| Literature DB >> 32782789 |
Miao Yu1, Zhenming Li1, Ting Rong1, Gang Wang1, Zhichang Liu1, Weidong Chen1, Jiazhou Li1, Jianhao Li1, Xianyong Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing health awareness among consumers, the demand for healthier, tastier, higher quality and nutritional value pork is increasing. It has been shown that different dietary starch sources can alter the carcass traits and meat quality. However, research on the effects of different starch sources with clear different amylose/amylopectin ratio on the amino acid and fatty acid composition in Longissimus thoracis (L. thoracis) muscle of pigs is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different dietary starch sources on carcass traits, meat quality, muscle amino acid and fatty acid composition, and the mRNA expression levels of genes involved in lipid metabolism and muscle fiber characteristics in finishing pigs. A total of 72 Duroc × Landrace × Large White barrows were randomly allocated to 3 different dietary treatment groups with 8 replicate pens/group and 3 pigs per pen. Tapioca starch (TS), corn starch (CS), and pea starch (PS), with amylose/amylopectin ratio of 0.11, 0.25, and 0.44, respectively, were used as their dietary starch sources for 40 days.Entities:
Keywords: Amino acid profile; Fatty acid composition; Finishing pigs; Lipid metabolism; Meat quality; Starch source
Year: 2020 PMID: 32782789 PMCID: PMC7412799 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-020-00484-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Feed ingredient and nutrient composition of experimental diets (%, as-fed basis)
| Items | Diet1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | |
| Ingredient, % | |||
| Tapioca starch | 59.00 | ||
| Corn starch | 59.00 | ||
| Pea starch | 59.00 | ||
| Soybean meal | 27.00 | 27.00 | 27.00 |
| Corn gluten meal | 3.40 | 3.40 | 3.40 |
| Wheat bran | 3.36 | 3.36 | 3.36 |
| Soybean oil | 3.25 | 3.25 | 3.25 |
| 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | |
| 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | |
| 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.50 |
| Limestone | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Choline chloride (50%) | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| Salt | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Vitamin and mineral premix2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Calculated content | |||
| ME3, MJ/kg | 13.81 | 13.81 | 13.81 |
| Standardized ileal digestible amino acids4, % | |||
| Lysine | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.88 |
| Methionine + Cysteine | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 |
| Threonine | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Tryptophan | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
| Analyzed nutrient composition | |||
| Dry matter5, % | 88.48 | 88.86 | 88.45 |
| Crude protein5, % | 14.54 | 14.55 | 14.55 |
| Crude fat5, % | 1.26 | 1.25 | 1.25 |
| Crude ash5, % | 4.09 | 4.09 | 4.11 |
| Total starch, % DM | 52.25 | 52.26 | 52.25 |
| Amylose/amylopectin | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.44 |
1TS: tapioca starch; CS: corn starch; PS: pea starch
2Provided per kilogram of complete diet: vitamin A, 15,000 IU; vitamin D3, 3,000 IU; vitamin E, 150 mg; vitamin K3, 3 mg; vitamin B1, 3 mg; vitamin B2, 6 mg; vitamin B6, 5 mg; vitamin B12, 0.03 mg; niacin, 45 mg; vitamin C, 250 mg; calcium pantothenate, 9 mg; folic acid, 1 mg; biotin, 0.3 mg; choline chloride, 500 mg; Fe (FeSO4·H2O), 170 mg; Cu (CuSO4·5H2O), 150 mg; I (KI), 0.90 mg; Se (Na2SeO3),0.2 mg; Zn (ZnSO4·H2O), 150 mg; Mg (MgO), 68 mg; Mn (MnSO4·H2O), 80 mg; Co (CoCl2), 0.3 mg
