GE and CP of corn diets were calculated by the direct method, as soybean meal and corn were the only source of AAs and CP in all test diets, and corn was the only source of GE in the corn diets. The ATTD of GE of the soybean meal samples was calculated by difference, considering the ATTD of GE in the NF diet and in the test diets. All calculations were performed according to the index approach [31].
Statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 3. 7.1, R Core Team, Vienna, WI, Austria). The presence of outliers was assessed by checking if an observation had a studentized residual greater than 3 in an absolute value. The residual normality distribution was evaluated by the Cramer von–Misses test and the homogeneity of error variation was verified using the Hartley’s test.
The statistical evaluation of the AID, SID, and ATTD of nutrients and energy of corn and soybean meal were performed separately. The data from corn without enzymes, with P1, and with P2 were compared among each other, and the results from soybean meal treatments were evaluated in a 2 × 3 factorial design, considering the type of soybean meal (high and low protein) and the protease addition (without protease, P1, and P2). The data were subjected to analyses of variance, and the means were separated using Tukey’s test. Treatment differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The CP concentrations in corn, SBM46%, and SBM48% were 9.2%, 50.2%, and 55% (dry matter basis), respectively. Regarding the total AAs in corn, SBM46%, and SBM48%, the values were 9.58%, 47.81%, 52.51% (dry matter basis), respectively (Table 2).
The addition of P1 or P2 to the diets did not influence (p > 0.05) the AID and SID of CP and AAs, and the ATTD of DM, CP, and the GE of corn. Similarly, there was no effect (p > 0.05) of the enzymes on the nutrient and energy digestible values of corn (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6).
Table 3. Apparent total tract digestibility (%) (ATTD) of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and gross energy (GE), and apparent ileal digestibility (%) (AID) of DM and amino acids (AAs) of corn, without enzymes or supplemented with two types of proteases, in piglets.
Table 4. Standardized ileal digestibility (%) (SID) of amino acids (AAs) and crude protein (CP) of corn without enzymes or supplemented with two types of proteases, in piglets.
Table 5. Apparent ileal digestible (%) amino acid (AA) contents of corn (dry matter basis), without enzymes or supplemented with two types of proteases, in young piglets.
Table 6. Standardized ileal digestible (%) amino acid (AA) contents of corn (dry matter basis), without enzymes or supplemented with two types of proteases, in young piglets.
There was an interaction (p < 0.05) between the factors under study for the ATTD of DM and the GE of soybean meal (Table 5). The ATTD of DM and the GE of SBM48% without enzymes were greater (p < 0.05) than those of SBM48% with P1 and P2, which did not differ (p > 0.05), and that were greater (p < 0.05) than those observed in SBM46%, with or without proteases (p > 0.05).
Regarding the ingredient factor, it was found that the ATTD of CP, AID of Pro and Cys, and standardized ileal Pro of SBM48 were higher (p < 0.05) than those of SBM46. Similarly, except for Trp and Cys, the digestible, apparent, and standardized contents of all other AAs were higher (p < 0.05) in SBM48 than in SBM46 (Table 7).
Table 7. Apparent total tract digestibility (%) (ATTD) of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and gross energy (GE), and apparent ileal digestibility (%) (AID) of DM and amino acids (AAs) of soybean meal with 46% and 48% CP, without enzyme (WE) or supplemented with two types of proteases (P1 and P2), in piglets.
The use of P2 increased (p < 0.05), from 7% to 22%, the AID and SID of Met, Phe, Lys, and Glu, the AID of Arg and the SID of Leu, Ala, and Cys in relation to soybean meal with P1 and without proteases. Additionally, the AID and SID of Ile, His, Asp, and Ser, the AID of Leu and the SID of Arg of the ingredients with P2 were higher than those verified with P1 but did not differ (p > 0.05) from those observed in the ingredients without the enzymes (Table 7 and Table 8).
Table 8. Standardized ileal digestibility (%) (SID) of amino acids (AAs) of soybean meal with 46% and 48% crude protein, without enzyme (WE) or supplemented with two types of proteases (P1 and P2), in piglets.
