Effects of different defatted rice bran sources and processing technologies on nutrient digestibility in cannulated growing pigs

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different defatted rice bran (DFRB) sources and processing technologies on nutrient digestibility in different intestinal segments of pigs. Nine barrows with T-cannula in the distal ileum were randomly allotted to nine different sources in which oil was pressed extracted for seven sources and was solvent extracted for two sources. The experiment contained 6 periods of 12 d, including 8 d for diet adaptation, 2 d for fecal collection, and 2 d for digesta collection. The apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of dry matter (DM), ash, total dietary fiber (TDF), insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and hemicellulose in different sources of DFRB was quite variable. There were no differences in the AID of dietary gross energy (GE), organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP), and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) between different sources of DFRB. There were no differences in the AID of dietary EE, TDF, IDF, and hemicellulose between different processing technologies. Pressed DFRBs have greater (P < 0.05) average AID of dietary GE, DM, ash, OM, CP, SDF, and NDF and lower (P < 0.01) ADF compared with solvent-extracted DFRBs. The apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of most of the dietary nutrients, except for the ATTD of dietary EE, SDF, and hemicellulose, significantly varied in different sources of DFRB (P < 0.05). In addition, pressed DFRB had greater (P < 0.05) ATTD of dietary SDF, NDF, ADF, and hemicellulose compared with solvent-extracted DFRB. The apparent hindgut digestibility (AHD) of dietary DM, SDF, NDF, and ADF significantly varied (P <0.05) in different sources of DFRB. Exception with DM, there are no differences in the AHD of nutrients digestibility between pressed DFRB and solvent-extracted DFRB. In conclusion, DFRB in different sources and processing technologies with different physicochemical properties had different effects on nutrient digestibility in the foregut and hindgut of pigs.