TY - JOUR
AU1 - Kim, J. W.
AU2 - Nyachoti, C. M.
AB - ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted to determine the NE of hemp hulls (HH), extruded HH (EHH), and a blended product of HH with pea (HHP) fed to growing pigs using indirect calorimetry (IC) and to determine effects of dietary fiber on heat production (HP) and fasting HP (FHP). Twenty-four growing barrows with an average initial BW of 22.9 ± 1.75 kg were individually housed in adjustable metabolism crates. Pigs were randomly allotted to 1 of 4 dietary treatments with 6 replicates per treatment. A corn–soybean meal basal diet was prepared. Three additional diets were formulated to contain a constant ratio of corn and soybean meal and each of the test ingredients. Pigs were fed experimental diets for 16 d including 10 d for adaptation and 6 d for total collection of feces and urine to determine DE and ME of experimental diets. Pigs were then moved into IC chambers to determine HP and FHP. The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM was greater (P < 0.01) in the HHP diet than in the HH and EHH diets but less (P < 0.01) than in the basal diet. Similarly, the ATTD of GE in the basal diet was greater (P < 0.01) compared with the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. The DE, ME, and NE of the basal diet were greater (P < 0.01) than those of the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. No significant differences were observed for the HP (on average, 1,904 kcal/kg DM) and FHP (on average, 1,320 kcal/kg DM) among treatments. However, the retained energy of pigs fed the basal diet (1,763 kcal/kg DM) was greater (P < 0.05) than for those fed the HH (1,501 kcal/kg DM) and HHP (1,482 kcal/kg DM) diets. The NE:ME ratio tended to be greater (P ≤ 0.10) for the basal diet (0.85) than for the HH (0.82), EHH (0.82), and HHP (0.83) diets. The NE of HH, EHH, and HHP determined by the IC method were 2,375, 2,320, and 2,399 kcal/kg DM, respectively, whereas values calculated using published prediction equations were 2,308, 2,161, and 2,278 kcal/kg DM, respectively. However there was no difference between determined and predicted values. In conclusion, the NE of HH, EHH, and HHP determined using the IC method were 2,375, 2,320, and 2,399 kcal/kg DM, respectively, and these values were 2.9, 7.1, and 5.2% greater, respectively, than the predicted values, although no difference was observed between determined and predicted values. However, the HP values observed for the basal diet and the diets containing high dietary fiber in the form of HH, EHH, or HHP were similar. INTRODUCTION Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is an annual herbaceous plant belonging to the Cannabinaceae family and has been planted for fiber and medicine production for many years (Russo and Reggiani, 2015). The production of hemp hulls (HH), a coproduct of shelled hempseed, has gradually increased due to increased human consumption of shelled hempseed in North America and in many European countries (Callaway, 2004). Due to its high protein and oil contents, HH has potential as a protein and energy source for swine diets. Moreover, the nutritive value could be enhanced through processing such as extrusion or blending with other feed ingredients. Indeed, extruded and blended feed ingredients have been shown to have a higher nutritive value for swine and poultry compared with raw feed ingredients (Kiarie and Nyachoti, 2007; Jha et al., 2013). Among the available energy evaluating systems, the NE system provides the most accurate estimates of the dietary energy utilizable for pigs (Noblet, 2007; Velayudhan et al., 2015b), especially for high-fiber feeds and ingredients. Hemp hulls and HH-containing feedstuffs contain relatively high dietary fiber contents, which necessitates the need to determine their NE value to facilitate their effective utilization as energy sources in swine diets (Velayudhan et al., 2015b). However, inconsistent results regarding effects of dietary fiber on heat production (HP) have been reported, although HP is the major component for estimation of NE (Noblet and van Milgen, 2013). Therefore, this experiment was conducted 1) to determine the NE of HH and HH-containing products including extruded HH (EHH) and a blended product of HH with pea (HHP) fed to growing pigs using either indirect calorimetry (IC) or prediction equations and 2) to test the hypothesis that increased dietary fiber in the form of HH, EHH, or HHP added to a corn–soybean meal (SBM) diet will increase HP when fed to growing pigs. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experimental protocol used in the present study was reviewed and approved by the University of Manitoba Animal Care Committee, and pigs were cared for according to the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (2009). Experimental Animals and Diets The HH, EHH, and HHP evaluated in the present study were obtained from a local supplier (Starlite Colony, Starbuck, MB, Canada). The HHP contained 30% pea and 70% HH, which were blended and co-milled through a hammer mill. Twenty-four growing barrows ([Yorkshire × Landrace] × Duroc) with an average initial BW of 22.9 kg (SD 1.75) were obtained from Glenlea Swine Research Unit, University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Canada). Pigs were individually housed for 16 d in adjustable metabolism crates (1.80 by 0.60 m) with smooth, transparent plastic sides and plastic-covered expanded metal sheet flooring in a temperature-controlled room (22 ± 2°C). A corn–SBM basal diet was formulated to meet or exceed energy and nutrient requirements of growing pigs (NRC, 2012; Table 1). Three additional diets were formulated by replacing 30% of corn and SBM with the test ingredients (HH, EHH, and HHP), with the corn:SBM ratio kept constant (Velayudhan et al., 2015a). Table 1. Composition and nutrient content of experimental diets (as-fed basis)   Dietary treatment1  Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  Ingredients, %      Corn  67.50  46.34  46.34  46.34      Soybean meal  28.20  19.36  19.36  19.36      HH  –  30.00  –  –      Extruded hemp hulls  –  –  30.00  –      Hemp hulls + pea  –  –  –  30.00      Vegetable oil  0.84  0.84  0.84  0.84      Lys HCl  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06      Limestone  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00      Monocalcium phosphate  0.90  0.90  0.90  0.90      Salt  0.50  0.50  0.50  0.50      Vitamin–mineral premix2  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  Analyzed composition      DM, %  90.0  90.5  90.6  89.8      GE, kcal/kg  3,958  4,332  4,316  4,200      CP, %  18.0  19.2  19.3  18.7      Ether extract, %  5.8  10.5  10.2  7.0      Starch, %  43.1  26.1  30.6  31.6      Ash, %  4.3  4.8  4.6  4.7      NDF, %  10.6  24.2  22.2  18.3      ADF, %  3.5  12.2  10.5  11.1      Ca, %  0.83  0.86  0.78  0.79      P, %  0.60  0.66  0.69  0.67    Dietary treatment1  Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  Ingredients, %      Corn  67.50  46.34  46.34  46.34      Soybean meal  28.20  19.36  19.36  19.36      HH  –  30.00  –  –      Extruded hemp hulls  –  –  30.00  –      Hemp hulls + pea  –  –  –  30.00      Vegetable oil  0.84  0.84  0.84  0.84      Lys HCl  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06      Limestone  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00      Monocalcium phosphate  0.90  0.90  0.90  0.90      Salt  0.50  0.50  0.50  0.50      Vitamin–mineral premix2  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  Analyzed composition      DM, %  90.0  90.5  90.6  89.8      GE, kcal/kg  3,958  4,332  4,316  4,200      CP, %  18.0  19.2  19.3  18.7      Ether extract, %  5.8  10.5  10.2  7.0      Starch, %  43.1  26.1  30.6  31.6      Ash, %  4.3  4.8  4.6  4.7      NDF, %  10.6  24.2  22.2  18.3      ADF, %  3.5  12.2  10.5  11.1      Ca, %  0.83  0.86  0.78  0.79      P, %  0.60  0.66  0.69  0.67  1Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). 