Effects of Yucca schidigera Supplementation on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation and In Vivo Nutrient Digestibility in Male and Female Lean Fattening Pigs
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Feeds and Additives
2.2. Experiment 1: In Vitro Nutrient Disappearance and Caecal Fermentation
2.3. Experiment 2: In Vivo Total Tract Digestion, Ammonia and Odour Compounds
2.3.1. Animals and Experimental Design
2.3.2. Samples Analysis
2.4. Calculations and Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1: Effect of Dietary Yucca and Sex on In Vitro Caecal Fermentation
3.2. Experiment 2: In Vivo Chemical Composition of Faeces and Nutrient Digestibility
3.3. Experiment 2: In Vivo Ammonia and VFA Content in Faeces
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Yucca Schidigera on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation
4.2. Effect of Yucca Schidigera on In Vivo Cecal Fermentation
4.3. Effect of Sex on In Vitro Caecal Fermentation
4.4. Effect of Sex on In Vivo Faecal Characteristics, Nutrient Digestibility, and Hindgut Fermentation Parameters
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mateos, G.G.; Corrales, N.L.; Talegón, G.; Aguirre, L. Pig Meat Production in the European Union-27: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends. Anim. Biosci. 2024, 37, 755–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pexas, G.; Kyriazakis, I. Hotspots and Bottlenecks for the Enhancement of the Environmental Sustainability of Pig Systems, with Emphasis on European Pig Systems. Porc. Health Manag. 2023, 9, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Ma, Y.; Hou, Y. Mitigation Potential for Carbon and Nitrogen Emissions in Pig Production Systems: Lessons from the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomar, C.; Andretta, I.; Remus, A. Feeding Strategies to Reduce Nutrient Losses and Improve the Sustainability of Growing Pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 742220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Powers, W.; Mukhtar, S. A Review of Practices and Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2014, 30, 477–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, E.R.; Yokoyama, M.; Hengemuehle, S.; von Bermuth, R.D.; van Kempen, T.; Trottier, N.L. Ammonia, Volatile Fatty Acids, Phenolics, and Odor Offensiveness in Manure from Growing Pigs Fed Diets Reduced in Protein Concentration. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 1754–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, M.J.; Jeong, C.D.; Mamuad, L.L.; Sung, H.G.; Kim, D.W.; Cho, S.B.; Lee, K.; Jeon, C.O.; Lee, S.S. Bacterial Community Dynamics during Swine In Vitro Fermentation Using Starch as a Substrate with Different Feed Additives for Odor Reduction. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Wang, Y.; He, T.; Ziema Bumbie, G.; Wu, L.; Sun, Z.; Sun, W.; Tang, Z. Effects of Dietary Yucca Schidigera Extract and Oral Candida Utilis on Growth Performance and Intestinal Health of Weaned Piglets. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 685540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adegbeye, M.J.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Monroy, J.C.; Abegunde, T.O.; Salem, A.Z.M.; Barbabosa-Pliego, A.; Faniyi, T.O. Potential Influence of Yucca Extract as Feed Additive on Greenhouse Gases Emission for a Cleaner Livestock and Aquaculture Farming—A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shurson, G.C.; Kerr, B.J. Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency for More Sustainable Pork Production. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023, 4, 1204863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheeke, P.R. Actual and Potential Applications of Yucca schidigera and Quillaja saponaria Saponins in Human and Animal Nutrition. In Saponins in Food, Feedstuffs and Medicinal Plants; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 241–254. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, X.; Xiao, X.; Chen, D.; Yu, B.; He, J.; Yu, J.; Luo, J.; Luo, Y.; Wang, J.; Yan, H.; et al. Yucca Schidigera Extract Decreases Nitrogen Emission via Improving Nutrient Utilisation and Gut Barrier Function in Weaned Piglets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2022, 106, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoru, M.; Muñoz-Grein, J.; Latorre, M.A.; Rossi, L.; Pinotti, L.; Alvarez-Rodriguez, J. Yucca Schidigera Extract in Finishing Pig Diets: Impacts on Performance, Welfare, Carcase and Meat Traits by Sex. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2026, 66, AN25381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Blas, C.; Gasa, J.; Mateos, G.G. Necesidades Nutricionales para Ganado Porcino. Normas FEDNA, 2nd ed.; Fundación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mertens, D.R. Gravimetric Determination of Amylase-Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds with Refluxing in Beakers or Crucibles: Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 2002, 85, 1217–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gbassi, G.K.; Yao, T.N.S.J.; Atheba, P.G.; Yehe, M.D.; Brou, G.A.; Ake, M.; Trokourey, A. AOAC Official Method of Analysis, 18th ed.; Method 935.14 and 992.24; Association of Officiating Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Boisen, S.; Fernández, J.A. Prediction of the Total Tract Digestibility of Energy in Feedstuffs and Pig Diets by in Vitro Analyses. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1997, 68, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amanzougarene, Z.; Fondevila, M. Fitting of the In Vitro Gas Production Technique to the Study of High Concentrate Diets. Animals 2020, 10, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chaney, A.L.; Marbach, E.P. Modified Reagents for Determination of Urea and Ammonia. Clin. Chem. 1962, 8, 130–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crocker, A.W.; Robison, O.W. Genetic and Nutritional Effects on Swine Excreta. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 2809–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE). Orden de 31 de Octubre de 1988 por la que se Aprueban los Métodos Oficiales de Análisis de Piensos o Alimentos para Animales; No. 268; Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Sales, J.; Janssens, G. Acid-Insoluble Ash as a Marker in Digestibility Studies: A Review. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2003, 12, 383–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Pitarch, A.; Gardiner, G.E.; Cormican, P.; Rea, M.; Crispie, F.; O’Doherty, J.V.; Cozannet, P.; Ryan, T.; Cullen, J.; Lawlor, P.G. Effect of Cereal Fermentation and Carbohydrase Supplementation on Growth, Nutrient Digestibility and Intestinal Microbiota in Liquid-Fed Grow-Finishing Pigs. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, G.; Li, P.; Du, T.; Niu, Q.; Fan, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, H.; Li, K.; Niu, P.; Wu, C.; et al. Adding Appropriate Fiber in Diet Increases Diversity and Metabolic Capacity of Distal Gut Microbiota Without Altering Fiber Digestibility and Growth Rate of Finishing Pig. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zúñiga-Serrano, A.; Barrios-García, H.B.; Anderson, R.C.; Hume, M.E.; Ruiz-Albarrán, M.; Bautista-Martínez, Y.; Sánchez-Guerra, N.A.; Vázquez-Villanueva, J.; Infante-Rodríguez, F.; Salinas-Chavira, J. Antimicrobial and Digestive Effects of Yucca Schidigera Extracts Related to Production and Environment Implications of Ruminant and Non-Ruminant Animals: A Review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.; Lv, Y.; Zhu, P.; Cui, C.; Wu, C.; Chen, J.; Zhang, S.; Guan, W. Dietary Yucca Schidigera Extract Supplementation During Late Gestating and Lactating Sows Improves Animal Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Manure Ammonia Emission. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 676324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anele, U.Y.; Crumel, X.; Olagunju, L.; Compart, D.P. Effects of Yucca schidigera Based Feed Additive on In Vitro Dry Matter Digestibility, Efficiency of Microbial Production, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Four Dairy Diets. Dairy 2022, 3, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Kim, I.H. Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Quillaja Saponin or Phytase on the Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Faecal Gas Emissions, and Carcass Grade in Growing-Finishing Pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 109, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Abbeele, P.; Ghyselinck, J.; Marzorati, M.; Koch, A.-M.; Lambert, W.; Michiels, J.; Chalvon-Demersay, T. The Effect of Amino Acids on Production of SCFA and BCFA by Members of the Porcine Colonic Microbiota. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, D.X.; Kim, I.H. Effects of Quillaja Saponin Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Fecal Microbiota, and Fecal Gas Emission in Growing Pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 101, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Bai, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liu, L.; Lai, C. Relationship between Dietary Fiber Fermentation and Volatile Fatty Acids’ Concentration in Growing Pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K. New and Improved Methods for Measuring Acid Insoluble Ash. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2022, 288, 115282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okaiyeto, S.A.; Liu, D.; Zhang, C.; Bai, J.-W.; Chen, C.; Sharma, P.; Venugopal, A.P.; Asiamah, E.; Ketemepi, H.K.; Imadegbor, F.A.; et al. Anti-Nutrients of Plant-Based Food: Physicochemical Properties, Effects on Health and Degradation Techniques-a Comprehensive Review. J. Future Foods, 2025; in press. [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Wei, W.; Ji, C.; Pan, X.; Chang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, R.; Che, L.; et al. Effects of Yucca Extract on Nutrient Digestibility, Antioxidant Status, Estrus and Faecal Microorganism in Gilts. Animals 2024, 14, 3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panetta, D.M.; Powers, W.J.; Xin, H.; Kerr, B.J.; Stalder, K.J. Nitrogen Excretion and Ammonia Emissions from Pigs Fed Modified Diets. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1297–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Katsunuma, Y.; Otsuka, M.; Nakamura, Y.; Toyoda, A.; Takada, R.; Minato, H. Effects of the Administration of Yucca Shidigera Saponins on Pigs Intestinal Microbial Population. Nihon Chikusan Gakkaiho 2000, 71, 594–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, R.; Berrocoso, J.F.D. Dietary Fiber and Protein Fermentation in the Intestine of Swine and Their Interactive Effects on Gut Health and on the Environment: A Review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 212, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, M.; Arain, M.A.; Naveed, M.; Alagawany, M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Bhutto, Z.A.; Bednarczyk, M.; Kakar, M.U.; Abdel-Latif, M.; Chao, S. Yucca schidigera Can Mitigate Ammonia Emissions from Manure and Promote Poultry Health and Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 35027–35033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verschuren, L.M.G.; Calus, M.P.L.; Jansman, A.J.M.; Bergsma, R.; Knol, E.F.; Gilbert, H.; Zemb, O. Fecal Microbial Composition Associated with Variation in Feed Efficiency in Pigs Depends on Diet and Sex. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1405–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiao, L.; Estellé, J.; Kiilerich, P.; Ramayo-Caldas, Y.; Xia, Z.; Feng, Q.; Liang, S.; Pedersen, A.Ø.; Kjeldsen, N.J.; Liu, C.; et al. A Reference Gene Catalogue of the Pig Gut Microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 2016, 1, 16161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, L.; Wang, B.; Wang, Y.; Bai, J.; Gao, Y.; Ru, X.; Bi, C.; Li, J.; Shan, A. Effects of Sex on Fat Deposition through Gut Microbiota and Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Weaned Pigs. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 17, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Org, E.; Parks, B.W.; Joo, J.W.J.; Emert, B.; Schwartzman, W.; Kang, E.Y.; Mehrabian, M.; Pan, C.; Knight, R.; Gunsalus, R.; et al. Genetic and Environmental Control of Host-Gut Microbiota Interactions. Genome Res. 2015, 25, 1558–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez-Rodríguez, J.; Vigo-Morancho, A.; Miana-Mena, F.J.; Pérez-Ciria, L.; Latorre, M.A. Dietary Protein Reduction in Lean Pigs from Pietrain Paternal Line Under Commercial Setting: An Interplay Between Nitrogen Efficiency and Meat Attributes. Anim. Sci. J. 2025, 96, e70033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graziosi, M.V.; Luise, D.; Amarie, R.E.; Correa, F.; Elmi, A.; Virdis, S.; Negrini, C.; Palumbo, F.; Biagi, G.; Bacci, M.L.; et al. A Growing-Finishing Diet Formulated to Reduce the Soybean Meal Does Not Compromise the Growth Performance, Health, Behaviour and Gut Health of Italian Heavy Pigs. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 23, 1507–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Feed Ingredients | g/kg |
|---|---|
| Corn | 230 |
| Wheat | 160 |
| Barley | 210 |
| Soybean meal | 200 |
| Bakery meal | 164 |
| Animal fat | 16.2 |
| Calcium carbonate | 8.8 |
| Sodium chloride | 3.5 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.9 |
| L-lysine 50% | 2.5 |
| Vitamins, minerals and acidifiers mix | 2.0 |
| Enzyme mix (phytase, protease, carbohydrase) | 1.1 |
| L-methionine 88% | 0.1 |
| Analysed nutrient composition | |
| Dry matter | 873.5 |
| Crude protein | 160 |
| Ether extract | 52.8 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 112.2 |
| Ash | 43.7 |
| Control | YSE150 | YSE300 | SEM ‡ | p-Value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Trt | Sex | Trt × Sex | ||
| IVCD † (%) | 23.8 a (74.2) | 13.4 b (63.8) | 23.8 a (73.5) | 13.3 b (63.1) | 23.8 a (77.0) | 13.4 b (66.6) | 0.197 | 0.771 | <0.001 | 0.983 |
| pH | 5.85 ab | 6.12 a | 5.78 b | 6.12 a | 5.75 b | 6.12 a | 0.252 | 0.007 | 0.458 | 0.015 |
| Gas Production (mL/g of Degraded Dry Matter) at 2 h Intervals and Total Sum at 10 h | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | 10 h | Total | |
| Control | ||||||
| Male | 76.3 y | 227 | 393 | 286 | 189 | 1171 |
| Female | 259 x | 597 | 484 | 359 | 288 | 1988 |
| YSE150 | ||||||
| Male | 35.7 z | 203 | 360 | 280 | 189 | 1068 |
| Female | 274 x | 567 | 466 | 340 | 274 | 1922 |
| YSE300 | ||||||
| Male | 77.5 yz | 231 | 360 | 286 | 190 | 1144 |
| Female | 205 xy | 573 | 474 | 336 | 272 | 1860 |
| SEM † | 17.1 | 65.0 | 26.8 | 63.9 | 52.0 | 92.7 |
| p-value | ||||||
| Trt | 0.312 | 0.720 | 0.332 | 0.714 | 0.738 | 0.246 |
| Sex | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Trt × Sex | 0.011 | 0.904 | 0.813 | 0.808 | 0.684 | 0.431 |
| Control | YSE150 | YSE300 | SEM † | p-Value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Trt | Sex | Trt × Sex | ||
| Ammonia (µmol/g of degraded dry matter) | 170 c | 524 a | 169 c | 486 ab | 157 c | 470 b | 45.3 | 0.033 | 0.034 | 0.196 |
| VFA content (mmol/g of degraded dry matter) | ||||||||||
| Total | 1.28 b | 2.04 ab | 1.27 b | 2.29 a | 1.35 b | 1.90 b | 0.195 | 0.117 | 0.097 | 0.013 |
| Acetate | 0.613 ab | 0.907 ab | 0.610 ab | 1.02 a | 0.643 ab | 0.843 b | 0.116 | 0.104 | 0.198 | 0.016 |
| Propionate | 0.136 b | 0.259 ab | 0.135 b | 0.293 a | 0.147 b | 0.248 b | 0.029 | 0.099 | 0.084 | 0.009 |
| Isobutyrate | 0.003 c | 0.009 ab | 0.003 c | 0.011 a | 0.003 c | 0.009 b | 0.003 | 0.037 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Butyrate | 0.090 ab | 0.159 ab | 0.086 ab | 0.176 b | 0.097 ab | 0.145 a | 0.029 | 0.338 | 0.223 | 0.020 |
| Isovalerate | 0.004 c | 0.014 ab | 0.004 c | 0.015 a | 0.004 c | 0.013 b | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Valerate | 0.007 c | 0.012 ab | 0.007 c | 0.013 a | 0.007 c | 0.011 b | 0.001 | 0.023 | 0.042 | 0.008 |
| VFA profile (%) | ||||||||||
| Acetate | 72.2 | 66.3 | 72.4 | 66.3 | 71.7 | 66.5 | 3.76 | 0.694 | 0.392 | 0.124 |
| Propionate | 16.1 | 19.3 | 16.2 | 19.5 | 16.5 | 19.6 | 2.68 | 0.230 | 0.487 | 0.455 |
| Isobutyrate | 0.363 | 0.708 | 0.367 | 0.696 | 0.358 | 0.696 | 0.065 | 0.321 | 0.065 | 0.373 |
| Butyrate | 10.1 | 11.8 | 9.78 | 11.6 | 10.2 | 11.4 | 2.10 | 0.512 | 0.643 | 0.188 |
| Isovalerate | 0.447 | 1.01 | 0.447 | 0.993 | 0.439 | 0.991 | 0.143 | 0.228 | 0.112 | 0.599 |
| Valerate | 0.810 | 0.873 | 0.815 | 0.866 | 0.798 | 0.845 | 0.159 | 0.054 | 0.834 | 0.637 |
