ArticleJournal of animal science2023
A comparative study on in vitro and in vivo stomach-small intestinal and large intestinal digestion of plant protein meals in growing pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- ComparativeFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of High-Throughput In Vitro Digestion Methods for Predicting In Vivo Digestibility and Fecal Odor Emissions in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- High-throughput in vitro prediction of available energy in feed ingredients for pigs using a novel computer-controlled digestion system.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Energy Values and Standardized Ileal Digestibility of Amino Acids in Fermented Soybean Meal Fed to Growing Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This experiment evaluated the difference between computer-controlled simulated digestion and in vivo stomach-small intestinal or large intestinal digestion for growing pigs. Five diets including a corn-soybean meal basal diet and four experimental diets with rapeseed meal (RSM), cottonseed meal (CSM), sunflower meal (SFM), or peanut meal (PNM) were assigned to each group of five barrows installed terminal ileal cannula or distal cecal cannula in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Ileal digesta and feces were collected for the determination of digestibility of dry matter (DM) and gross energy (GE) as well as digestible energy (DE) at terminal ileum and total tract. The large intestinal digestibility and DE were calculated by the difference between measurements obtained at the terminal ileum and those obtained from total tract. In vitro stomach-small intestinal digestibility and DE for diets and plant protein meals were determined by stomach-small intestinal digestion in a computer-controlled simulated digestion system (CCSDS). The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of diets were determined in a CCSDS using ileal digesta and enzymes extracted from cecal digesta of pigs. The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of four plant protein meals were determined by the difference between stomach-small intestinal and total tract digestion in the CCSDS. For the experimental diets, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE were not different from corresponding in vivo values in basal diet and PNM diet, but greater than corresponding in vivo values for diets with RSM, CSM, and SFM (P < 0.05). No difference was observed between in vitro and in vivo large intestinal digestibility and DE in five diets. For the feed ingredients, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE did not differ from corresponding in vivo ileal values in RSM and PNM but were greater than the in vivo ileal values in CSM and SFM (P < 0.05). The in vitro large intestinal GE digestibility and DE were not different from in vivo large intestinal values in RSM, CSM, and PNM, but lower than in vivo large intestinal values in SFM. This finding may relate to the higher fiber content of plant protein meals resulting in shorter digestion time of in vivo stomach-small intestine thus lower digestibility compared to in vitro, indicating it is necessary to optimize in vitro stomach-small intestinal digestion time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.