The apparent and standardized ileal digestible contents of Met, Ile, Phe, Lys, Arg, Ser, Glu, Ala, Cys, and Tyr were higher (p < 0.05) in soybean meal with the addition of P2 than with P1 or without proteases. The use of P2 did not alter (p > 0.05) the digestible contents of Val, His, and Asp in relation to soybean meal without the enzymes; however, these values were higher (p < 0.05) than those verified in the ingredients that had the addition of P1 (Table 9 and Table 10).
Table 9. Apparent ileal digestible (%) amino acid (AA) contents of soybean meal with 46% and 48% crude protein (dry matter basis), without enzyme (WE) or supplemented with two types of proteases (P1 and P2), in piglets.
Table 10. Standardized ileal digestible (%) amino acid (AA) contents of soybean meal with 46% and 48% crude protein (dry matter basis), without enzyme (WE) or supplemented with two types of proteases (P1 and P2), in piglets.

4. Discussion

The present study evaluated the effect of supplementing two proteases (P1 and P2) on the AID and SID of CP and AAs, as well as on the ATTD of nutrients and energy in corn and soybean meal for newly weaned piglets. The results obtained indicate that the impact of the proteases depended on the ingredient tested and on the type of enzyme used.
Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of exogenous proteases on the nutrient digestibility of corn. The initial expectation was that proteases could aid in the digestion of the protein matrix surrounding the starch granules [32] whose function is to contain them and increase the rigidity of the endosperm [12]. By degrading this matrix, the protease would increase the exposure of starch to amylase, thereby improving the digestibility of energy and protein. However, in the present study, no significant differences were observed in the nutrient digestibility of corn with the addition of any of the tested proteases.
The absence of an effect may be attributed to multiple factors. Studies have shown that, in corn-based diets, the response to protease supplementation may be limited. First, the protein content of corn is relatively low, which ranged from 9 to 9.3% of the grain’s dry matter in this study, and, possibly, the pigs’ endogenous enzymes were sufficient to degrade the proteins of the feed ingredient, making the addition of proteases unnecessary [33,34]. Moreover, the protein matrix of corn is composed mainly of zeins, which are hydrophobic and soluble only in alcoholic solvents, forming a barrier resistant to protease action and limiting the access of amylolytic enzymes to starch [35]. It is also possible that the proteases tested were not specific to corn proteins [35].
In addition, a study of growing and finishing pigs has also reported no effect of protease in predominantly corn-based diets [33]. In contrast, more recent work suggests that the combined use of proteases with other enzymes (e.g., xylanase and phytase) may release additional substrates and improve corn digestibility [34]. This suggests that the isolated action of protease is insufficient in low-protein ingredients, like corn, but that multi-enzyme strategies could be more effective.
The supplementation of soybean meal diets with protease P1, which exhibits higher activity at a neutral-to-alkaline pH, did not improve nutrient digestibility. This may be explained by the intense secretion of endogenous enzymes (trypsin and chymotrypsin) in the small intestine, where P1 acts, which may have turned P1 unnecessary or redundant. Additionally, the thermal processing of soybean meal may have led to the formation of protein aggregates resistant to hydrolysis by P1 [24,25,36]. These results indicate that the choice of protease should consider its pH of activity and the type of available substrate.
In contrast to the lack of improvement of the nutrient digestibility of corn, with P1 and P2 added, and of soybean meal with P1 supplementation, the inclusion of the acid protease P2 increased from 6 to 8% the AID and SID of most essential AAs of soybean meal diets, compared with the control diets. This result is consistent with the high content of CP in SBM46 and SBM48, providing a great amount of substrate for the enzymes, and possibly with the action of the acid protease at gastric pH. It can be speculated that the acid protease could have acted in the acid conditions of the stomach of the pigs, denaturing or digesting all the protein pool, including the proteinaceous ANFs from the soybean sources. Possibly, the ANFs of soybean meal were degraded in the stomach of the pigs before reaching the small intestine. Therefore, the possible negative effects of the ANFs, including potential reductions on the digestibility of nutrients, were avoided because of the action of P2 [21,24,25]. In other words, the acidic P2 may have had two important functions, aiding the digestion of the total CP per se and degrading the ANF of soybean before these compounds could reach the small intestine and cause any kind of problems to the pigs.