2Supplied the following per kilogram of finished feed: 2,000 IU vitamin A, 200 IU vitamin D, 40 IU vitamin E, 2 mg vitamin K, 350 mg choline, 14 mg pantothenic acid, 7 mg riboflavin, 1 mg folic acid, 21 mg niacin, 1.5 mg thiamin, 2.5 mg vitamin B6, 70 µg biotin, 20 mg vitamin B12, 10 mg Cu, 110 mg Zn, 120 mg Fe, 10 mg Mn, 0.4 mg I, and 0.3 mg Se. View Large Table 1. Composition and nutrient content of experimental diets (as-fed basis)   Dietary treatment1  Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  Ingredients, %      Corn  67.50  46.34  46.34  46.34      Soybean meal  28.20  19.36  19.36  19.36      HH  –  30.00  –  –      Extruded hemp hulls  –  –  30.00  –      Hemp hulls + pea  –  –  –  30.00      Vegetable oil  0.84  0.84  0.84  0.84      Lys HCl  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06      Limestone  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00      Monocalcium phosphate  0.90  0.90  0.90  0.90      Salt  0.50  0.50  0.50  0.50      Vitamin–mineral premix2  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  Analyzed composition      DM, %  90.0  90.5  90.6  89.8      GE, kcal/kg  3,958  4,332  4,316  4,200      CP, %  18.0  19.2  19.3  18.7      Ether extract, %  5.8  10.5  10.2  7.0      Starch, %  43.1  26.1  30.6  31.6      Ash, %  4.3  4.8  4.6  4.7      NDF, %  10.6  24.2  22.2  18.3      ADF, %  3.5  12.2  10.5  11.1      Ca, %  0.83  0.86  0.78  0.79      P, %  0.60  0.66  0.69  0.67    Dietary treatment1  Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  Ingredients, %      Corn  67.50  46.34  46.34  46.34      Soybean meal  28.20  19.36  19.36  19.36      HH  –  30.00  –  –      Extruded hemp hulls  –  –  30.00  –      Hemp hulls + pea  –  –  –  30.00      Vegetable oil  0.84  0.84  0.84  0.84      Lys HCl  0.06  0.06  0.06  0.06      Limestone  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00      Monocalcium phosphate  0.90  0.90  0.90  0.90      Salt  0.50  0.50  0.50  0.50      Vitamin–mineral premix2  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  Analyzed composition      DM, %  90.0  90.5  90.6  89.8      GE, kcal/kg  3,958  4,332  4,316  4,200      CP, %  18.0  19.2  19.3  18.7      Ether extract, %  5.8  10.5  10.2  7.0      Starch, %  43.1  26.1  30.6  31.6      Ash, %  4.3  4.8  4.6  4.7      NDF, %  10.6  24.2  22.2  18.3      ADF, %  3.5  12.2  10.5  11.1      Ca, %  0.83  0.86  0.78  0.79      P, %  0.60  0.66  0.69  0.67  1Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). 2Supplied the following per kilogram of finished feed: 2,000 IU vitamin A, 200 IU vitamin D, 40 IU vitamin E, 2 mg vitamin K, 350 mg choline, 14 mg pantothenic acid, 7 mg riboflavin, 1 mg folic acid, 21 mg niacin, 1.5 mg thiamin, 2.5 mg vitamin B6, 70 µg biotin, 20 mg vitamin B12, 10 mg Cu, 110 mg Zn, 120 mg Fe, 10 mg Mn, 0.4 mg I, and 0.3 mg Se. View Large Experimental Design and Procedure The experiment was conducted in 2 consecutive periods (12 pigs per period) using the same facility and similar experimental conditions and procedures because only 3 IC chambers were available. Pigs were randomly allotted to 1 of 4 experimental diets in a completely randomized design with 3 replicates per diet (per period). Pigs were fed their assigned diets at 550 kcal ME/kg BW0.60 per day based on BW on d 1, 5, and 10, which was close to ad libitum intake. During the experiment, pigs were fed at 0830 h and were trained to consume their daily feed allowance within 1 h. Pigs had free access to water via a low-pressure nipple drinker throughout the experimental period. Pigs were fed experimental diets for 16 d including 10 d for adaptation to feed and environmental conditions and 6 d for total collection of feces and urine. During the last 6 d of each feeding period, total fecal and urine collection was performed for the determination of DE and ME of test ingredients (HH, EHH, and HHP) as previously described by Woyengo et al. (2010). Briefly, in the morning (0830 h) of the first day of the collection period (d 11), each pig received 5 g of ferric oxide as an indigestible marker mixed in 100 g of assigned feed. The remaining portion of feed was provided after all the marked feed was consumed. Fecal collection was initiated when the marker appeared in feces. In the morning (0830 h) of d 16, pigs were offered 100 g of marked feed as described above, and fecal collection was terminated when the marker appeared in feces. Feces were collected once daily in the morning and were stored at −20°C. Urine collection was initiated at 0830 h on d 11 and ceased at 0830 h on d 16. Urine was collected once daily in the morning (in jugs containing 20 mL of 3 N HCl to minimize N losses) and weighed. A subsample (10% of the total weight) was obtained, filtered through glass wool, and stored at −20°C. On d 16, 3 pigs each were transferred to the calorimetry chambers (1.22 by 0.61 by 0.91 m; Columbus Instruments, Columbus, OH) to measure HP and fasting HP (FHP) based on O2 consumption, CO2 production, and urinary N excretion. Pigs were brought into the calorimetric chambers within 1 h of consuming their daily feed allowance, and HP was continuously measured for 24 h (fed state) followed by 12 h (fasting state) of FHP measurement. The following sets of 3 pigs were moved into the calorimetry chambers every 2 d (d 18, 20, and 22). Pigs had unlimited access to fresh water in the chambers at all times, and urine voided during the 24- and 12-h periods was collected separately, weighed, subsampled, and stored at −20°C until required for N analysis. The experimental temperature inside the chamber was maintained at 22°C ± 1°C, and personnel movement in the chamber room was limited to measure HP and FHP under calm conditions. After d 16 (at the end of collection day), pigs were fed their assigned experimental diets until they were moved into the IC. Sample Preparation and Chemical Analyses Fecal samples were oven-dried at 50°C for 5 d and were finely ground before chemical analysis. Urine samples from metabolism crates and calorimetry chambers were thawed and pooled separately for each pig, sieved through cotton gauze, and filtered with glass wool. The DM content of diets, ingredients, and feces was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (method 925.09; AOAC, 1990) and the GE content of diets, ingredients, feces, and urine was estimated using an adiabatic bomb