232 C
.M. Nyachoti et al. Livestock Production Science 65 2000 229 –237
tion determined in the caecum muscularis was were obtained, differences between means were
assumed to be the same as that in the muscularis of compared using Duncan’s multiple range test Steel
the small intestine and colon for the purposes of and Torrie, 1980. Treatment means were considered
calculating total oxygen consumption Finegan, significantly different at P , 0.05.
1996. For calculating EBW, it was assumed that gut fill in the CC-, BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs was
3, 5 and 8.2 of BW, respectively Mohn and de
3. Results
Lange, unpublished observations; Jørgensen et al., 1996. Relative organ weights g kg EBW were
All pigs appeared healthy and readily consumed calculated by dividing the weight of each organ by
all their feed throughout the experiment. The CC- EBW. The data were subjected to analysis of vari-
and BCM-fed pigs had similar body weights and ance using the general linear models procedure of the
EBW at the end of the study and were heavier Statistical Analysis System 1985 with diet as the
P , 0.01 compared with those fed the BCM–ALF source of variation. When significant diet effects
diet Table 2. With the exception of the small
Table 2 Body weight and visceral organ weight of growing pigs fed casein-corn starch-CC, barley-canola meal-BCM or barley-canola
meal–alfalfa meal BCM–ALF-based diets
e
Item Diet
S.E.M. CC
BCM BCM–ALF
Initial body weight kg 18.6
19.6 18.4
0.66
a a
b
Final body weight kg 27.28
27.2 24.32
0.49
a a
b
Empty body weight kg 26.46
25.84 22.44
0.46
21 c
Wet organ weights g kg
empty body weight
a b
b
Liver 24.8
28.0 28.0
0.6 Small intestine
31.2 30.1
35.5 1.6
a b
b
Colon 10.1
15.5 17.5
0.9
a a
b
Caecum 2.01
2.22 2.92
0.19
d a
a,b b
Total GIT 41.3
47.9 56.0
2.9
- 1
c
Dry organ weights g kg
empty body weight
a a,b
b
Liver 4.97
5.9 6.34
0.34 Small intestine
5.55 5.13
6.18 0.42
a b
b
Colon 1.99
2.71 2.98
0.19 Caecum
0.43 0.44
0.54 0.04
d
Total GIT 7.57
8.28 9.69
0.69
21 c
Dry weight-mucosa g kg
empty body weight Small intestine
4.29 3.96
4.78 0.36
a b
b
Colon 0.64
1.16 1.24
0.08 Caecum
0.11 0.12
0.16 0.06
21 c
Dry weight-muscularis g kg
empty body weight
a a
b
Small intestine 1.14
1.17 1.45
0.09 Colon
1.36 1.55
1.75 0.14
Caecum 0.31
0.32 0.38
0.03
a,b
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ P , 0.05.
c
Assumed contribution of gut fill to body weight: 3, 5 and 8.2 for the CC-, BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs, respectively Mohn and de Lange, unpublished observations; Jørgensen et al., 1996.
d
Gastrointestinal tract; excludes the stomach.
e
Pooled standard error of the mean N 5 5.
C .M. Nyachoti et al. Livestock Production Science 65 2000 229 –237
233 Table 3
intestine, the BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs had
In vitro weight-specific oxygen consumption ml g DM h by the
heavier P , 0.05 visceral organs relative to EBW
liver and gastrointestinal tract mucosa and muscularis tissues in
compared with those fed the CC diet Table 2. On a
growing pigs fed casein-corn starch-CC, barley-canola meal-
DM basis, the effect of diet on the relative weights
BCM or barley-canola meal–alfalfa meal BCM–ALF-based
of visceral organs was significant only in the liver
diets
a
P , 0.05 and colon P , 0.01. However, numeri-
Tissue Diet
S.E.M.
cally, it was larger in the small intestine, caecum and
CC BCM
BCM–ALF
total gut of BCM–ALF-fed pigs than CC-fed pigs.
Liver 3.63
3.31 3.84
0.24
The mucosal tissue in the colon of BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs was heavier P , 0.01 than in
Mucosal tissue
the CC-fed pigs Table 2. In the caecum, there was
Jejunum 12.72
12.25 12.77
0.58
a tendency P , 0.067 towards heavier mucosal
Colon 5.63
7.13 6.77
0.83 Caecum
6.00 6.56
5.70 0.64
tissue in BCM–ALF-fed pigs compared with CC-fed pigs. In the muscularis tissue, diet was significant
Muscularis tissue
P , 0.05 only in the small intestine; muscularis
b c
c
Caecum 1.28
2.26 2.49
0.29
tissue was heavier in the BCM–ALF-fed pigs than in
a
Pooled standard error of the mean N 5 5.
