Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer
Abstract The primary objective of this experiment was to test the hypothesis that concentrations of soluble (SDF), insoluble (IDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) in feed ingredients used in diets for pigs and poultry analyzed using Method AOAC 2011.25 are greater than values determined using Method...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 2019-09, Vol.97 (9), p.3972-3983 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3983 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 3972 |
| container_title | Journal of animal science |
| container_volume | 97 |
| creator | Nguyen, Nga Jacobs, Marc Li, Juntao Huang, Chengfei Li, Defa Navarro, Diego M D L Stein, Hans H Jaworski, Neil W |
| description | Abstract
The primary objective of this experiment was to test the hypothesis that concentrations of soluble (SDF), insoluble (IDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) in feed ingredients used in diets for pigs and poultry analyzed using Method AOAC 2011.25 are greater than values determined using Method AOAC 991.43. A second objective was to determine the variation that may exist among 3 laboratories using the 2 methods with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). The 3 laboratories were the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Center (MAFIC) at China Agricultural University, Trouw Nutrition, and Hans H. Stein Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). All laboratories analyzed SDF and IDF in feed ingredients in duplicate or triplicate using both methods AOAC 991.43 and 2011.25 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer. The 9 test ingredients were wheat, soybean meal, rapeseed meal, sugar beet pulp, peas, horse beans, native pea starch, and 2 samples of corn; 1 from Europe and 1 from China. All ingredient samples, with the exception of Chinese corn, were procured by Trouw Nutrition, ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen, subsampled, and sent to MAFIC and UIUC. Data were analyzed using SDF, IDF, and TDF as response variables, replication as random effect, and method and location as fixed effects over all ingredients and within each ingredient. When averaged among 9 different ingredients, results indicated that SDF, IDF, and TDF values were not different with either method or at any laboratory. However, the concentration of IDF in corn, wheat, peas, and sugar beet pulp determined using Method AOAC 991.43 was greater (P < 0.05) compared with 2011.25. Soluble dietary fiber determined using Method AOAC 2011.25 was greater (P < 0.05) in corn, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, and sugar beet pulp compared with 991.43. There was no difference in TDF determined with either method, except for wheat having greater (P < 0.05) TDF when determined using Method AOAC 991.43. Interlaboratory variation for SDF, IDF, and TDF was 0.38, 0.87, 1.20, respectively, with Method AOAC 991.43 and 0.40, 0.93, and 1.27, respectively, with 2011.25. Therefore, values determined with the AnkomTDF Analyzer are repeatable among laboratories and can be used in feed formulation worldwide. In conclusion, it is recommended that Method AOAC 991.43 be used to determine SDF, IDF, and TDF in feed ingredients and diets for pigs and poul |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jas/skz239 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6735840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/jas/skz239</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2257698753</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b00c302d6617108b17a993a24d73ba8657501b77f56fcb94397e373e615620263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhSMEotPChgdAlhASQqT1T2zHLJBGUwaQiroZ1pGT3HQ8TezBdorat-4b4GmGEbCA1bV8v3t8fHWy7AXBpwQrdrbR4Sxc31GmHmUzwinPGRHscTbDmJK8LAk9yo5D2GBMKFf8aXbECMO4JGyW3a-gWVvT6B5ZF-E9apxtwEavo3E2INeh4Pqx7uEdMvZw1LZF0cU01RqI2t-iztTgE4I6gDbVKw-pZWNALUTwg7Hpegypgb5CXLsWzS_nC6QUOS0Y0h527ye1rgOfxlDn3YBudD_CfxQoJg8SP0xco7gGNLfXblidL9H53trywdrc6v72Dvyz7Emn-wDP9_Uk-7b8uFp8zi8uP31ZzC_ypmAi5jXGDcO0FYJIgsuaSK0U07RoJat1KbjkmNRSdlx0Ta0KpiQwyUAQLiimgp1kHybd7VgP0E5L7autN0MyVTltqj871qyrK3dTCcl4WeAk8GYv4N33tIZYDSY00PfaghtDRSmXQpWSs4S--gvduNGnD--o5E1yXqpEvZ2oxrsQPHQHMwRXuyRVKUnVlKQEv_zd_gH9FZ0EvJ4AN27_JfQT_WjTMg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2294375589</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Nguyen, Nga ; Jacobs, Marc ; Li, Juntao ; Huang, Chengfei ; Li, Defa ; Navarro, Diego M D L ; Stein, Hans H ; Jaworski, Neil W</creator><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nga ; Jacobs, Marc ; Li, Juntao ; Huang, Chengfei ; Li, Defa ; Navarro, Diego M D L ; Stein, Hans H ; Jaworski, Neil W</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