calorimeter (model 6400; Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL), which had been calibrated using benzoic acid as a standard. Nitrogen content of diets, ingredients, feces, and urine was determined using the combustion method (method 990.03; AOAC, 1990) using the LECO N analyzer (model CNS-2000; LECO Corp., St. Joseph, MI), and CP was calculated as N × 6.25. Ether extract (EE) was measured for diets and ingredients after hexane extraction (method 920.39; AOAC, 1990) in an extraction apparatus. The ADF and NDF contents in diets and ingredients were determined according to the method of Goering and van Soest (1970). Ash content of diets and ingredients was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (method 942.05; AOAC, 1990). Starch content in diets and ingredients was measured using an assay kit (Megazyme Total Starch assay kit; Megazyme International Ltd., Wicklow, Ireland). Nonstarch polysaccharide (NSP) contents in test ingredients were analyzed using GLC (component neutral sugars) using an SP-2340 column and a Varian CP3380 gas chromatograph (Varian Inc., Palo Alto, CA) and by colorimetry (uronic acids) using a Biochrom Ultrospec 50 (Biochrom Ltd., Cambridge, England) and the procedure described by Englyst and Cummings (1988) with minor modifications (Slominski and Campbell, 1990). To determine the GE of urine, approximately 0.5 g of cellulose was dried at 103°C for 24 h, 2 mL of urine sample was added over it, and the weight of the final mixture was recorded. The urine–cellulose mixture along with a sample of pure cellulose were dried in an oven at 50°C for 24 h and then weighed for estimation of urine DM. The GE of the dried urine–cellulose mixture and pure cellulose were determined using an adiabatic bomb calorimeter as described above, from which the GE of urine samples were calculated by the difference method (Fleischer et al., 1981). Calculations The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM, energy, and CP and N retention (%) were calculated as described by Woyengo et al. (2010). The HP and FHP (Brouwer, 1965), retained energy (RE; Noblet et al., 1994), DMI, and NE values (Noblet et al., 1994) were calculated using the following equations:  in which HP is in kilocalories, O2 is oxygen consumption in liters, CO2 is carbon dioxide production in liters, and urinary N excretion is total urinary N excretion in grams. The FHP was also calculated using same equation for HP.  in which RE, ME, and HP are in kilocalories per day.  in which DMI and feed intake are in kilograms and DM contents of feed is a percentage.  in which NE is in kilocalories per kilogram DM, RE and FHP are in kilocalories per day, and DMI is in kilograms. The NE of the experimental diets and test ingredients were calculated according to the equations established by Noblet et al. (1994):  in which NE, DE, and ME are in kilocalories per kilogram DM; EE is ether extract in percent DM; ST is starch in percent DM; and ADF is in percent DM. The average value of 4 prediction equations was used for the predicted NE. The DE, ME, and NE of test ingredients (HH, EHH, and HHP) were calculated according to the study of Velayudhan et al. (2015a), who reported that constant corn:SBM ratio showed the least difference between the determined and predicted NE among other formulation techniques (i.e., simple substitution, constant corn:SBM ratio, and constant CP). The DE, ME, and NE of corn and SBM (constant ratio) and NRC (2012) value of canola oil (8,759, 8,384, and 7,554 kcal/kg for DE, ME, and NE, respectively) were used to calculate the energy values of test ingredients. The energy values of test ingredients were calculated as follows: DEtest ingredients (kcal/kg DM) = (DEtest diet − 0.657 × DEcornand SBM − 0.0084 × DEoil)/0.3. The ME and NE of the test ingredients were calculated using the same equation as with DE, but ME and NE replaced DE. Statistical Analysis All data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The individual pig was considered the experimental unit. Effects of diet and period were included in the model for statistical analysis. However, the effect of period was not significant in this study; therefore, it was not included in the final model. The LSMEANS procedure was used to calculate mean values, and the PDIFF option of SAS was used to separate means. A probability of P < 0.05 was considered significant, whereas 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10 was considered a tendency. RESULTS All pigs adapted well to their respective diets and environmental conditions, remained healthy, and readily consumed their daily feed allowance throughout the experimental period. Chemical Composition of Hemp Hulls and Processed Hemp Hull Products The analyzed nutrients and GE of HH, EHH, and HHP are presented in Table 2. Compared with EHH and HHP, HH contains more GE, EE, NDF, and ADF. In addition, NSP were greater in HH than in EHH and HHP, with a larger proportion of this being in the form of insoluble NSP. The analyzed nutrients and GE contents of the experimental diets were in good agreement with the formulated values (Table 1). Table 2. Analyzed nutrient composition in ingredients (as-fed basis)   Ingredients1,2  Item  HH  EHH  HHP  DM, %  92.8  94.8  91.3  GE, kcal/kg  5,355  5,173  4,859  CP, %  21.9  21.8  19.2  Ether extract, %  23.5  16.5  14.5  Starch, %  1.9  7.1  10.9  Ca, %  0.15  0.13  0.13  P, %  0.37  0.52  0.50  NDF, %  57.1  48.8  36.8  ADF, %  37.9  31.4  22.8  Total NSP,3 DM basis, %  33.2  30.5  24.6  Insoluble NSP, DM basis  32.5  28.0  23.3  Soluble NSP, DM basis  0.7  2.5  1.3    Ingredients1,2  Item  HH  EHH  HHP  DM, %  92.8  94.8  91.3  GE, kcal/kg  5,355  5,173  4,859  CP, %  21.9  21.8  19.2  Ether extract, %  23.5  16.5  14.5  Starch, %  1.9  7.1  10.9  Ca, %  0.15  0.13  0.13  P, %  0.37  0.52  0.50  NDF, %  57.1  48.8  36.8  ADF, %  37.9  31.4  22.8  Total NSP,3 DM basis, %  33.2  30.5  24.6  Insoluble NSP, DM basis  32.5  28.0  23.3  Soluble NSP, DM basis  0.7  2.5  1.3  1HH = hemp hulls; EHH = extruded HH; HHP = blended product of HH with pea. 2The HHP contained 30% pea and 70% HH, which were blended and co-milled through a hammer mill. 3NSP = nonstarch polysaccharide. View Large Table 2. Analyzed nutrient composition in ingredients (as-fed basis)   Ingredients1,2  Item  HH  EHH  HHP  DM, %  92.8  94.8  91.3  GE, kcal/kg  5,355  5,173  4,859  CP, %  21.9  21.8  19.2  Ether extract, %  23.5  16.5  14.5  Starch, %  1.9  7.1  10.9  Ca, %  0.15  0.13  0.13  P, %  0.37  0.52  0.50  NDF, %  57.1  48.8  36.8  ADF, %  37.9  31.4  22.8  Total NSP,3 DM basis, %  33.2  30.5  24.6  Insoluble NSP, DM basis  32.5  28.0  23.3  Soluble NSP, DM basis  0.7  2.5  1.3    Ingredients1,2  Item  HH  EHH  HHP  DM, %  92.8  94.8  91.3  GE, kcal/kg  5,355  5,173  4,859  CP, %  21.9  21.8  19.2  Ether extract, %  23.5  16.5  14.5  Starch, %  1.9  7.1  10.9  Ca, %  0.15  0.13  0.13  P, %  0.37  0.52  0.50  NDF, %  57.1  48.8  36.8  ADF, %  37.9  31.4  22.8  Total NSP,3 DM basis, %  33.2  30.5  24.6  Insoluble NSP, DM basis  32.5  28.0  23.3  Soluble NSP, DM basis  0.7  2.5  1.3  1HH = hemp hulls; EHH = extruded HH; HHP = blended product of HH with pea. 2The HHP contained 