BCM- and CC-fed pigs, both of which were similar.
b,c
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ
The relative contribution of mucosa to the total dry
P , 0.05.
weight of the gut segments was influenced by diet in the jejunum P , 0.05 and colon P , 0.01, but not
in the caecum P . 0.10. The dry mucosa weight represented
mean6S.E. 0.79560.008,
Table 4
0.77260.005 and 0.76860.009 of the total dry
Total in vitro oxygen consumption ml h kg empty body weight by the visceral organs and gastrointestinal mucosa and muscularis
weight of the jejunum in CC-, BCM- and BCM–
tissues in growing pigs fed casein-cornstarch-CC, barley canola
ALF-fed pigs, respectively. These respective values
meal-BCM or barley-canola meal–alfalfa meal BCM–ALF-
were 0.32260.031, 0.43160.013 and 0.41660.007
a
based diets
in the colon. In the caecum, the dry mucosa weight
b
Tissue Diet
S.E.M.
as a proportion of the total dry caecum weight
CC BCM
BCM–ALF
averaged 0.28560.022 across treatments.
c c
d
Dietary treatment did not influence weight-specific
Liver 19.66
18.99 24.30
1.38 Small intestine
60.88 47.89
64.02 8.8
oxygen consumption in the liver or mucosal tissue of
c d
d
Colon 5.29
11.77 12.41
0.96
jejunum, colon and caecum P . 0.10, Table 3.
Caecum 1.18
1.70 2.09
0.27
Weight-specific respiration in the muscularis tissue
Total GIT 66.3
61.4 79.2
9.8
was higher P , 0.05 in the BCM- and BCM–ALF- fed pigs, compared with the CC-fed pigs Table 3.
Mucosal tissue Small intestine
55.55 49.33
61.04 4.13
Per kg of EBW, total oxygen consumption was
c d
d
Colon 3.47
8.12 8.29
0.65
affected by dietary treatment in the liver P , 0.05
Caecum 0.66
0.87 0.90
0.07
and colon P , 0.001, and was numerically higher in the caecum and total gut of BCM- and BCM–
Muscularis tissue
c c,d
d
ALF-fed pigs compared with CC-fed pigs Table 4.
Small intestine 1.45
2.7 3.47
0.39
d c
d
Colon 1.82
3.65 4.19
0.44
Total oxygen consumption by the liver in CC- and
c c,d
d
Caecum 0.41
0.7 0.91
0.11
BCM-fed pigs were similar P . 0.10 and lower
a
P , 0.05 than in the BCM–ALF-fed-pigs. Total
Assumed contribution of gut fill to body weight: 3, 5 and 8.2 for the CC-, BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs, respectively
oxygen consumption by the mucosal tissue of the
Mohn and de Lange, unpublished observations; Jørgensen et al.,
colon was lower P , 0.05 in the CC-fed pigs than
1996.
in the BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs, which in turn
b
Pooled standard error of the mean N 5 5.
c,d
were similar P . 0.10. Diet composition had no
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ
effect P . 0.10 on the total amount of oxygen
P , 0.05.
234 C
.M. Nyachoti et al. Livestock Production Science 65 2000 229 –237
consumed by mucosal tissue of the small intestine sen et al., 1996. Per kg EBW, the wet weights of
and caecum, although values for the caecum mucosa colon and caecum ranged from 15.5 to 17.5 and 2.22
in the BCM- and BCM–ALF-fed pigs were numeri- to 2.94 g, respectively, which agrees closely with the
cally higher than in the CC-fed pigs Table 4. values 17.23 and 2.83 g, respectively reported by
Dietary treatment affected P , 0.05 the calculated Jørgensen et al. 1996 for pigs fed high fibre diets.
total amount of oxygen consumed by the muscularis The weights of the small intestine relative to EBW
tissue of the small intestine, colon and caecum were not affected by diet composition and were
Table 4. The muscularis tissue of all segments in much higher in the present study compared with the
the BCM–ALF-fed pigs consumed higher P . 0.05 values observed by Jørgensen et al. 1996 32.8 vs.
21
amounts of oxygen than in the CC-fed pigs. 16.2 g kg
EBW. This large difference in small intestine weight between studies may partly be
attributed to pig genotype effects. For example,
4. Discussion Quiniou and Noblet 1995 demonstrated larger