Previous studies have shown that protease supplementation in piglet diets containing soybean meal increased AA digestibility l [25] and improved DM and CP digestibility in weanling pigs [21,37]. Similar results were obtained in other studies, in which protease improved the ATTD of DM by 3.45% and reduced NH3 emissions in weanling pigs fed corn–soybean meal diets [38], and also the use of proteases could restore piglet performance to levels like those achieved with higher CP diets in reduced-protein diets [12,39]. But despite the benefits observed, the literature still presents inconsistent results. Some authors have reported no improvement in the digestibility of nutrients in soybean meal with proteases, especially when dietary CP already exhibited high digestibility [40,41]. Other studies have shown that solely alkaline proteases were not effective, but their effect was enhanced when combined with carbohydrases [42,43]. These discrepancies may be associated with differences in animal age, enzyme inclusion levels, soybean meal processing, and variations in the specific activity of the proteases used. Other factors that may contribute to enzymatic inefficiency include inactivation in the stomach by pepsin [44] or loss of efficacy during high-temperature feed processing. There are also reports that exogenous proteases could impair digestibility by reducing the production of pancreatic enzymes [45,46], an effect that was not measured in the present study.
There are other approaches used to reduce ANFs and increase the AID and SID of AAs and CP of soybean meal in piglets, such as different processing techniques of the feedstuff (fermentation, enzyme treatment, pelleting, and extrusion) or the use of refined soybean products, such as soy protein concentrates [7,8,9,47,48]. Studies with nursery pigs have shown that the effects of processing techniques on AA digestibility are variable, usually ranging from small improvements up to around 10%, while soy protein concentrate shows more consistent increases [8,47,48,49]. In the present study, supplementation with the acid protease P2 increased the digestibility of soybean meal AAs from 7.5 to 22%, which is within or above the range reported for processed soybean products. These results indicate that the use of protease in feed can be a practical and flexible alternative to processed soybean meals, but further studies directly comparing both strategies are still required.
From a nutritional standpoint, the improvements in CP and AA digestibility observed with P2 represent a significant gain, as it may allow for a reduction in CP levels in diet formulations without compromising the supply of digestible AAs. In commercial settings, this improvement can be translated into a reduced need for supplementation with crystalline AAs as well and lowering nitrogen excretion that has a direct impact on production costs and the environmental sustainability of swine production.
This study achieved results about the use of two different proteases, highlighting the important difference between acid and alkaline sources of protease, and also provided the nutritional matrices of two types of soybean meal when supplemented with proteolytic enzymes. These findings are relevant from an academic point of view but also from an applied practical standpoint. The data generated can be used for diet formulation when utilizing sources of soybean meal with 46 and 48% CP, supplemented with an acid protease. Future research is needed in order to evaluate other sources of proteases, in different concentrations, and to test other parameters such as growth performance, gut health and gut microbiota to fully elucidate the mechanisms of action and the potential of protease use in swine production.