30% pea and 70% HH, which were blended and co-milled through a hammer mill. 3NSP = nonstarch polysaccharide. View Large Apparent Total Tract Digestibility of DM, GE, and CP and N balance The ATTD of DM was greater (P < 0.01) in the HHP diet than in the HH and EHH diets but less (P < 0.01) than in the basal diet (Table 3). Similarly, the ATTD of GE in the basal diet was greater (P < 0.01) compared with the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. The ATTD of CP was less (P < 0.01) in the EHH diet than in the basal, HH, and HHP diets, but there were no differences among the basal, HH, and HHP diets. Table 3. Apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM, GE, and CP of experimental diets fed to growing pigs1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  ATTD, %      DM  85.6a  75.9c  75.3c  77.3b  0.30  <0.001      GE  84.3a  75.6bc  74.8c  76.5b  0.36  <0.001      CP  82.9a  81.1a  78.4b  81.6a  0.61  <0.001    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  ATTD, %      DM  85.6a  75.9c  75.3c  77.3b  0.30  <0.001      GE  84.3a  75.6bc  74.8c  76.5b  0.36  <0.001      CP  82.9a  81.1a  78.4b  81.6a  0.61  <0.001  a–cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). View Large Table 3. Apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of DM, GE, and CP of experimental diets fed to growing pigs1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  ATTD, %      DM  85.6a  75.9c  75.3c  77.3b  0.30  <0.001      GE  84.3a  75.6bc  74.8c  76.5b  0.36  <0.001      CP  82.9a  81.1a  78.4b  81.6a  0.61  <0.001    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  ATTD, %      DM  85.6a  75.9c  75.3c  77.3b  0.30  <0.001      GE  84.3a  75.6bc  74.8c  76.5b  0.36  <0.001      CP  82.9a  81.1a  78.4b  81.6a  0.61  <0.001  a–cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). View Large Nitrogen intake was less (P < 0.01) from the basal diet than from the HH and HHP diets, but no difference was observed between the basal and HHP diets (Table 4). There were no differences in urinary N excretion among the experimental diets. Fecal N output was greater (P < 0.01) for pigs fed the EHH diet than for those fed the other diets. However, no differences were observed for N retention (%) and daily N retention among the diets. Table 4. Nitrogen balance of pigs fed experimental diets1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Nitrogen balance      N intake, g/d  32.7c  37.5a  36.8ab  34.4bc  0.64  <0.001      N output in feces, g/d  5.6c  7.1b  7.9a  6.3c  0.19  0.001      N excretion in urine, g/d  6.7  8.5  6.5  5.6  0.77  0.099      N retained, %  62.4  58.5  60.9  65.2  1.93  0.126      N retained, g/d  20.4  21.9  22.4  22.4  0.73  0.204    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Nitrogen balance      N intake, g/d  32.7c  37.5a  36.8ab  34.4bc  0.64  <0.001      N output in feces, g/d  5.6c  7.1b  7.9a  6.3c  0.19  0.001      N excretion in urine, g/d  6.7  8.5  6.5  5.6  0.77  0.099      N retained, %  62.4  58.5  60.9  65.2  1.93  0.126      N retained, g/d  20.4  21.9  22.4  22.4  0.73  0.204  a–cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). View Large Table 4. Nitrogen balance of pigs fed experimental diets1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Nitrogen balance      N intake, g/d  32.7c  37.5a  36.8ab  34.4bc  0.64  <0.001      N output in feces, g/d  5.6c  7.1b  7.9a  6.3c  0.19  0.001      N excretion in urine, g/d  6.7  8.5  6.5  5.6  0.77  0.099      N retained, %  62.4  58.5  60.9  65.2  1.93  0.126      N retained, g/d  20.4  21.9  22.4  22.4  0.73  0.204    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Nitrogen balance      N intake, g/d  32.7c  37.5a  36.8ab  34.4bc  0.64  <0.001      N output in feces, g/d  5.6c  7.1b  7.9a  6.3c  0.19  0.001      N excretion in urine, g/d  6.7  8.5  6.5  5.6  0.77  0.099      N retained, %  62.4  58.5  60.9  65.2  1.93  0.126      N retained, g/d  20.4  21.9  22.4  22.4  0.73  0.204  a–cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). View Large Net Energy of Hemp Hulls and Processed Hemp Hull Products The energy balance of pigs and DE, ME, and NE of experimental diets and test ingredients are presented in Table 5. The DE, ME, and NE of the basal diet were greater (P < 0.01) than those of the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. No differences were observed for the HP and FHP among treatments. However, the RE of pigs fed the basal diet was greater (P < 0.05) than for those fed the HH and HHP diets. The NE:ME and NE:DE ratios, indicators of efficiency of NE utilization, tended to be greater (P ≤ 0.10) for the basal diet than for the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. The DE of HH (3,433 kcal/kg DM) was greater (P < 0.01) than that of the EHH (3,196 kcal/kg DM), with an intermediate value for HHP (3,339 kcal/kg DM). No differences were observed for the ME and NE of HH, EHH, and HHP. The NE of HH, EHH, and HHP determined by the IC method were 2,375, 2,320, and 2,399 kcal/kg DM, respectively, whereas values calculated using published prediction equations were 2,308, 2,161, and 2,278 kcal/kg DM, respectively. However, there was no difference between predicted and determined NE of HH, EHH, and HHP, although the NE of HH, EHH, and HHP obtained with prediction equations were 2.9, 7.1, and 5.2% less, respectively, compared with the values determined using the IC method (Table 6). Table 5. Energy balance in growing pigs and energy values of experimental diets, hemp hulls, and processed hemp hull products determined by the indirect calorimetry method1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Energy value, kcal/kg DM      DE  3,706a  3,621b  3,564b  3,581b  16.8  <0.001      ME  3,569a  3,454b  3,446b  3,457b  20.1  0.001      HP3  1,806  1,953  1,880  1,975  59.7  0.210      FHP4  1,285  1,335  1,262  1,398  52.2  0.291      RE5  1,763a  1,501b  1,566ab  1,482b  63.6  0.020      NE6  3,048a  2,836b  2,828b  2,880b  32.0  <0.001  Efficiencies of NE      NE:ME ratio  0.85  0.82  0.82  0.83  0.009  0.052      NE:DE ratio  0.82  0.78  0.79  0.80  0.010  0.058  Energy value of HH products, kcal/kg DM7      DE  –  3,433a  3,196b  3,339ab  53.5  0.009      ME  –  3,219  3,078  3,258  67.9  0.179      Determined NE  –  2,375  2,320  2,399  108.2  0.862      Predicted NE8    2,308  2,161  2,278  41.4  0.058    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Energy value, kcal/kg DM      DE  3,706a  3,621b  3,564b  3,581b  16.8  <0.001      ME  3,569a  3,454b  3,446b  3,457b  20.1  0.001      HP3  1,806  1,953  1,880  1,975  59.7  0.210      FHP4  1,285  1,335  1,262  1,398  52.2  0.291      RE5  1,763a  1,501b  1,566ab  1,482b  63.6  0.020      NE6  3,048a  2,836b  2,828b  2,880b  32.0  <0.001  Efficiencies of NE      NE:ME ratio  0.85  0.82  0.82  0.83  0.009  0.052      NE:DE ratio  0.82  0.78  0.79  0.80  0.010  0.058  Energy value of HH products, kcal/kg DM7      DE  –  3,433a  3,196b  3,339ab  53.5  0.009      ME  –  3,219  3,078  3,258  67.9  0.179      Determined NE  –  2,375  2,320  2,399  108.2  0.862      Predicted NE8    2,308  2,161  2,278  41.4  0.058  a,bMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). 