The primary objective of this experiment was to test the hypothesis that concentrations of soluble (SDF), insoluble (IDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) in feed ingredients used in diets for pigs and poultry analyzed using Method AOAC 2011.25 are greater than values determined using Method AOAC 991.43. A second objective was to determine the variation that may exist among 3 laboratories using the 2 methods with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). The 3 laboratories were the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Center (MAFIC) at China Agricultural University, Trouw Nutrition, and Hans H. Stein Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). All laboratories analyzed SDF and IDF in feed ingredients in duplicate or triplicate using both methods AOAC 991.43 and 2011.25 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer. The 9 test ingredients were wheat, soybean meal, rapeseed meal, sugar beet pulp, peas, horse beans, native pea starch, and 2 samples of corn; 1 from Europe and 1 from China. All ingredient samples, with the exception of Chinese corn, were procured by Trouw Nutrition, ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen, subsampled, and sent to MAFIC and UIUC. Data were analyzed using SDF, IDF, and TDF as response variables, replication as random effect, and method and location as fixed effects over all ingredients and within each ingredient. When averaged among 9 different ingredients, results indicated that SDF, IDF, and TDF values were not different with either method or at any laboratory. However, the concentration of IDF in corn, wheat, peas, and sugar beet pulp determined using Method AOAC 991.43 was greater (P < 0.05) compared with 2011.25. Soluble dietary fiber determined using Method AOAC 2011.25 was greater (P < 0.05) in corn, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, and sugar beet pulp compared with 991.43. There was no difference in TDF determined with either method, except for wheat having greater (P < 0.05) TDF when determined using Method AOAC 991.43. Interlaboratory variation for SDF, IDF, and TDF was 0.38, 0.87, 1.20, respectively, with Method AOAC 991.43 and 0.40, 0.93, and 1.27, respectively, with 2011.25. Therefore, values determined with the AnkomTDF Analyzer are repeatable among laboratories and can be used in feed formulation worldwide. In conclusion, it is recommended that Method AOAC 991.43 be used to determine SDF, IDF, and TDF in feed ingredients and diets for pigs and poultry.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz239</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31300813</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animal Feed - analysis ; Animals ; Beans ; Brassica napus ; China ; Corn ; Diet ; Diet - veterinary ; Dietary fiber ; Dietary Fiber - analysis ; Europe ; Fabaceae ; Feed formulation ; Feed industry ; Feeds ; Food Analysis - instrumentation ; Food Analysis - methods ; Glycine max ; Hogs ; Ingredients ; Laboratories ; Non Ruminant Nutrition ; Nutrition ; Peas ; Poultry ; Pulp ; Random variables ; Rapeseed ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Solubility ; Soybeans ; Starch ; Swine - physiology ; Technology assessment ; Triticum ; Wheat ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2019-09, Vol.97 (9), p.3972-3983</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Sep 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b00c302d6617108b17a993a24d73ba8657501b77f56fcb94397e373e615620263</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b00c302d6617108b17a993a24d73ba8657501b77f56fcb94397e373e615620263</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6735840/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6735840/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,883,1581,27907,27908,53774,53776</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31300813$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Juntao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Chengfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Defa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro, Diego M D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Hans H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaworski, Neil W</creatorcontrib><title>Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description>Abstract
The primary objective of this experiment was to test the hypothesis that concentrations of soluble (SDF), insoluble (IDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) in feed ingredients used in diets for pigs and poultry analyzed using Method AOAC 2011.25 are greater than values determined using Method AOAC 991.43. A second objective was to determine the variation that may exist among 3 laboratories using the 2 methods with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). The 3 laboratories were the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Center (MAFIC) at China Agricultural University, Trouw Nutrition, and Hans H. Stein Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). All laboratories analyzed SDF and IDF in feed ingredients in duplicate or triplicate using both methods AOAC 991.43 and 2011.25 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer. The 9 test ingredients were wheat, soybean meal, rapeseed meal, sugar beet pulp, peas, horse beans, native pea starch, and 2 samples of corn; 1 from Europe and 1 from China. All ingredient samples, with the exception of Chinese corn, were procured