5. Conclusions

The digestibility of corn was not influenced by the proteases used in the study, but the acid protease improved the AID and SID of AAs of soybean meal and can be an important tool to enhance the efficiency of use of AAs of soybean meal in piglets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.J.S., F.A.P., and U.S.R.; methodology, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., F.A.P., and U.S.R.; formal analysis, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., and U.S.R.; investigation, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., H.M.J., and U.S.R.; data curation, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., H.M.J., and U.S.R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., H.M.J., F.A.P., M.L.P.T., and U.S.R.; writing—review and editing, L.J.S., J.A.L.B., H.M.J., M.L.P.T., and U.S.R.; supervision, U.S.R.; project administration, L.J.S. and U.S.R.; funding acquisition, L.J.S., F.A.P., and U.S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Agroceres Multimix Nutrição Animal LTDA, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ), University of São Paulo (USP), protocol number 2018.5.1576.11.5.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting reported results can be provided at the request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Graduate Program of Animal Science and Pastures, from Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AAAmino acids
AIDApparent ileal digestibility
ANFsAnti nutritional factors
ATTDApparent total tract digestibility
CP Crude protein
DMDry matter
GEGross energy
NFNitrogen free
P1Protease 1
P2Protease 2
SBM46Soybean meal with 46% crude protein content
SBM48Soybean meal with 48% crude protein content
SIDStandardized ileal digestibility
WEWithout enzyme

References

  1. O’Doherty, J.; Dowley, A.; Conway, E.; Sweeney, T. Nutritional Strategies to Mitigate Post-Weaning Challenges in Pigs: A Focus on Glucans, Vitamin D, and Selenium. Animals 2023, 14, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arnaud, E.A.; Gardiner, G.E.; Lawlor, P.G. Selected Nutrition and Management Strategies in Suckling Pigs to Improve Post-Weaning Outcomes. Animals 2023, 13, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wiese, F.; Simon, O.; Weyrauch, K.D. Morphology of the Small Intestine of Weaned Piglets and a Novel Method for Morphometric Evaluation. Anat. Histol. Embryol. 2003, 32, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tang, X.; Xiong, K.; Fang, R.; Li, M. Weaning Stress and Intestinal Health of Piglets: A Review. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1042778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Campbell, J.M.; Crenshaw, J.D.; Polo, J. The Biological Stress of Early Weaned Piglets. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 4, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Soares, T.G. Efeito da Desmama Com 12, 15 e 18 Dias de Idade Sobre o Desempenho de Leitões. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yuan, L.; Chang, J.; Yin, Q.; Lu, M.; Di, Y.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z.; Wang, E.; Lu, F. Fermented Soybean Meal Improves the Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Microbial Flora in Piglets. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 3, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Deng, Z.; Duarte, M.E.; Kim, S.Y.; Hwang, Y.; Kim, S.W. Comparative Effects of Soy Protein Concentrate, En-zyme-Treated Soybean Meal, and Fermented Soybean Meal Replacing Animal Protein Supplements in Feeds on Growth Performance and Intestinal Health of Nursery Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 14, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Shi, C.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Wang, Y. Solid-State Fermentation of Corn-Soybean Meal Mixed Feed with Bacillus Subtilis and Enterococcus faecium for Degrading Antinutritional Factors and Enhancing Nutritional Value. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tan, K.; Bian, Z.; Liang, H.; Hu, W.; Xia, M.; Han, S.; Chen, B. Enzymolytic Soybean Meal—Impact on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Antioxidative Capacity, and Intestinal Health of Weaned Piglets. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1381823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Dong, G.; Zhou, A.; Yang, F.; Chen, K.; Wang, K.; Dao, D. Effect of Dietary Protein Levels on the Bacterial Break-down of Protein in the Large Intestine, and Diarrhoea in Early Weaned Piglets. Acta Vet. Zootech. Sin. 1996, 27, 293–302. [Google Scholar]
  12. Aranda-Aguirre, E.; Robles-Jimenez, L.E.; Osorio-Avalos, J.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Gonzalez-Ronquillo, M. A Systematic-Review on the Role of Exogenous Enzymes on the Productive Performance at Weaning, Growing and Finishing in Pigs. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2021, 14, 100195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kim, J.-H.; Ku, B.-H.; Ko, G.-P.; Kang, M.-J.; Son, K.-H.; Bang, M.-A.; Park, H.-Y. Enzyme Feed Additive with Arazyme Improve Growth Performance, Meat Quality, and Gut Microbiome of Pigs. Animals 2023, 13, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Thorpe, J.; Beal, J.D. Vegetable Protein Meals and the Effects of Enzymes. In Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition; Bedford, M.R., Partridge, G.G., Eds.; CABI Publ.: Oxon, UK, 2001; pp. 125–143. [Google Scholar]