| Trt | Sex | SEM † | p-Value ‡ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | YSE300 | Males | Females | Trt | Sex | Time | Trt × Time | ||
| DM in faeces (%) | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 27.1 ab | 26.4 a | 25.8 d | 27.8 e | 0.638 | 0.548 | 0.006 | <0.001 | 0.916 |
| Day 21 | 29.8 c | 29.5 bc | 28.5 e | 30.9 f | |||||
| Day 42 | 30.2 c | 29.8 c | 28.9 e | 31.2 f | |||||
| AIA in faeces (%) | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 3.80 y | 3.79 y | 3.71 | 3.88 | 0.092 | <0.001 | 0.099 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Day 21 | 4.58 x | 3.81 y | 4.12 | 4.27 x | |||||
| Day 42 | 4.60 x | 3.74 y | 4.14 | 4.20 | |||||
| CP content in faeces (%) | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 20.6 a | 20.7 a | 21.0 a | 20.3 a | 0.338 | 0.310 | 0.627 | <0.001 | 0.229 |
| Day 21 | 19.1 b | 18.2 b | 18.7 b | 18.6 b | |||||
| Day 42 | 18.2 b | 18.0 b | 17.9 b | 18.3 b | |||||
| ATTD of CP (%) | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 86.2 z | 86.1 z | 85.6 y | 86.7 y | 0.350 | <0.001 | 0.109 | <0.001 | 0.023 |
| Day 21 | 89.4 x | 87.8 y | 88.4 x | 88.8 x | |||||
| Day 42 | 89.9 x | 87.7 y | 88.9 x | 88.7 x | |||||
| ATTD of OM (%) | |||||||||
| Day 0 | 90.6 y | 90.6 y | 90.4 y | 90.8 xy | 0.216 | <0.001 | 0.124 | 0.009 | <0.001 |
| Day 21 | 92.1 x | 90.4 y | 91.1 xy | 91.5 x | |||||
| Day 42 | 92.1 x | 90.2 y | 91.1 xy | 91.2 xy | |||||
| Trt | Sex | SEM ‡ | p-value § | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | YSE300 | Males | Females | Trt | Sex | ||
| Ammonia (µmol/g DM) | 166 | 147 | 146 | 168 | 14.2 | 0.359 | 0.299 |
| VFA † content (µmol/g DM) | |||||||
| Total | 308 | 303 | 308 | 304 | 13.3 | 0.786 | 0.824 |
| Acetate | 185 | 183 | 186 | 182 | 8.26 | 0.855 | 0.752 |
| Propionate | 64.5 | 63.4 | 63.5 | 64.4 | 3.50 | 0.828 | 0.850 |
| Isobutyrate | 7.76 | 7.84 | 7.70 | 7.90 | 0.387 | 0.884 | 0.720 |
| Butyrate | 32.3 | 30.5 | 33.0 | 29.8 | 1.90 | 0.510 | 0.259 |
| Isovalerate | 11.3 | 11.0 | 10.7 | 11.6 | 0.622 | 0.769 | 0.289 |
| Valerate | 7.41 | 7.46 | 7.17 | 7.70 | 0.524 | 0.946 | 0.488 |
| VFA profile (%) | |||||||
| Acetate | 60.0 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.0 | 0.737 | 0.657 | 0.732 |
| Propionate | 20.9 | 20.9 | 20.5 | 21.2 | 0.577 | 0.961 | 0.394 |
| Isobutyrate | 2.53 | 2.60 | 2.53 | 2.60 | 0.104 | 0.631 | 0.637 |
| Butyrate | 10.49 | 9.98 | 10.69 | 9.78 | 0.399 | 0.375 | 0.128 |
| Isovalerate | 3.68 | 3.65 | 3.50 | 3.83 | 0.192 | 0.917 | 0.245 |
| Valerate | 2.42 | 2.46 | 2.36 | 2.52 | 0.146 | 0.847 | 0.465 |
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. |
© 2026 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.
Share and Cite
Santoru, M.; Muñoz-Grein, J.; Latorre, M.Á.; Pinotti, L.; Rossi, L.; Alvarez-Rodriguez, J. Effects of Yucca schidigera Supplementation on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation and In Vivo Nutrient Digestibility in Male and Female Lean Fattening Pigs. Animals 2026, 16, 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16091354
Santoru M, Muñoz-Grein J, Latorre MÁ, Pinotti L, Rossi L, Alvarez-Rodriguez J. Effects of Yucca schidigera Supplementation on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation and In Vivo Nutrient Digestibility in Male and Female Lean Fattening Pigs. Animals. 2026; 16(9):1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16091354
Chicago/Turabian StyleSantoru, Matteo, Jennifer Muñoz-Grein, María Ángeles Latorre, Luciano Pinotti, Luciana Rossi, and Javier Alvarez-Rodriguez. 2026. "Effects of Yucca schidigera Supplementation on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation and In Vivo Nutrient Digestibility in Male and Female Lean Fattening Pigs" Animals 16, no. 9: 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16091354
APA StyleSantoru, M., Muñoz-Grein, J., Latorre, M. Á., Pinotti, L., Rossi, L., & Alvarez-Rodriguez, J. (2026). Effects of Yucca schidigera Supplementation on In Vitro Cecal Fermentation and In Vivo Nutrient Digestibility in Male and Female Lean Fattening Pigs. Animals, 16(9), 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16091354