by Trouw Nutrition, ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen, subsampled, and sent to MAFIC and UIUC. Data were analyzed using SDF, IDF, and TDF as response variables, replication as random effect, and method and location as fixed effects over all ingredients and within each ingredient. When averaged among 9 different ingredients, results indicated that SDF, IDF, and TDF values were not different with either method or at any laboratory. However, the concentration of IDF in corn, wheat, peas, and sugar beet pulp determined using Method AOAC 991.43 was greater (P < 0.05) compared with 2011.25. Soluble dietary fiber determined using Method AOAC 2011.25 was greater (P < 0.05) in corn, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, and sugar beet pulp compared with 991.43. There was no difference in TDF determined with either method, except for wheat having greater (P < 0.05) TDF when determined using Method AOAC 991.43. Interlaboratory variation for SDF, IDF, and TDF was 0.38, 0.87, 1.20, respectively, with Method AOAC 991.43 and 0.40, 0.93, and 1.27, respectively, with 2011.25. Therefore, values determined with the AnkomTDF Analyzer are repeatable among laboratories and can be used in feed formulation worldwide. In conclusion, it is recommended that Method AOAC 991.43 be used to determine SDF, IDF, and TDF in feed ingredients and diets for pigs and poultry.</description><subject>Animal Feed - analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Beans</subject><subject>Brassica napus</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Diet - veterinary</subject><subject>Dietary fiber</subject><subject>Dietary Fiber - analysis</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Fabaceae</subject><subject>Feed formulation</subject><subject>Feed industry</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Food Analysis - instrumentation</subject><subject>Food Analysis - methods</subject><subject>Glycine max</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Ingredients</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Non Ruminant Nutrition</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Peas</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Pulp</subject><subject>Random variables</subject><subject>Rapeseed</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Solubility</subject><subject>Soybeans</subject><subject>Starch</subject><subject>Swine - physiology</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><subject>Triticum</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1u1DAUhSMEotPChgdAlhASQqT1T2zHLJBGUwaQiroZ1pGT3HQ8TezBdorat-4b4GmGEbCA1bV8v3t8fHWy7AXBpwQrdrbR4Sxc31GmHmUzwinPGRHscTbDmJK8LAk9yo5D2GBMKFf8aXbECMO4JGyW3a-gWVvT6B5ZF-E9apxtwEavo3E2INeh4Pqx7uEdMvZw1LZF0cU01RqI2t-iztTgE4I6gDbVKw-pZWNALUTwg7Hpegypgb5CXLsWzS_nC6QUOS0Y0h527ye1rgOfxlDn3YBudD_CfxQoJg8SP0xco7gGNLfXblidL9H53trywdrc6v72Dvyz7Emn-wDP9_Uk-7b8uFp8zi8uP31ZzC_ypmAi5jXGDcO0FYJIgsuaSK0U07RoJat1KbjkmNRSdlx0Ta0KpiQwyUAQLiimgp1kHybd7VgP0E5L7autN0MyVTltqj871qyrK3dTCcl4WeAk8GYv4N33tIZYDSY00PfaghtDRSmXQpWSs4S--gvduNGnD--o5E1yXqpEvZ2oxrsQPHQHMwRXuyRVKUnVlKQEv_zd_gH9FZ0EvJ4AN27_JfQT_WjTMg</recordid><startdate>20190903</startdate><enddate>20190903</enddate><creator>Nguyen, Nga</creator><creator>Jacobs, Marc</creator><creator>Li, Juntao</creator><creator>Huang, Chengfei</creator><creator>Li, Defa</creator><creator>Navarro, Diego M D L</creator><creator>Stein, Hans H</creator><creator>Jaworski, Neil W</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190903</creationdate><title>Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer</title><author>Nguyen, Nga ; Jacobs, Marc ; Li, Juntao ; Huang, Chengfei ; Li, Defa ; Navarro, Diego M D L ; Stein, Hans H ; Jaworski, Neil W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b00c302d6617108b17a993a24d73ba8657501b77f56fcb94397e373e615620263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal Feed - analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Beans</topic><topic>Brassica napus</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Diet - veterinary</topic><topic>Dietary fiber</topic><topic>Dietary Fiber - analysis</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Fabaceae</topic><topic>Feed formulation</topic><topic>Feed industry</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Food Analysis - instrumentation</topic><topic>Food Analysis - methods</topic><topic>Glycine max</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Ingredients</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Non Ruminant Nutrition</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Peas</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Pulp</topic><topic>Random variables</topic><topic>Rapeseed</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Solubility</topic><topic>Soybeans</topic><topic>Starch</topic><topic>Swine - physiology</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><topic>Triticum</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Juntao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Chengfei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Defa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Navarro, Diego M D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Hans H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaworski, Neil W</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nguyen, Nga</au><au>Jacobs, Marc</au><au>Li, Juntao</au><au>Huang, Chengfei</au><au>Li, Defa</au><au>Navarro, Diego M D L</au><au>Stein, Hans H</au><au>Jaworski, Neil W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2019-09-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>3972</spage><epage>3983</epage><pages>3972-3983</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Abstract