  15. Silva Junior, A.d. Interações Químico-Fisiolóficas Entre Acidificantes, Probióticos, Enzimas e Lisofosfolipídios Na Digestão de Leitões. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2009, 38, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Classen, H.L. Cereal Grain Starch and Exogenous Enzymes in Poultry Diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 62, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kocher, A.; Choct, M.; Porter, M.D.; Broz, J. Effects of Feed Enzymes on Nutritive Value of Soyabean Meal Fed to Broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cowieson, A.J.; Adeola, O. Carbohydrases, Protease, and Phytase Have an Additive Beneficial Effect in Nutritionally Marginal Diets for Broiler Chicks. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1860–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sureshkumar, S.; Song, J.; Sampath, V.; Kim, I. Exogenous Enzymes as Zootechnical Additives in Monogastric Animal Feed: A Review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kurz, A.; Seifert, J. Factors Influencing Proteolysis and Protein Utilization in the Intestine of Pigs: A Review. Animals 2021, 11, 3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Zhang, J.; Zhou, C.; Zou, H.; Li, B.; Yu, B.; He, J.; Zheng, P.; Mao, X.; Yan, H.; Luo, J.; et al. Effects of Protease in Soybean Meal-Reduced Diets on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Intestinal Health of Weaned Piglets. Animals 2023, 14, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Olukosi, O.A.; Beeson, L.A.; Englyst, K.; Romero, L.F. Effects of Exogenous Proteases without or with Carbohydrases on Nutrient Digestibility and Disappearance of Non-Starch Polysaccharides in Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2662–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vieira, S.L.; Stefanello, C.; Cemin, H.S. Lowering the Dietary Protein Levels by the Use of Synthetic Amino Acids and the Use of a Mono Component Protease. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 221, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Galli, G.M.; Levesque, C.L.; Cantarelli, V.S.; Chaves, R.F.; Silva, C.C.; Fascina, V.B.; Perez-Palencia, J.Y. Effect of Protease Supplementation on Amino Acid Digestibility of Soybean Meal Fed to Growing-Finishing Pigs in Two Different Ages. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102, skae345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Galli, G.M.M.; Infante, A.P.B.; Levesque, C.L.; Cantarelli, V.S.; Chaves, R.F.; Silva, C.C.; Fascina, V.; Palencia, J.Y.P. PSII-17 Effect of Protease Supplementation on Amino Acids Digestibility of Soybean Meal Fed to Growing Pigs of Different Ages. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102, 286–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, T.; Ma, W.; Wang, J.; Wei, Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, X.; Guan, W.; Shao, D.; et al. Dietary Protease Supplementation Improved Growth Performance and Nutrients Digestion via Modulating Intestine Barrier, Immunological Response, and Microbiota Composition in Weaned Piglets. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Swine; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  28. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburgs, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Donkoh, A.; Moughan, P.J.; Smith, W.C. Comparison of the Slaughter Method and Simple T-Piece Cannulation of the Terminal Ileum for Determining Ileal Amino Acid Digestibility in Meat and Bone Meal for the Growing Pig. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1994, 49, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kong, C.; Adeola, O. Evaluation of Amino Acid and Energy Utilization in Feedstuff for Swine and Poultry Diets. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 917–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Duvick, D.N.; Snyder, R.J.; Anderson, E.G. The Chromosomal Location of Rf1, A Restorer Gene for Cytoplasmic Pollen Sterile Maize. Genetics 1961, 46, 1245–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thacker, P.A. Effect of Xylanase and Protease on the Performance of Growing-Finishing Pigs Fed Corn-Based Diets. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2005, 28, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Passos, A.; Moita, V.; Kim, S. Individual or Combinational Use of Phytase, Protease, and Xylanase for the Impacts on Total Tract Digestibility of Corn, Soybean Meal, and Distillers Dried Grains with Soluble Fed to Pigs. Anim. Biosci. 2023, 36, 1869–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Payling, L.; Woyengo, T.A.; Nielsen, M.; Stein, H.H.; Walsh, M.C.; Romero, L.; Arent, S. Microscopy and Protein Solubilization of Digesta from Pigs Fed Wheat, Corn, or Soybean Meal-Based Diets, with or without Protease and a Bacillus spp. Direct-Fed Microbial. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2019, 247, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, S.A.; Bedford, M.R.; Walk, C.L. Meta-Analysis: Explicit Value of Mono-Component Proteases in Monogastric Diets. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2078–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ma, W.; Lv, Y.; Guo, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, F. Effects of three Kinds of protease on growth Performance, Apparent Digestibility of nutrients and Caecal Microbial Counts in weanling Pigs. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 65, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tactacan, G.B.; Cho, S.-Y.; Cho, J.H.; Kim, I.H. Performance Responses, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Characteristics, and Measures of Gastrointestinal Health in Weanling Pigs Fed Protease Enzyme. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 998–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Yu, J.; Yu, G.; Yu, B.; Zhang, Y.; He, J.; Zheng, P.; Mao, X.; Luo, J.; Huang, Z.; Luo, Y.; et al. Dietary Protease Improves Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility in Weaned Piglets Fed Diets with Different Levels of Soybean Meal. Livest. Sci. 2020, 241, 104179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, S.Y.; Selle, P.H.; Court, S.G.; Cowieson, A.J. Protease Supplementation of Sorghum-Based Broiler Diets Enhances Amino Acid Digestibility Coefficients in Four Small Intestinal Sites and Accelerates Their Rates of Digestion. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 183, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adebiyi, A.O.; Olukosi, O.A. Apparent and Standardised Ileal Amino Acid Digestibility of Wheat Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles with or without Exogenous Protease in Broilers and Turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci. 2015, 56, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. O’Shea, C.J.; Mc Alpine, P.O.; Solan, P.; Curran, T.; Varley, P.F.; Walsh, A.M.; Doherty, J.V.O. The Effect of Protease and Xylanase Enzymes on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Manure Odour in Grower–Finisher Pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 189, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saleh, F.; Ohtsuka, A.; Tanaka, T.; Hayashi, K. Carbohydrases Are Digested by Proteases Present in Enzyme Preparations During in Vitro Digestion. J. Poult. Sci. 2004, 41, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yu, G.; Chen, D.; Yu, B.; He, J.; Zheng, P.; Mao, X.; Huang, Z.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, J. Coated Protease Increases Ileal Digestibility of Protein and Amino Acids in Weaned Piglets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 214, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kaczmarek, S.A.; Rogiewicz, A.; Mogielnicka, M.; Rutkowski, A.; Jones, R.O.; Slominski, B.A. The Effect of Prote-ase, Amylase, and Nonstarch Polysaccharide-Degrading Enzyme Supplementation on Nutrient Utilization and Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens Fed Corn-Soybean Meal-Based Diets. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 1745–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mahagna, M.; Nir, I.; Larbier, M.; Nitsan, Z. Effect of Age and Exogenous Amylase and Protease on Development of the Digestive Tract, Pancreatic Enzyme Activities and Digestibility of Nutrients in Young Meat-Type Chicks. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 1995, 35, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Milani, N.C.; Paula, V.R.C.D.; Azevedo, C.P.F.; Sedano, A.A.; Scarpim, L.B.; Moreira Junior, H.; Duarte, D.H.A.; Carciofi, A.C.; Trindade Neto, M.A.D.; Ruiz, U.D.S. Effects of Extrusion on Ileal and Total Tract Digestibility of Nutrients and Energy in Soybean for Weanling Pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 284, 115192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Milani, N.C.; Paula, V.R.C.D.; Azevedo, C.P.F.; Sedano, A.A.; Scarpim, L.B.; Moreira Junior, H.; Duarte, D.H.A.; Carciofi, A.C.; Trindade Neto, M.A.D.; Ruiz, U.D.S. Effects of Extrusion on Ileal and Total Tract Nutrient and Energy Digestibility of Untoasted Soybean Meal in Weanling Pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 284, 115206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yin, J.; He, X.; Li, Z.; Tan, B.; Jiang, Q.; Chen, J.; Ma, X. Enzyme-Treated Soybean Meal Replacing Extruded Full-Fat Soybean Affects Nitrogen Digestibility, Cecal Fermentation Characteristics and Bacterial Community of Newly Weaned Piglets. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 639039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Effects of Echinacea Purpurea Polysaccharides on Growth Performance, Serum Biochemistry, and Intestinal Health of Immunosuppressed Broilers
Previous
Acupuncture–Moxibustion Combined with Locomotor Training Enhances Postoperative Recovery in Canine Cervical Intervertebral Disc Herniation: A Pilot Study
Next