Year of Publication

2015

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Document Type

Master's Thesis

College

Agriculture, Food and Environment

Department

Animal and Food Sciences

First Advisor

Dr. Merlin D. Lindemann

Abstract

DL-Methionine (Met) has been conventionally used in swine diets with assumption of similar bioefficacy with L-Met. However, because L-Met is the form that is utilized by animals for protein synthesis, L-Met could, theoretically, be more available. Four experiments were conducted to evaluate L-Met bioavailability in nursery pigs with 21-day growth trials. A total of 105,105,112 and 84 crossbred pigs were used in Exp. 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Each experiment had a low Met basal diet and 3 levels of the Met sources (DL-Met and L-Met). In addition to the basal diet, supplementation levels were 0.053%, 0.107% and 0.160% in Exp. 1, 0.040%, 0.080% and 0.120% in Exp. 2, 0.033%, 0.067% and 0.100% in Exp.3, 0.040%, 0.080% and 0.120% in Exp. 4. Body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), gain: feed (G:F) were measured and plasma urea nitrogen (PUN) was analyzed in blood samples weekly. In Exp. 3 and 4, preference studies were conducted with the basal diet and the second highest level of each Met source. When additional DL-Met or L-Met were supplemented to the basal diet, BW, ADG, ADFI, and G:F ratio increased (P < 0.05). In the comparison between the DL-Met and L-Met diets in Exp. 1, pigs in the L-Met group had greater ADG and G:F ratios in the d 0-7 (P < 0.05) period than those in the DL-Met group. However, there were no differences for the overall experimental period. In Exp. 2, pigs in the DL-Met group had greater BW (P < 0.05), ADG (P < 0.05) and ADFI (P < 0.05) than those in the L-Met group for the overall period whereas no differences were observed in G:F ratios and PUN concentrations. In Exp. 3 and 4, there were no differences in BW, ADG, ADFI, G:F ratios or PUN concentrations between L-Met and DL-Met groups for the overall period. There was no preference exhibited for either the DL-Met or L-Met diet. In the results of relative bioavailability of L-Met to DL-Met, the values was 111.1% for d 0-14 based on the estimation by ADG in Exp. 1; L-Met bioavailability was lower than DL-Met based on all response measures in Exp. 2. However, in Exp. 3, relative bioavailability of L-Met to DL-Met was 100.4, 147.3, and 104.1% for d 0-14 ADG, G:F ratio and PUN concentrations. In Exp 4, the relative bioavailability of L-Met was 92.9, 139.4 and 70.4% for d 0-14 ADG, G:F ratio and PUN concentrations. In conclusion, using L-Met in the nursery diet demonstrated no consistent beneficial effect on ADG, G:F ratio or relative bioavailability compared to conventional DL-Met.

Share

COinS