Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37553706›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2023

Effects of different starch structures on energy metabolism in pigs.

Xiaoqian Gao, Bing Yu, Jie Yu, Xiangbing Mao, Zhiqing Huang, Yuheng Luo, Junqiu Luo, Ping Zheng, Hui Yan, Jun He and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Xiaoqian GaoKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Bing YuKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Jie YuKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Xiangbing MaoKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Zhiqing HuangKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Yuheng LuoKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Junqiu LuoKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Ping ZhengKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Hui YanKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China.
Jun HeKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China. hejun8067@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1963-9766
Daiwen ChenKey Laboratory for Animal Disease-Resistance Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, People's Republic of China. chendwz@sicau.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31730091State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense CARS-35
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStarch is a major component of carbohydrates and a major energy source for monogastric animals. Starch is composed of amylose and amylopectin and has different physiological functions due to its different structure. It has been shown that the energy supply efficiency of amylose is lower than that of amylopectin. However, there are few studies on the effect of starch structure on the available energy of pigs. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of different structures of starch in the diet on the net energy (NE) of pigs using a comparative slaughter method and to establish a prediction equation to estimate the NE of starch with different structures. Fifty-six barrows (initial BW 10.18 ± 0.11 kg) were used, and they were housed and fed individually. Pigs were divided into 7 treatments, with 8 replicates for each treatment and 1 pig for each replicate. One of the treatments was randomly selected as the initial slaughter group (ISG). Pigs in the remaining treatments were assigned to 6 diets, fed with basic diet and semi-pure diets with amylose/amylopectin ratio (AR) of 3.09, 1.47, 0.25, 0.15 and 0.12, respectively. The experiment lasted for 28 d.

resultsResults showed that compared with the high amylose (AM) groups (AR 3.09 and 1.47), the high amylopectin (AP) group (AR 0.15) significantly increased the final BW, average daily weight gain and average daily feed intake of pigs (P < 0.05), but the F:G of the AM group was lower (P < 0.01). In addition, AR 0.15 and 0.12 groups have higher (P < 0.01) nutrient digestibility of dry matter, crude protein, gross energy and crude ash. Meanwhile, compared with other groups, AR 0.15 group has a higher (P < 0.05) NE intake and energy retention (RE). The regressive equation for predicting with starch structures was established as RE = 1,235.243 - 48.298AM/AP (R

conclusionsIn conclusion, NE intake and RE of pigs augmented with the increase of dietary amylopectin content, indicating that diets high in amylopectin were more conducive to promoting the growth of pigs in the late conservation period.

Indexed as

AmylopectinAmyloseNet energyPigsStarch structure

Identifiers

PMID37553706
PMCPMC10411001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.