3HP = heat production = (3.87 × O2 + 1.20 × CO2 − 1.43 × urinary N)/DMI. 4FHP = fasting HP = (3.87 × O2 + 1.20 × CO2 − 1.43 × urinary N)/DMI. 5RE = retained energy = (ME intake − HP)/DMI. 6Net energy = (RE + FHP)/DMI. 7Energy values of test ingredients were calculated using the difference method by subtracting the energy contribution of the basal diet from the energy value of the diets containing 30% of test ingredients. 8The average of 4 predicted NE from Noblet et al. (1994), where 1) NE = 0.843 × DE − 463 (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,431, 2,232, and 2,352 kcal/kg DM, respectively); 2) NE = 0.700 × DE + 1.61 × % ether extract + 0.48 × % starch − 0.91 × % CP − 0.87 × % ADF (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,248, 2,082, and 2,157 kcal/kg DM, respectively); 3) NE = 0.870 × ME − 442 (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,358, 2,270, and 2,392 kcal/kg DM, respectively); and 4) NE = 0.726 × ME + 1.33 × % ether extract + 0.39 × % starch − 0.62 × % CP − 0.83 × % ADF (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,194, 2,126, and 2,209 kcal/kg DM, respectively). View Large Table 5. Energy balance in growing pigs and energy values of experimental diets, hemp hulls, and processed hemp hull products determined by the indirect calorimetry method1   Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Energy value, kcal/kg DM      DE  3,706a  3,621b  3,564b  3,581b  16.8  <0.001      ME  3,569a  3,454b  3,446b  3,457b  20.1  0.001      HP3  1,806  1,953  1,880  1,975  59.7  0.210      FHP4  1,285  1,335  1,262  1,398  52.2  0.291      RE5  1,763a  1,501b  1,566ab  1,482b  63.6  0.020      NE6  3,048a  2,836b  2,828b  2,880b  32.0  <0.001  Efficiencies of NE      NE:ME ratio  0.85  0.82  0.82  0.83  0.009  0.052      NE:DE ratio  0.82  0.78  0.79  0.80  0.010  0.058  Energy value of HH products, kcal/kg DM7      DE  –  3,433a  3,196b  3,339ab  53.5  0.009      ME  –  3,219  3,078  3,258  67.9  0.179      Determined NE  –  2,375  2,320  2,399  108.2  0.862      Predicted NE8    2,308  2,161  2,278  41.4  0.058    Dietary treatment2      Item  Basal  HH  EHH  HHP  SEM  P-value  Energy value, kcal/kg DM      DE  3,706a  3,621b  3,564b  3,581b  16.8  <0.001      ME  3,569a  3,454b  3,446b  3,457b  20.1  0.001      HP3  1,806  1,953  1,880  1,975  59.7  0.210      FHP4  1,285  1,335  1,262  1,398  52.2  0.291      RE5  1,763a  1,501b  1,566ab  1,482b  63.6  0.020      NE6  3,048a  2,836b  2,828b  2,880b  32.0  <0.001  Efficiencies of NE      NE:ME ratio  0.85  0.82  0.82  0.83  0.009  0.052      NE:DE ratio  0.82  0.78  0.79  0.80  0.010  0.058  Energy value of HH products, kcal/kg DM7      DE  –  3,433a  3,196b  3,339ab  53.5  0.009      ME  –  3,219  3,078  3,258  67.9  0.179      Determined NE  –  2,375  2,320  2,399  108.2  0.862      Predicted NE8    2,308  2,161  2,278  41.4  0.058  a,bMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1Each value represents the mean of 6 observations. 2Basal = corn–soybean meal basal diet; HH = hemp hulls (a diet containing basal and HH at a 70:30 ratio); EHH = extruded HH (a diet containing basal and EHH at a 70:30 ratio); HHP = blended product of HH with pea (a diet containing basal and HHP at a 70:30 ratio). 3HP = heat production = (3.87 × O2 + 1.20 × CO2 − 1.43 × urinary N)/DMI. 4FHP = fasting HP = (3.87 × O2 + 1.20 × CO2 − 1.43 × urinary N)/DMI. 5RE = retained energy = (ME intake − HP)/DMI. 6Net energy = (RE + FHP)/DMI. 7Energy values of test ingredients were calculated using the difference method by subtracting the energy contribution of the basal diet from the energy value of the diets containing 30% of test ingredients. 8The average of 4 predicted NE from Noblet et al. (1994), where 1) NE = 0.843 × DE − 463 (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,431, 2,232, and 2,352 kcal/kg DM, respectively); 2) NE = 0.700 × DE + 1.61 × % ether extract + 0.48 × % starch − 0.91 × % CP − 0.87 × % ADF (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,248, 2,082, and 2,157 kcal/kg DM, respectively); 3) NE = 0.870 × ME − 442 (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,358, 2,270, and 2,392 kcal/kg DM, respectively); and 4) NE = 0.726 × ME + 1.33 × % ether extract + 0.39 × % starch − 0.62 × % CP − 0.83 × % ADF (NE of HH, HHP, and EHH were 2,194, 2,126, and 2,209 kcal/kg DM, respectively). View Large Table 6. Comparison of determined and predicted NE of hemp hulls and processed hemp hull products fed to growing pigs   NE of ingredient        Item1  Determined  Predicted  SEM  P-value  Percentage difference2  HH  2,375  2,308  94.7  0.624  2.9  EHH  2,320  2,161  71.1  0.133  7.1  HHP  2,399  2,278  58.9  0.175  5.2    NE of ingredient        Item1  Determined  Predicted  SEM  P-value  Percentage difference2  HH  2,375  2,308  94.7  0.624  2.9  EHH  2,320  2,161  71.1  0.133  7.1  HHP  2,399  2,278  58.9  0.175  5.2  1HH = hemp hulls; EHH = extruded HH; HHP = blended product of HH with pea. 2Percentage difference was computed as [(determined NE − predicted NE)/(determined NE + predicted NE)/2] × 100. View Large Table 6. Comparison of determined and predicted NE of hemp hulls and processed hemp hull products fed to growing pigs   NE of ingredient        Item1  Determined  Predicted  SEM  P-value  Percentage difference2  HH  2,375  2,308  94.7  0.624  2.9  EHH  2,320  2,161  71.1  0.133  7.1  HHP  2,399  2,278  58.9  0.175  5.2    NE of ingredient        Item1  Determined  Predicted  SEM  P-value  Percentage difference2  HH  2,375  2,308  94.7  0.624  2.9  EHH  2,320  2,161  71.1  0.133  7.1  HHP  2,399  2,278  58.9  0.175  5.2  1HH = hemp hulls; EHH = extruded HH; HHP = blended product of HH with pea. 2Percentage difference was computed as [(determined NE − predicted NE)/(determined NE + predicted NE)/2] × 100. View Large DISCUSSION Hemp has been reconsidered a profitable industrial crop for food in North America and in many European countries during the last decade due to health benefits from its high level of dietary fiber and essential fatty acids (Callaway, 2004). Food products related to hempseed have become more available for the general public in these countries, although the potential for human consumption has not yet entered mass markets (Callaway, 2004). Consequently, the production of HH, a coproduct of shelled hempseed, has gradually increased along with the increase in consumption of shelled hempseed. Nutritionists have been looking for alternatives to conventional feed ingredients to reduce feed costs and to establish feeding strategies for the production of nutrient-fortified final products (i.e., n-3 fatty acids fortified eggs and pork) that may satisfy consumer demand (Eastwood et al., 2009). Increased n-3 fatty acid deposition in eggs (Gakhar et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2012) and tissues (Mustafa et al., 1999; Gibb et al., 2005) as a result of the inclusion of hemp seed and oil in the diets has been reported. For efficient utilization of feed ingredients, it is essential to match energy and nutrient requirements of the animal with amount of available energy and nutrients in the diet. However, to our knowledge, no information exists for the nutritive