ArticleAnimal bioscience2025
Effect of processing techniques on energy content and amino acid digestibility in corn germ meal fed to growing pigs.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study was conducted to determine energy contents, apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients, the apparent (AID) and standardized (SID) ileal digestibility of amino acids (AA) in corn germ meals (CGM) produced by processing technologies of wet milling (CGM-CV1 and CGM-CV2), heating-dried CGM with steep liquor (CGMSL-DH) and dried using indirect heat (CGMSL-IH), corn germ expellers (CGE) and dry-grind processing method (CGM-DG).
methodsIn Exp. 1, forty-two crossbred male barrows with an initial body weight (BW) of 51.2±4.5 kg were assigned to 1 of 7 diets in a randomized complete block design. In Exp. 2, seven cannulating barrows with an initial BW of 35.3±1.3 kg were assigned to 7 diets in each period according to a Latin square design. Each diet included 6 replicates.
resultsThe ATTD of acid detergent fiber and gross energy (GE), and SID of most AA, except for tryptophan (Trp) and cysteine (Cys), in CGMSL-IH was greater (p<0.05) than those in CGM-CV2. The ATTD of organic matter (OM), crude protein and GE, and SID of most AA, except for arginine (Arg), histidine (His), lysine (Lys) and tyrosine (Tyr), in CGMSL-DH was greater (p<0.05) than those in CGM-CV1 for pigs. The ATTD of GE and acid-hydrolyzed ether extract, contents of digestible and metabolizable energy (ME), and SID of AA, except for Arg, His, Lys, Phenylalanine, Trp, Cys, glutamic acid, glycine and Tyr, in CGE were greater (p<0.05) than those in CGM-CV1. The ATTD of OM and GE, and SID of all AA in CGM-DG were greater (p<0.05) than those in CGM-CV1. Compared with the CGM-CV1, CGM-CV2 showed a greater (p<0.05) ATTD of GE and SID of some AA for growing pigs.
conclusionDifferent processing technologies lead to large variations in energy contents and AA digestibility of CGM for growing pigs. The CGE contains more available energy compared with CBM-CV1, and CGMSL-DH, CGMSL-IH and CGM-DG provides more ileal digestibility of AA for growing pigs compared with the CGM-CV1 and CGM-CV2.
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.