3ME = metabolized energy
4Values were estimated based on database of NRC [15]
5Analytical results obtained according to AOAC [16]
Effects of different dietary starch sources on the growth performance and carcass traits of finishing pigs
| Items | Treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |
| Initial BW, kg | 77.21 ± 0.26 | 77.19 ± 0.23 | 77.25 ± 0.23 | 0.980 | 0.901 | 0.983 |
| Final BW, kg | 109.52 ± 0.91b | 112.09 ± 1.74ab | 115.88 ± 1.21a | 0.011 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| ADG, kg/d | 0.85 ± 0.01b | 0.89 ± 0.04ab | 0.97 ± 0.03a | 0.035 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| ADFI, kg/d | 2.83 ± 0.07 | 2.85 ± 0.05 | 2.89 ± 0.05 | 0.741 | 0.438 | 0.741 |
| F:G | 3.34 ± 0.09a | 3.23 ± 0.11ab | 3.01 ± 0.04b | 0.038 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Hot carcass weight, kg | 82.98 ± 1.70 | 84.12 ± 1.68 | 85.02 ± 1.52 | 0.681 | 0.376 | 0.681 |
| Carcass yield, % | 74.57 ± 0.97 | 74.79 ± 0.54 | 75.89 ± 0.54 | 0.390 | 0.196 | 0.390 |
| Backfat, cm | 2.45 ± 0.12a | 2.36 ± 0.12ab | 2.07 ± 0.04b | 0.047 | 0.104 | 0.056 |
| Loin-eye area, cm | 47.26 ± 0.59b | 50.36 ± 1.24ab | 51.15 ± 1.59a | 0.008 | 0.031 | 0.075 |
| FFLI, % | 51.14 ± 1.00b | 53.24 ± 0.57ab | 54.15 ± 0.68a | 0.034 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch; BW, body weight; ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; F:G, feed to gain ratio; FFLI, fat-free lean index
cThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively
Effects of different dietary starch sources on the meat quality of finishing pigs
| Items | Treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |
| pH45 min | 6.13 ± 0.07b | 6.28 ± 0.04ab | 6.31 ± 0.03a | 0.042 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| pH24 h | 5.50 ± 0.03 | 5.53 ± 0.02 | 5.54 ± 0.04 | 0.967 | 0.794 | 0.967 |
| L* 45 min | 43.35 ± 0.71 | 44.97 ± 0.54 | 44.00 ± 0.51 | 0.181 | 0.474 | 0.181 |
| a* 45 min | 16.68 ± 0.72 | 17.09 ± 0.52 | 18.28 ± 0.48 | 0.206 | 0.096 | 0.206 |
| b* 45 min | 2.21 ± 0.34 | 2.47 ± 0.32 | 2.11 ± 0.28 | 0.698 | 0.814 | 0.698 |
| L* 24 h | 55.36 ± 0.60 | 56.25 ± 0.79 | 55.55 ± 0.76 | 0.657 | 0.854 | 0.657 |
| a* 24 h | 16.46 ± 0.19 | 16.04 ± 0.32 | 16.57 ± 0.29 | 0.361 | 0.764 | 0.361 |
| b* 24 h | 2.66 ± 0.24 | 2.72 ± 0.29 | 3.01 ± 0.29 | 0.529 | 0.289 | 0.529 |
| Marbling scores | 2.44 ± 0.13b | 2.70 ± 0.16ab | 3.04 ± 0.15a | 0.028 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Drip loss, % | 3.22 ± 0.16a | 2.84 ± 0.13ab | 2.73 ± 0.11b | 0.043 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Shear force, | 38.39 ± 1.96a | 34.63 ± 2.71ab | 31.09 ± 1.02b | 0.049 | 0.016 | 0.050 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch; L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness
cThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively
Effects of different dietary starch sources on the longissimus thoracis muscle chemical composition of finishing pigs (as-fresh basis)
| Items | Treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |
| DM, % | 27.25 ± 0.36 | 26.90 ± 0.25 | 27.16 ± 0.32 | 0.717 | 0.832 | 0.717 |
| IMF, % | 3.81 ± 0.17b | 4.22 ± 0 30ab | 4.65 ± 0.13a | 0.035 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| IMP, mg/g | 1.72 ± 0.05b | 1.78 ± 0.04ab | 1.89 ± 0.04a | 0.045 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch; DM, dry matter; IMF, intramuscular fat; IMP, inosine monophosphate
cThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively
Effects of different dietary starch sources on the free amino acid profile of the longissimus thoracis muscle of finishing pigs (mg/100 g)
| Items | Treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |
| Aspartate | 3.24 ± 0.29b | 4.14 ± 0.49b | 6.90 ± 0.91a | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Serine | 35.85 ± 2.41 | 34.94 ± 1.05 | 36.78 ± 1.92 | 0.788 | 0.724 | 0.788 |
| Glutamate | 84.43 ± 4.68 | 88.30 ± 5.84 | 76.04 ± 3.66 | 0.207 | 0.239 | 0.207 |
| Glycine | 134.26 ± 2.22b | 141.37 ± 4.85b | 158.28 ± 5.53a | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Alanine | 340.53 ± 6.36b | 350.86 ± 5.63ab | 361.49 ± 6.68a | 0.048 | 0.024 | 0.082 |
| Tyrosine | 41.47 ± 1.91 | 45.65 ± 1.72 | 45.28 ± 2.93 | 0.366 | 0.242 | 0.366 |
| Cysteine | 4.03 ± 0.15 | 4.03 ± 0.23 | 4.19 ± 0.19 | 0.797 | 0.553 | 0.797 |
| Proline | 40.53 ± 1.47 | 45.20 ± 3.89 | 39.64 ± 1.57 | 0.279 | 0.814 | 0.279 |
| Asparagine | 12.06 ± 0.48 | 12.09 ± 0.55 | 12.47 ± 0.68 | 0.857 | 0.612 | 0.857 |
| Glutamine | 155.29 ± 11.27 | 143.67 ± 11.24 | 166.84 ± 15.05 | 0.446 | 0.527 | 0.446 |
| Valine | 56.40 ± 2.46 | 55.22 ± 3.02 | 54.90 ± 2.82 | 0.922 | 0.700 | 0.922 |
| Threonine | 37.41 ± 1.90 | 38.41 ± 2.44 | 37.09 ± 1.81 | 0.895 | 0.913 | 0.895 |
| Methionine | 25.22 ± 1.34 | 25.03 ± 0.89 | 23.78 ± 2.07 | 0.768 | 0.499 | 0.768 |
| Isoleucine | 31.00 ± 1.33 | 31.33 ± 1.74 | 30.95 ± 2.12 | 0.986 | 0.984 | 0.986 |
| Leucine | 72.97 ± 4.37 | 70.20 ± 2.13 | 70.24 ± 3.99 | 0.827 | 0.592 | 0.827 |
| Phenylalanine | 44.51 ± 2.06 | 47.75 ± 1.96 | 48.80 ± 2.46 | 0.363 | 0.168 | 0.363 |
| Lysine | 66.66 ± 4.66 | 58.48 ± 4.07 | 70.12 ± 6.85 | 0.304 | 0.659 | 0.304 |
| Histidine | 25.13 ± 1.11 | 26.80 ± 1.67 | 24.10 ± 1.15 | 0.370 | 0.599 | 0.370 |
| Arginine | 15.82 ± 2.51 | 13.52 ± 1.09 | 13.97 ± 2.02 | 0.662 | 0.488 | 0.662 |
| Tryptophan | 162.12 ± 5.70 | 159.43 ± 11.77 | 157.02 ± 11.63 | 0.938 | 0.718 | 0.938 |
| FAA | 648.43 ± 6.67b | 678.07 ± 10.90ab | 696.77 ± 14.02a | 0.017 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| TAA | 1388.90 ± 19.58 | 1396.43 ± 15.56 | 1438.87 ± 22.17 | 0.165 | 0.078 | 0.167 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8
a,bMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch; FAA, flavor amino acid; TAA, total amino acid
cThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively
Effects of different dietary starch sources on the fatty acid profile of the longissimus thoracis muscle of pigs (% of total fatty acids)
| Items | Treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TS | CS | PS | ANOVA | Linear | Quadratic | |
| C10:0 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.198 | 0.065 | 0.198 |
| C12:0 | 0.11 ± 0.00b | 0.13 ± 0.00b | 0.15 ± 0.01a | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| C14:0 | 1.56 ± 0.02 | 1.48 ± 0.03 | 1.58 ± 0.06 | 0.152 | 0.747 | 0.152 |
| C14:1 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.04 ± 0.00 | 0.082 | 0.203 | 0.082 |
| C15:0 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.463 | 0.683 | 0.463 |
| C16:0 | 24.90 ± 0.23 | 24.33 ± 0.32 | 24.35 ± 0.48 | 0.476 | 0.698 | 0.466 |
| C16:1n-7 | 3.37 ± 0.22ab | 3.16 ± 0.06b | 3.88 ± 0.19a | 0.021 | 0.065 | 0.021 |
| C17:0 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.956 | 0.889 | 0.956 |
| C18:0 | 12.92 ± 0.49 | 13.01 ± 0.34 | 12.08 ± 0.42 | 0.256 | 0.174 | 0.253 |
| C18:1n-9 | 42.46 ± 0.64 | 41.72 ± 0.87 | 41.80 ± 0.75 | 0.751 | 0.198 | 0.592 |
| C18:2n-6 | 10.41 ± 0.54 | 11.55 ± 0.36 | 10.65 ± 0.42 | 0.190 | 0.729 | 0.190 |
| C18:3n-3 | 0.55 ± 0.02 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.01 | 0.207 | 0.080 | 0.207 |
| C18:3n-6 | 0.05 ± 0.00c | 0.06 ± 0.00b | 0.07 ± 0.01a | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| C20:0 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.00 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.865 | 0.895 | 0.865 |
| C20:1 | 0.81 ± 0.05a | 0.76 ± 0.01ab | 0.75 ± 0.01b | 0.014 | 0.030 | 0.014 |
| C20:2 | 0.47 ± 0.02a | 0.46 ± 0.01a | 0.38 ± 0.01b | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| C20:3n-6 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.00 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 0.056 | 0.051 | 0.056 |
| C20:3n-3 | 0.11 ± 0.00b | 0.11 ± 0.00b | 0.13 ± 0.00a | 0.008 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| C20:4n-6 | 1.01 ± 0.03c | 1.42 ± 0.08b | 1.89 ± 0.06a | < 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.008 |
| C20:5n-3(EPA) | 0.04 ± 0.00c | 0.08 ± 0.00b | 0.10 ± 0.00a | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| C22:0 | 0.03 ± 0.00b | 0.05 ± 0.00a | NDd | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| C22:1 | 0.03 ± 0.00b | 0.07 ± 0.00a | 0.06 ± 0.00a | < 0.001 | 0.060 | < 0.001 |
| C22:6n-3 (DHA) | 0.12 ± 0.01b | 0.16 ± 0.01a | 0.18 ± 0.01a | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| C24:0 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.159 | 0.072 | 0.159 |
| SFA | 40.27 ± 0.67 | 39.64 ± 0.65 | 39.27 ± 0.80 | 0.606 | 0.317 | 0.606 |
| MUFA | 46.79 ± 0.79 | 45.78 ± 0.91 | 46.62 ± 0.85 | 0.672 | 0.890 | 0.672 |
| PUFA | 12.93 ± 0.58 | 14.60 ± 0.45 | 14.16 ± 0.46 | 0.073 | 0.112 | 0.074 |
| PUFA n-6 | 11.64 ± 0.56 | 13.24 ± 0.42 | 12.82 ± 0.45 | 0.183 | 0.111 | 0.073 |
| PUFA n-3 | 0.77 ± 0.03b | 0.88 ± 0.03ab | 0.99 ± 0.02a | 0.004 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| PUFA n-6/PUFA n-3 | 15.33 ± 0.94a | 15.12 ± 0.58ab | 12.90 ± 0.46b | 0.020 | 0.022 | 0.040 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8
a,b,cMeans in the same row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
SFA- sum of saturated fatty acids; MUFA- sum of monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA- sum of polyunsaturated fatty acids
dND means not detected
eThe P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively
Fig. 1Effects of different dietary starch sources on the relative mRNA expression of genes related to lipid metabolism in longissimus thoracis muscle of finishing pigs. The relative mRNA expression levels of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ), fatty acid synthase (FAS), acetyl CoA carboxylase α (ACCα), Sterol regulatory element binding protein-1c (SREBP-1C), lipoprotein lipase (LPL), carnitine palmitoyl transferase 1B (CPT1B), fatty acid transport protein 1 (FATP1), and hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL) were normalized using β-actin as an internal control. The values are means ± SEM (n = 8). The P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.05 (one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's post-hoc test). Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch
Fig. 2Effects of different dietary starch sources on relative mRNA expression of genes related to myosin heavy-chain (MyHC) in longissimus thoracis muscle of finishing pigs. The values are means ± SEM (n = 8). The P values indicate the effects of different dietary starch sources with different amylose/amylopectin ratios by one-way ANOVA and polynomial contrasts- linear and quadratic analyses, respectively. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's post-hoc test). Abbreviations: TS, tapioca starch; CS, corn starch; PS, pea starch