and energy values of HH for swine and poultry, although one study reported AA digestibility in hempseed cake fed to growing pigs (Presto et al., 2011). According to the nutrient composition estimated in this study, HH have a relatively high level of dietary fiber, most of which is insoluble with very little soluble dietary fiber (32.5 vs. 0.7%). Hemp hulls also contain 24% EE, and field pea is a legume seed containing around 22% CP and 43% starch (NRC, 2012). Blending HH with pea, therefore, allows the mixing of macronutrients and improving potential handling problems caused by the released oil during grinding of HH. In addition, application of the extrusion technique to the HH may have positive effects on nutritive value, because extrusion has been reported to improve energy and nutrient digestibility due to the disruption of the cell wall structure and the inactivation of heat-labile antinutritional factors (Golian et al., 2007; Kiarie and Nyachoti, 2007; Ayoade et al., 2012b). Energy concentrations of high-fiber feeds are often overestimated when it is determined with either the DE or ME system (Noblet et al., 1994). Because HH, EHH, and HHP contain high levels of dietary fiber, NE of these ingredients fed to growing pigs needs to be determined for their effective utilization in formulating swine diets. The present study was, therefore, conducted to determine the NE of HH, EHH, and HHP fed to growing pigs using the IC method. The DE and ME of the HH, EHH, and HHP diets was less than those of the basal diet, which is most likely due to the fact that 30% of the basal diet was replaced by the test ingredients containing high fiber. It has been reported that the dietary level of NDF was negatively correlated with the DM and energy digestibilities (Le Goff and Noblet, 2001). The reduced DM and energy digestibilities of the HH, EHH, and HHP diets compared with the basal diet observed in the current study further support the reduced DE and ME of diets containing HH, EHH, and HHP. The reduced CP digestibility of the EHH diet compared with the HH diet was unexpected, because it has been reported that extrusion of ingredients may enhance denaturation of proteins in diets or ingredients and expose more peptide bonds to enzymatic hydrolysis (Ayoade et al., 2012b). Kiarie and Nyachoti (2007) reported increased AA digestibility in coextruded peas and full-fat canola compared with the raw materials, whereas a contradictory result was observed in the study of Golian et al. (2007), who evaluated the effect of extrusion on AA digestibility in canola seed. This inconsistent result may be associated with the extrusion temperature. Under the influence of heat, overheating may destroy digestible nutrients, especially AA, and lead to formation of Maillard reaction compounds, which are not biologically available (Fontaine et al., 2007). The ME:DE ratio measured in this study (0.96; average value for the 4 experimental diets) was comparable to previously reported values of common swine diets. Noblet and van Milgen (2004) reported that the ME:DE ratio of complete diets would be around 0.96 in most circumstances. We hypothesized that pigs fed test ingredients would have greater HP compared with those fed the basal diet because diets containing test ingredients have high level of dietary fiber. However, a similar HP among treatments (1,904 kcal/kg DM; average value of 1,806, 1,953, 1,975, and 1,880 kcal/kg DM) was observed in this experiment. In some studies, significant increases in HP were observed with increased inclusion level of dietary fiber (Noblet et al., 1989; Jørgensen et al., 1996; Ramonet et al., 2000), whereas similar (Ayoade et al., 2012a; Heo et al., 2014) or decreased HP values (Jaworski et al., 2016) were observed in other studies. The possible reason for similar or even decreased HP may be related to a reduction in physical activities of pigs or the changes in overall metabolism caused by the addition of dietary fiber (Schrama et al., 1998). Furthermore, different characteristics of dietary fiber used in previous studies (i.e., insoluble vs. soluble or highly fermentable vs. poorly fermentable) may lead to the inconsistent results of HP value from pigs. Many studies have reported increased weight of the gastrointestinal tract with increasing level of dietary fiber (Nyachoti et al., 2000; Agyekum et al., 2012) and a positive correlation between FHP and size or weight of gastrointestinal tract (van Milgen et al., 1998). Consequently, the FHP or NE required for maintenance increases when pigs consume highly fibrous diets. However, in the current study, a similar FHP value was observed among treatments, which may be a result of a relatively short feeding period. The experimental diets were provided for 3 wk including adaptation, collection, and chamber period, and this experimental period may not be sufficient to cause significant changes in weight and size of visceral organs. Similar results were also observed by Jaworski et al. (2016), who reported that inclusion of 15 or 30% of wheat bran to corn–SBM diets did not affect the FHP of pigs. However, the average FHP value of 1,320 kcal/kg DM observed in the present study is within the range of values for FHP obtained in similar studies conducted in the same facility (Ayoade et al., 2012a; Heo et al., 2014; Velayudhan et al., 2015a) and comparable to that obtained by Noblet et al. (1994) if 0.60 is used as the exponent (179 kcal/BW0.60 for 30 kg pigs; equal to 1,378 kcal/kg of DM). The observed tendency for greater NE:DE and NE:ME ratios in the basal diet than in the other diets might have been due to different energetic efficiencies of dietary components in each experimental diet. Noblet (2007) reported that dietary lipids and starch had greater NE:DE and NE:ME ratios compared with dietary fiber because the energetic efficiency of lipids (90%) and starch (82%) are greater than for dietary fiber (60%). Indeed, the basal diet used in the current study contained less NDF and ADF contents and greater dietary starch concentration compared with the HH, EHH, and HHP diets. The average NE:ME ratio of 0.83 for the 4 experimental diets was similar to the value reported by Velayudhan et al. (2015a). However, this value was slightly higher than that reported by Noblet et al. (1994), who suggested that efficiency of ME utilization for NE was approximately 0.74 to 0.75% for conventional swine diets. This discrepancy could be attributed to differences in genetic background of experimental animals (Kil et al., 2013). For example, Large White barrows were used in the study by Noblet et al. (1994), whereas the current study and that of Velayudhan et al. (2015a) used 3-way-crossbred pigs ([Yorkshire × Landrace] × Duroc). In addition, the genetic improvement in low residual feed intake might have contributed to the greater NE:ME ratio because pigs have been genetically selected to gain more lean tissue with improved G:F (Patience et al., 2015). No difference was observed between the determined and predicted NE of test ingredients. The determined NE was, on average, 5.1% greater than the predicted NE, which indicates that prediction equations well predict the NE of ingredients. However, not