The primary objective of this experiment was to test the hypothesis that concentrations of soluble (SDF), insoluble (IDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) in feed ingredients used in diets for pigs and poultry analyzed using Method AOAC 2011.25 are greater than values determined using Method AOAC 991.43. A second objective was to determine the variation that may exist among 3 laboratories using the 2 methods with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). The 3 laboratories were the Ministry of Agriculture Feed Industry Center (MAFIC) at China Agricultural University, Trouw Nutrition, and Hans H. Stein Monogastric Nutrition Laboratory at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). All laboratories analyzed SDF and IDF in feed ingredients in duplicate or triplicate using both methods AOAC 991.43 and 2011.25 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer. The 9 test ingredients were wheat, soybean meal, rapeseed meal, sugar beet pulp, peas, horse beans, native pea starch, and 2 samples of corn; 1 from Europe and 1 from China. All ingredient samples, with the exception of Chinese corn, were procured by Trouw Nutrition, ground to pass through a 0.5 mm screen, subsampled, and sent to MAFIC and UIUC. Data were analyzed using SDF, IDF, and TDF as response variables, replication as random effect, and method and location as fixed effects over all ingredients and within each ingredient. When averaged among 9 different ingredients, results indicated that SDF, IDF, and TDF values were not different with either method or at any laboratory. However, the concentration of IDF in corn, wheat, peas, and sugar beet pulp determined using Method AOAC 991.43 was greater (P < 0.05) compared with 2011.25. Soluble dietary fiber determined using Method AOAC 2011.25 was greater (P < 0.05) in corn, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, and sugar beet pulp compared with 991.43. There was no difference in TDF determined with either method, except for wheat having greater (P < 0.05) TDF when determined using Method AOAC 991.43. Interlaboratory variation for SDF, IDF, and TDF was 0.38, 0.87, 1.20, respectively, with Method AOAC 991.43 and 0.40, 0.93, and 1.27, respectively, with 2011.25. Therefore, values determined with the AnkomTDF Analyzer are repeatable among laboratories and can be used in feed formulation worldwide. In conclusion, it is recommended that Method AOAC 991.43 be used to determine SDF, IDF, and TDF in feed ingredients and diets for pigs and poultry.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>31300813</pmid><doi>10.1093/jas/skz239</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-8812 |
| ispartof | Journal of animal science, 2019-09, Vol.97 (9), p.3972-3983 |
| issn | 0021-8812 1525-3163 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6735840 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); PubMed Central |
| subjects | Animal Feed - analysis Animals Beans Brassica napus China Corn Diet Diet - veterinary Dietary fiber Dietary Fiber - analysis Europe Fabaceae Feed formulation Feed industry Feeds Food Analysis - instrumentation Food Analysis - methods Glycine max Hogs Ingredients Laboratories Non Ruminant Nutrition Nutrition Peas Poultry Pulp Random variables Rapeseed Sensitivity and Specificity Solubility Soybeans Starch Swine - physiology Technology assessment Triticum Wheat Zea mays |
| title | Technical note: concentrations of soluble, insoluble, and total dietary fiber in feed ingredients determined using Method AOAC 991.43 are not different from values determined using Method AOAC 2011.43 with the AnkomTDF Dietary Fiber Analyzer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T08%3A46%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Technical%20note:%20concentrations%20of%20soluble,%20insoluble,%20and%20total%20dietary%20fiber%20in%20feed%20ingredients%20determined%20using%20Method%20AOAC%20991.43%20are%20not%20different%20from%20values%20determined%20using%20Method%20AOAC%202011.43%20with%20the%20AnkomTDF%20Dietary%20Fiber%20Analyzer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Nguyen,%20Nga&rft.date=2019-09-03&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=3972&rft.epage=3983&rft.pages=3972-3983&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jas/skz239&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2257698753%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2294375589&rft_id=info:pmid/31300813&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jas/skz239&rfr_iscdi=true |