considering the physical activity of pigs during FHP estimation can explain the lesser NE of test ingredients obtained with prediction equations compared with the values obtained with the IC method, although they were not significantly different (van Milgen and Noblet, 2003). The NE values obtained with both methods have shown to be similar in some studies (Ayoade et al., 2012a); however, others have reported differences between values obtained with prediction equations and those determined using the IC method (Heo et al., 2014; Velayudhan et al., 2015a). Differences in feeding strategies, experimental conditions, genetics, and BW of pigs, which influence energy expenditure, growth, and body composition, may lead to variation in the NE values of diets and ingredients among experiments (Boisen and Verstegen, 1998). In addition, it should be noted that prediction equations for NE were derived using complete diets, not ingredients (Noblet et al., 1994), which may generate inevitable or inherent variations when energy values calculated from prediction equation and determined using the IC method are compared. In conclusion, the NE of HH, EHH, and HHP determined using the IC method were 2,375, 2,320, and 2,399 kcal/kg DM, respectively, and these values were 2.9, 7.1, and 5.2% higher, respectively, compared with those obtained with prediction equations (2,308, 2,161, and 2,278 kcal/kg DM, respectively). However, no difference was observed between determined and predicted values, which suggests that prediction equations well predict the NE of ingredients. The HP values observed for the basal diet and the diets containing high dietary fiber in the form of HH, EHH, or HHP were similar. LITERATURE CITED Agyekum A. K. Slominski B. A. Nyachoti C. M. 2012. Organ weight, intestinal morphology, and fasting whole-body oxygen consumption in growing pigs fed diets containing distillers dried grains with solubles alone or in combination with a multienzyme supplement. J. Anim. Sci.  90: 3032– 3040. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4380 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. AOAC, Arlington, VA. Ayoade D. I. Kiarie E. Nyachoti C. M. 2012a. Net energy of diets containing wheat-corn distillers dried grains with solubles as determined by indirect calorimetry, comparative slaughter, and chemical composition methods. J. Anim. Sci.  90: 4373– 4379. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4858 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ayoade D. I. Kiarie E. Woyengo T. A. Slominski B. A. Nyachoti C. M. 2012b. Effect of a carbohydrase mixture on ileal amino acid digestibility in extruded full fat soybeans fed to finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  90: 3842– 3847. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4761 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Boisen S. Verstegen M. W. A. 1998. Evaluation of feedstuffs and pig diets. Energy or nutrient-based evaluation? I. Limitations of present energy evaluation systems. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. Anim. Sci.  48: 86– 94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09064709809362407 Brouwer E. 1965. Report of subcommittee on constants and factors. In: Proc. 3rd EAAP Symp.  Energy Metab. Troonn Publ. No. 11. Academic, London. p. 441– 443. Callaway J. C. 2004. Hempseed as a nutritional resource: An overview. Euphytica  140: 65– 72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-004-4811-6 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Canadian Council on Animal Care 2009. CCAC guidelines on: The care and use of farm animals in research, teaching and testing. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Eastwood L. Kish P. R. Beaulieu A. D. Leterme P. 2009. Nutritional value of flaxseed meal for swine and its effects on the fatty acid profile of the carcass. J. Anim. Sci.  87: 3607– 3619. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1697 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Englyst H. N. Cummings J. H. 1988. An improved method for the measurement of dietary fibre as the non-starch polysaccharides in plant foods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.  71: 808– 814. Google Scholar PubMed  Fleischer J. E. Tomita Y. Hayashi K. Hashizume T. 1981. A modified method for determining energy of fresh faeces and urine of pig. Mem. Fac. Agric. Kogoshima Univ.  17: 235– 241. Fontaine J. Zimmer U. Moughan P. J. Rutherfurd S. M. 2007. Effect of heat damage in an autoclave on the reactive lysine contents of soy products and corn distillers dried grains with solubles. Use of the results to check on lysine damage in common qualities of these ingredients. J. Agric. Food Chem.  55: 10737– 10743. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf071747c Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gakhar N. Goldberg E. Jing M. Gibson R. House J. D. 2012. Effect of feeding hemp seed and hemp seed oil on laying hen performance and egg yolk fatty acid content: Evidence of their safety and efficacy for laying hen diets. Poult. Sci.  91: 701– 711. doi: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01825 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gibb D. J. Shah M. A. Mir P. S. McAllister T. A. 2005. Effect of full-fat hemp seed on performance and tissue fatty acids of feedlot cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci.  85: 223– 230. doi: https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-078 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Goering H. K. van Soest P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agric. Handbook No. 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC. Goldberg E. Gakhar N. Ryland D. Aliani M. Gibson R. House J. D. 2012. Fatty acid profile and sensory characteristics of table eggs from laying hens fed hempseed and hempseed oil. J. Food Sci.  77: S153– S160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02626.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Golian A. Campbell L. D. Nyachoti C. M. Janmohammadi H. Davidson J. A. 2007. Nutritive value of an extruded blend of canola seed and pea (EnermaxTM) for poultry. Can. J. Anim. Sci.  87: 115– 129. doi: https://doi.org/10.4141/A06-029 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Heo J. M. Ayoade D. Nyachoti C. M. 2014. Determination of the net energy content of canola meal from Brassica napus yellow and Brassica juncea yellow fed to growing pigs using indirect calorimetry. Anim. Sci. J.  85: 751– 756. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12196 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jaworski N. W. Liu D. W. Li D. F. Stein H. H. 2016. Wheat bran reduces concentrations of digestible, metabolizable, and net energy in diets fed to pigs, but energy values in wheat bran determined by the difference procedure are not different from values estimated from a linear regression procedure. J. Anim. Sci.  94: 3012– 3021. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0352 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jha R. Htoo J. K. Young M. G. Beltranena E. Zijlstra R. T. 2013. Effects of increasing co-product inclusion and reducing dietary protein on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and jowl fatty acid profile of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  91: 2178– 2191. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-5065 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jørgensen H. Zhao X. Q. Eggum B. O. 1996. The influence of dietary fibre and environmental temperature on the development of the gastrointestinal tract, digestibility, degree of fermentation in the hind-gut and energy metabolism in pigs. Br. J. Nutr.  75: 365– 378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19960140 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kiarie E. Nyachoti C. M. 2007. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in co-extruded peas and full fat canola for growing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.  139: 40– 51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.025 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kil D. Y. Kim B. G. Stein H. H. 2013. Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  26: 1205– 1217. doi: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.r.02 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Le Goff G. Noblet J. 2001. Comparative total tract digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. J. Anim. Sci.  79: 2418– 2427. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992418x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mustafa A. F. McKinnon J. J. Christensen D. A. 1999. The nutritive value of hemp meal for ruminants. Can. J. Anim. Sci.  79: 91– 95. doi: https://doi.org/10.4141/A98-031 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Noblet J. 2007. Net energy evaluation of feeds and determination of net energy requirements for pigs. Rev. Bras. Zootec.  36( Suppl.): 277– 284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982007001000025 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Noblet J. Dourmad J. Y. Le Dividich J. Dubois S. 1989. Effect of ambient temperature and addition of straw or alfalfa in the diet on energy metabolism in pregnant sows. Livest. Prod. Sci.  21: 309– 324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(89)90091-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Noblet J. Fortune H. Shi X. S. Dubois S. 1994. Prediction of net energy of feeds for growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  72: 344– 354. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Noblet J. van Milgen J. 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: Effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. J. Anim. Sci.  82( Suppl. 13): E229– E238. Google Scholar PubMed  Noblet J. van Milgen J. 2013. Energy and energy metabolism in swine. In: Chiba L. I. editor, Sustainable swine nutrition.  1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ames, IA. p. 23– 57. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   NRC 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. Nyachoti C. de Lange C. F. M. McBride B. Leeson S. Schulze H. 2000. Dietary influence on organ size and in vitro oxygen consumption by visceral organs of growing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci.  65: 229– 237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00157-3 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Patience J. F. Rossoni-Serao M. C. Gutierrez N. A. 2015. A review of feed efficiency in swine: Biology and application. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol.  6: 33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-015-0031-2 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Presto M. H. Lyberg K. Lindberg J. E. 2011. Digestibility of amino acids in organically cultivated white-flowering faba bean and cake from cold-pressed rapeseed, linseed and hemp seed in growing pigs. Arch. Anim. Nutr.  65: 21– 33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2010.534897 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ramonet Y. van Milgen J. Dourmad J. Y. Dubois S. Meunier-Salaün M. C. Noblet J. 2000. The effect of dietary fibre on energy utilisation and partitioning of heat production over pregnancy in sows. Br. J. Nutr.  84: 85– 94. Google Scholar PubMed  Russo R. Reggiani R. 2015. Evaluation of protein concentration, amino acid profile and antinutritional compounds in hempseed meal from dioecious and monoecious varieties. Am. J. Plant Sci.  6: 14– 22. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2015.61003 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schrama J. W. Bosch M. W. Verstegen M. W. A. Vorselaars A. H. P. M. Haaksma J. Heetkamp M. J. W. 1998. The energetic value of nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to physical activity in group-housed, growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  76: 3016– 3023. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.76123016x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Slominski B. A. Campbell L. D. 1990. Non-starch polysaccharides of canola meal: Quantification, digestibility in poultry and potential benefit of dietary enzyme supplementation. J. Sci. Food Agric.  53: 175– 184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740530205 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   van Milgen J. Bernier J.-F. Le Cozler Y. Dubois S. Noblet J. 1998. Major determinants of fasting heat production and energetic cost of activity in growing pigs of different body weight and breed/castration combination. Br. J. Nutr.  79: 509– 517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19980089 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  van Milgen J. Noblet J. 2003. Partitioning of energy intake to heat, protein, and fat in growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  81( E. Suppl. 2): E86– E93. Velayudhan D. E. Heo J. M. Nyachoti C. M. 2015a. Net energy content of dry extruded-expelled soybean meal fed with or without enzyme supplementation to growing pigs as determined by indirect calorimetry. J. Anim. Sci.  93: 3402– 3409. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8514 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Velayudhan D. E. Kim I. H. Nyachoti C. M. 2015b. Characterization of dietary energy in swine feed and feed ingredients: A review of recent research results. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  28: 1– 13. doi: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0001R Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Woyengo T. A. Kiarie E. Nyachoti C. M. 2010. Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  88: 1433– 1441. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2223 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  American Society of Animal Science
TI - Net energy of hemp hulls and processed hemp hull products fed to growing pigs and the comparison of net energy determined via indirect calorimetry and calculated from prediction equations
JF - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/jas.2016.1255
DA - 2017-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/net-energy-of-hemp-hulls-and-processed-hemp-hull-products-fed-to-ugRi9oSVcn
SP - 2649
EP - 2657
VL - 95
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -