Effects of lecithin on fat utilization by weanling pigs

ELSEVIER

Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

Effects of lecithin on fat utilization by weanling pigs M. @herland*, F. Sundst@l Department of Animal Science, P.O. Box 5025, Agricultural University cf Norway,1432 As, Norway

Accepted 20 July 1994

Abstract One digestibility experiment (Exp. 1) and one growth experiment (Exp. 2) evaluated 2% soy-lecithin as an emulsifier of 6% rendered fat in a two-phase starter diet program (phase 1 = d 0 to d 14 postweaning; phase 2 = d 14 to d 35 postweaning). In Exp. 1, there was no interaction between lecithin and rendered fat. Lecithin improved gain/feed (G/F) (P < 0.01) and gain/ ME (P < 0.05) during phase 1, but had no significant effect on pig performance in phase 2. Overall, lecithin improved (P < 0.1) average daily gain ( ADG) and G/F, but had no effect (P > 0.1) on average daily feed intake ( ADFI) or gain/ME. Rendered fat significantly improved ADG, ADFI, and G/F during phase 2 and overall, but had no effect on gain/ME (P > 0.1). In Exp. 2, lecithin did not improve digestibility of rendered fat, but rendered fat increased apparent digestibility of crude fat (P < 0.01) Lecithin reduced (P < 0.05) the digestibility of DM and N when fed together with rendered fat. Lecithin and rendered fat had no effect (P > 0.1) on the utilization of GE or N by the pigs. Lecithin did not improve the utilization of rendered fat by weanling pigs in this study. Keywords: Piglet; Lecithin; Rendered fat; Digestibility

1. Introduction The utilization of dietary fat is limited by the early weaned pig, especially during the first period after weaning (Eusebio et al., 1965; Frobish et al., 1969; Cera et al., 1988; Thaler et al., 1988; Li et al., 1990). Soy-lecithin, a by-product from the processing of soybeans, can serve as an emulsifier, and has the potential to enhance utilization of dietary fat by young pigs (Frobish, 1969; Jones et al., 1990a;1992). However, Overland et al. ( 1993a) found no effect of soy-lecithin on the digestibility of soy-oil by the weanling pig. Several authors (Cera et al., 1988a; 1989; Li et al., 1990; Jones et al., 1992) reported that fat of animal origin is less digestible by the young pig than fat of vegetable origin. Thus, the effect of lecithin might be greater with * Corresponding author. 0301-6226/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDIO301-6226(94)00055-7

the use of an animal fat source such as rendered fat, a by-product mainly from the slaughter industry. The objective of the present study was to determine whether lecithin enhances the utilization of rendered fat in diets fed to young pigs as measured by growth performance and apparent digestibility and retention of some nutrients (HCl-ether extract (HCl-EE), dry matter (DM) and nitrogen (N) ) .

2. Materials and methods

A growth trial and a digestibility trial were carried out. During the suckling period, pigs in both experiments had access to a commercial starter pig diet containing 3 to 4% rendered fat.

218

M. 0verland,

2.1. Growth experiment

F. Sundst@l /Livestock

(Exp. 1)

A total of 128 crossbred (Duroc X YorkshireX Norwegian Landrace) weanling pigs were used in this experiment. Average initial age and weight were 23 d and 7.18 kg, respectively. The animals were housed in an environmentally controlled nursery in 2.5 m X 2.5 m pens with partially slotted concrete floors. There were 24 pens with five or six pigs per pen. Pigs were allotted on the basis of starting date, initial weight, litter and sex to each of four dietary treatments in six blocks. The diets were arranged in a 2 X 2 factorial structure with two levels of lecithin (0 or 2%) and two levels of rendered fat (0 and 6%). Lecithin and rendered fat were added as a percentage of the diet at the expense of wheat. The percentage of all other major ingredients remained similar across treatments. The fatty acid composition of lecithin and rendered fat is shown in Table 1. The lecithin source used in these experiments was soy-lecithin which contains about 60-65% phospholipids, of which 25% was pure lecithin (phosphatidyl choline). The lecithin contained a large proportion of unsaturated fatty acids (7 1%)) of which linoleic acid ( 18:2) was predominant. Rendered fat is mainly a byproduct of the slaughter industry, and consists of various animal fats. The rendered fat used in this study consisted mainly of lard (65-70%) and beef tallow (30-35%)) and contained 44.9% saturated fatty acids and 42.3% unsaturated fatty acids. The predominant saturated fatty acids in rendered fat were palmitic ( 16:0) and stearic acid ( 18:0), and the predominant unsaturated fatty acid was oleic acid ( 18: 1). Table 1 Fatty acid composition of lecithin and rendered fat, % of fatty acids Item

Lecithin

Rendered fat

Fatty acid” c12:o c14:o Cl6:O C16:l c17:o C18:O C18:l C18:2 C2O:l

_ 12.2 6.1 21.5 38.4 11.1

0.1 2.2 20.6 3.3 1.5 20.5 34.4 4.4 2.0

’ Number of carbon atoms and double bonds designated to the left and right of colon, respectively.

Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

The experiment was split into two postweaning phases. Phase 1 consisted of days 0 to 14 postweaning, and phase 2 consisted of days 14 to 35 postweaning. The content of total lysine was 1.4 and 1.15% and of total threonine 0.92 and 0.82%, during phase 1 and 2, respectively. Crystalline lysine and threonine were added to the diets with lecithin and( or) rendered fat to maintain a constant ME/lysine and ME/threonine ratio. In phase 1, the ME/lysine ratio was 209 kcal of ME/g of total lysine and the ME/threonine ratio was 3 19 kcal of ME/g of total threonine. These ratios were increased to 259 kcal of ME/g of total lysine and 363 kcal of ME/g of total threonine in phase 2. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1988) requirements for all essential amino acids. All diets were wheat-barley-soybean meal based and contained 20% dried whey. Composition and chemical analyses of experimental diets are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Diets were pelleted and then crumbled to obtain similar structure among diets. Lecithin was mixed with the dried whey before it was included in the diets. Pigs were given ad libitum access to feed and water. Pig weight and feed consumption per pen were recorded weekly to determine ADG, ADFI, gain/feed (G/F) and calculated gain/ME intake (G/ME). 2.2. Digestibility

experiment (Exp. 2)

A digestibility experiment was conducted using 12 crossbred (Yorkshire X Norwegian Landrace) weanling barrows from three litters. Average initial age and weight were 21 d (range 19-22 d) and 8.3 kg (range 6.5 to 9.5 kg), respectively. Pigs were housed individually in metabolic crates equipped with water and feed trays and designed for separate collection of feces and urine. The experiment lasted 28 d. Environmental temperature was maintained between 23°C and 26°C. Heat lamps were also provided and were placed right above each cage. Pigs of similar initial weight were allotted by litter to the four dietary treatments. There were four littermates in each of three blocks and two successive 14-d experimental periods with collection of feces and urine from each pig during the last seven days of each period. The diets were arranged in a 2 X 2 factorial structure with two levels of lecithin (0 and 2%) and two levels of rendered fat (0 and 6%). The diets used in Exp. 2 were the same as in the first phase diets of Exp. 1 (Table

M. Overland, F. Sundst@l/ Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

Table 2 Percentage

composition

of phase

219

1diets in Exps. 1 and 2 (as-fed basis) 0 0

2 0

0 6

2 6

Wheat

23.38

21.27

Barley Oat midds

20.00 9.00

Herring meal Soybean meal, 45% CP Dried whey Lecithin Rendered fat Monocalcium phosphate Limestone Premix” Salt L-Threonine

8.00 17.54 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.34

20.00 9.00 8.00 17.54 20.00 2.00 0.00 0.38

17.05 20.00 9.00 8.00 17.54 20.00 0.00 6.00 0.45 I .03 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.28

14.94 20.00 9.00 8.00 17.54 20.00 2.00 6.00 0.48 1.01 0.45 0.10 0.14 0.34

91.3 22.4 9.0 2.3 4.3 5.7 0.7 0.9 0.2

92.0 21.4 10.7 2.0 4.4 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.2

Lecitin (%): Rendered fat ( % ) :

Item Ingredient

L-Lysine.

HCI

1.09

1.07

0.45 0.10 0.00

0.45 0.10 0.04

0.10

0.16

Analyzed composition DM (%)

90.8

90.8

CP(%) HCl-ether extract (%) Crude fiber (%) GE (Meal) Ash (%) P (%) Ca (%) Mg (%)

22.0 3.7 2.6 4.0 5.7 0.7 0.9 0.2

21.8 4.6 2.2 4.0 5.8 0.7 0.9 0.2

a Vitamins and trace elements included to provide the following amounts per kilogram of diet: 105 mg of Zn; 75 mg of Fe; 60 mg of Mn; 15 mg of Cu; 0.75 mg of I; 0.3 mg of Se; 1 g NaCl; 8000 IU of vitamin A; 600 IU of vitamin D; 60 IU of vitamin E; 4 mg of riboflavin; 12 mg of niacin; 12 mg of pantothenic acid; 20 ug of vitamin B,2; 0.2 mg of biotin; 500 mg of choline.

1) . Pigs were allowed a 7-d adjustment period to diets and cages prior to the collection period, then a 7-d collection of total feces and urine was conducted (Period 1) . After period 1, pigs were reallotted within block across treatments, each pig receiving a different treatment. After another 7-d adjustment, a second collection period was conducted (period 2) according to the same procedure as the first. All pigs within each block were fed the same daily quantity of feed. Pigs were fed twice daily and given ad libitum access to water. Each day the collected urine was weighed and a 10% aliquot was retained, and the seven daily aliquots were pooled at the end of each period and frozen. Feces collected during the 7-d period were mixed and a subsample was taken and also frozen for subsequent analysis. Live weights of pigs recorded at the beginning

and at the end of the experiment gained weight.

confirmed that all pigs

2.3. Laboratory analyses

Fatty acid composition of lecithin, rendered fat and diets was determined by GLC according to the method of Martin et al. ( 1991). Dry matter, HCI-EE, CP and crude fiber (CF) of diets (Exps. 1 and 2) and feces as well as N content of urine (Exp. 2) were determined by standard methods (AOAC, 1980). For Exp. 2, GE of diet and feces was determined by bomb calorimetry. Apparent digestibilities of GE, DM, CP and HCl-EE, apparent N retention, ME and ME, (ME corrected to zero N balance; NRC 1988) were measured.

220

M. Overland, F. Sundst@l/ Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

Table 3 Percentagecompositionof phase 2 diets in Exp. 2 (as-fed basis) 0 0

2 0

0 6

2 6

Ingredient Wheat Barley Oat midds Herring meal Soybean meal, 45% CP Dried whey Lecithin Rendered fat Monocalcium phosphate Limestone Premix” salt L-Threonine L-Lysine . HCl

30.67 20.00 9.00 8.00 10.26 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 1.09 0.45 0.10 0.00 0.00

28.57 20.00 9.00 8.00 10.26 20.00 2.00 0.00 0.41 1.07 0.45 0.10 0.03 0.05

24.37 20.00 9.00 8.00 10.26 20.00 0.00 6.00 0.54 1.03 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.15

22.28 20.00 9.00 8.00 10.26 20.00 2.00 6.00 0.58 1.02 0.45 0.10 0.13 0.20

Analyzed composition DM (%) CP (%) HCl-ether extract (%) Crude fiber (%) Ash (%) P (%) Ca (%)

90.0 19.50 3.67 2.2 5.1 0.69 0.92

90.0 19.38 4.79 2.0 5.9 0.74 0.92

89.1 17.88 8.96 2.0 5.6 0.67 0.88

89.3 18.81 10.3 2.4 5.7 0.74 0.89

Item

Lecithin (o/o): Rendered fat (%):

a Vitamins and trace elements included to provide the following amounts per kilogram of diet: 105 mg of Zn; 75 mg of Fe; 60 mg of Mn; 15 mg of Cu; 0.75 mg of I; 0.3 mg of Se; 1 g NaCl; 8000 IU of vitamin A; 600 IU of vitamin D; 60 IU of vitamin E; 4 mg of riboflavin; 12 mg of niacin; 12 mg of pantothenic acid; 20 ug of vitamin B 12;0.2 mg of biotin; 500 mg of choline.

2.4. Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the GLM procedure of SAS ( 1985) for a randomized complete block design, using pen means as experimental units in Exp. 1, and individual observations as experimental units in Exp. 2. In Exp. 2, period was included in the statistical model.

3. Results and discussion

No health problems related to the dietary treatments were encountered during either experiment.

3.1. Growth experiment (Exp. 1) There was no interaction between lecithin and rendered fat for any measurements (Table 4). The addition of lecithin to diets did not improve utilization of rendered fat by pigs as measured by ADG, ADFI, G/F and G/ME. During phase 1, there was no significant main effect of lecithin or rendered fat on ADG or ADFI, but lecithin improved feed efficiency as indicated by G/F (P < 0.01) and energy efficiency (P < 0.05) as indicated by G/ME. There was no significant effect of lecithin for any traits measured in phase 2. During the overall period, lecithin improved (P < 0.1) ADG and G/F of the pigs, but had no effect on ADFI or G/ME (P > 0.1). Pigs receiving rendered fat had significantly higher ADG, ADFI and G/F during phase 2, but there

M. Overland, F. Sundst@l/ Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224 Table 4 Effects of lecithin and(or)

Item

rendered fat on piggrowth

Lecithin (%) : Rendered fat ( % ) :

performance 0 0

(Exp.

221

1) 2 0

0 6

2 6

SE

No. of blocks No. of pigs No. of deaths

6 32 0

6 32 0

6 32 0

6 32 0

Initial wt. (kg) Final wt. (kg)

7.16 18.17

7.15 19.52

7.24 20.55

7.16 20.68

ADG (g) ADFI (g) Gain/feed” Gain/ME (kg/Mcal)b

142 211 0.663 0.227

168 218 0.755 0.25 1

165 218 0.724 0.228

178 225 0.766 0.236

II 11 0.023 0.007

Day 14 to 35 postweaning ADG (g)’ ADFI (9)” Gain/feed’ Gain/ME (kg/Meal)

426 690 0.615 0.206

477 735 0.646 0.211

524 761 0.690 0.214

523 756 0.692 0.209

15 22 0.012 0.004

Day 0 to 35 postweaning ADG (g)“’ ADFI (g)’ Gain/feed” Gain/ME (kg/Meal)

313 498 0.624 0.210

353 528 0.665 0.218

380 544 0.698 0.217

385 544 0.706 0.214

12 14 0.012 0.004

_ _ _

Day 0 to 14 postweaning

a Lecithin effect (P < 0.0 1).

bLecithin effect (P < 0.05). ’ Rendered fat effect (P < 0.001) d Rendered fat effect (P < 0.1). ’ Lecithin effect (P < 0.1) f Rendered fat effect (P < 0.05) was no effect on G/ME (P> 0.1). Overall, rendered fat significantly improved ADG, ADFI and G/F, but had no effect (P>O.l) on G/ME. 3.2. Digestibility

experiment

(Exp. 2)

There was no significant interaction between lecithin and rendered fat for apparent digestibility of fat, indicating that lecithin did not influence the digestibility of rendered fat by the young pigs (Table 5). This is consistent with Overland et al. ( 1994) in which there was no effect of soy-lecithin on the digestibility of rendered fat containing mainly lard by growing-finishing pigs. Rendered fat, an animal fat source, is less digestible by the young pig than fat of vegetable origin (Eusebio et al., 1965; Frobish et al., 1969; Thaler et al., 1988; Cera et al., 1988; 1989; Li et al., 1990; Jones et al., 1992).

Consequently, the effect of lecithin on rendered fat digestibility was expected to be greater compared to when soy oil was used, when lecithin had no effect (Overland et al., 1993a). Jones et al. ( 1990a), however, found a positive effect of soy-lecithin on the digestibility of tallow and soy oil, no effect on coconut oil, and a negative effect on lard in diets for young pigs, while Frobish et al. (1969) found a positive effect of lecithin on the digestibility of lard. These discrepancies could be a result of differences in the lecithin and fat source used. Different sources of lecithin may have different emulisfying properties due to the fatty acid composition, degree of refinement and the phospholipid content. There was no significant main effect of lecithin on apparent digestibility of HCl-EE, but it increased (P < 0.01) by the addition of rendered fat (Table 5).

M. 0verland, F. Sundst@l / Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

222

Table 5 Effects of lecithin and(or) rendered fat on apparent nutrient utilization (Exp. 2)a

Item

Lecithin ( % ) : Rendered fat ( %) :

0 0

2 0

0 6

2 6

SE

No. of observations

6

6

6

6

Dry matter Intake (g/d) Feces (g/d)W Digested ( %)cd

.224.3 19.1 91.6

224.3 23.9 89.2

225.5 21.7 90.5

227.3 21.5 90.5

1.9 1.2 0.5

Energy Intake (kc&d)“’ Feces (k&/d)” Urine (k&/d) DE (%) ME (% of intake) ME.(%ofintake)” DE (kcal/kg)==’ ME (kcal/kg)“’ ME, ( kcal/kg)cCfh

979.5 80.5 19.5 91.8 89.8 86.2 3635 3559 3419

1046.8 100.3 18.3 90.2 88.4 85.4 3818 3747 3618

1052.7 102.5 14.9 90.4 88.9 85.5 3852 3790 3644

1073.9 102.4 17.0 90.4 88.8 85.6 3927 3859 3721

3.9 5.7 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 22.1 23.7 21.4

Fat Intake (g/d)e’ Feces (g/d)’ Digested (%)I

9.1 2.4 73.0

11.4 2.9 73.7

22.3 4.6 80.0

26.4 4.5 83.0

0.8 0.5 2.2

Nitrogen Intake (g/d)‘dj Feces (g/d) Urine (g/d) Retained (g/d) Digested (%)’ Retained (% of intake) Retained (% of absorbed)

8.9 0.8 2.9 5.2 91.0 57.3 63.1

8.5 1.0 2.7 4.8 88.4 55.9 63.4

8.5 0.9 2.2 5.4 89.3 62.7 70.2

8.5 0.9 2.5 5.2 90.0 59.4 66.1

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.7 3.4 3.9

a A total of 12 barrows with an average initial and final wt. of 8.13 and 11.51 kg, respectively. b Lecithin effect (P
This may result from the reduced proportional contribution of metabolic fat excretion to total fat with the addition of 6% added fat, rather than a more efficient digestion of the increased amount of fat present (Frobish et al., 1970; Sundstol, 1974; Leibbrandt et al., 1975; (dverland et al., 1993a; 1994).

There was an interaction (P < 0.05) between lecithin and rendered fat in which the digestibility coefficients for DM and N were lower when pigs were provided with lecithin alone than when lecithin and rendered fat were provided together. This indicates a negative effect of lecithin on nutrient digestibility.

M. Overland, F. Sundst@l/ Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

There was no significant effect of rendered fat on DM or N digestibility. Neither lecithin nor rendered fat exerted any main effect (P > 0.1) on the digestibility and metabolisability of energy or retention of N in the pigs. As expected, the addition of lecithin and rendered fat to diets significantly increased the content of DE, ME, and ME, per kilogram of feed. This resulted in an improved G/F and G/ME with the addition of lecithin and an improved G/F by the addition of rendered fat to diets. The lack of response of lecithin on the utilization of rendered fat as measured by nutrient digestibility and retention reflected on the growth performance in which lecithin did not improve the performance of pigs receiving rendered fat. This agrees with Overland et al. (1993a,b; 1994) who found no clear effect of lecithin on utilization of added fat as measured by nutrient utilization or growth performance of pigs. Additionally, van Wormer and Pollman ( 1985) and Frobish et al. ( 1969), found no effect of lecithin on growth performance of young pigs receiving 4% choice white grease or 9% lard, respectively. On the other hand, Jones et al. ( 1992) found an increase in DM, N and GE digestibility with the addition of lecithin to diets containing added fat by weanling pig, but no improvement on growth performance. This study shows that there was no main effect of lecithin during the first 14-d postweaning in Exp. 1, which is consistent with Exp. 2, but lecithin exerted a positive effect on growth performance during the overall period. This indicates that pigs utilized lecithin better when they got older. On the other hand, the positive effect on growth performance could be due to increased palatability with the addition of lecithin to the diets which resulted in a greater feed and energy intake. Results differ in effect of lecithin as an energy source for young pigs. Holzgraefe et al. (1986) concluded that 2.40 to 2.45% soy-lecithin was not well utilized by newly weaned pigs, but 1.45% soy-lecithin was a satisfactory energy source for pigs weighing 11 to 25 kg. Jones et al. ( 1990b; 1992) and Overland et al. ( 1993a), found no effect of soy-lecithin on growth performance of weanling pigs. Heller ( 1963), however, found a positive effect of deoiled lecithin on starter pig performance. Also, when 4% sunflower lecithin was added to diets for weanling pigs, there was a substantial increase in gain compared with diets containing 0, 2, and 6% sunflower lecithin (Kanyo et al., 1985). Fur-

223

thermore, Van Wormer and Pollman ( 1985) reported that a low level of lecithin ( 1.5%) produced a response in performance similar to that of diets containing 4% choice white grease, suggesting that lecithin could serve as a highly digestible fat source for young pigs. As a conclusion, when lecithin was provided together with rendered fat, there was no effect on fat digestibility, nutrient utilization or growth performance of young pigs. The improved growth performance of pigs receiving lecithin during the overall phase was probably a result of increased feed intake rather than an improved utilization of nutrients by lecithin. Because the data from the digestibility study have been collected from 12 animals, further investigations with a larger number of animals are desirable. This study indicates that as an external emulsifier in a cereal-dried whey soybean meal-based diet, soy-lecithin did not improve utilization of rendered fat by the young pigs as measured by nutrient digestibility, retention and growth performance. Acknowledgements Appreciation is expressed to Research Council of Norway for financial support, and to Bruseth and Kobro Company for donation of the lecithin. The authors would like to thank the staff at the nutrition pig house and the metabolism unit for taking care of the pigs. References AOAC, 1980. Official Methods of Analysis ( 13th edn.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington,DC. Cera, K.R., Mahan, D.C. and Reinhart, G.A., 1989. Apparent fat digestibilities and performance responses of postweaning swine fed diets supplemented with coconut oil, corn oil or tallow. J. Anim. Sci., 67: 2040. Cera, K.R., Mahan, D.C. and Reinhart, G.A.. 1988a. Weekly digestibilities of diets supplemented with corn oil, lardor tallow by weanling swine. J. Anim. Sci., 66: 1430. Endres, B., Aherne, F.X., Ozimek, L. and Spicer, L., 1988. The effects of fat supplementation on ileal verses fecal fat digestibilities, performance and body composition of weaned pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 225. Eusebio, J.H., Hays, V.W., Speer, V.C. and McCall, H.T., 196.5. Utilization of fat by young pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 24: 1001-1007. Frobish,L.T.,Hays, V.W., Speer,V.C. andEwan,R.C., 1969.Effect of diet form and emulsifying agents on fat utilization by young pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 29: 320. Frobish, L.T., Hays, V.W., Speer, V.C. and Ewan, R.C., 1970. Effect of fat source and level on utilization of fat by young pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 30: 197.

224

M. Overland, F. Sun&@1 /Livestock Production Science 41 (1995) 217-224

Heller, H., 1963. Lecithin in der Tieremiihrung. Kraftfutter., 5: 254. Holzgraefe, D.P., Grieb, S.L., Shields Jr., R.G. and Sasse, C.E., 1986. Dietary lecithin and animal fat for weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 63 (Suppl. 1): 298 (Abstr.). Jones, D.B., Hancock, J.D., Nelssen, J.L. and Hines, R.H., 1990a. Effect of lecithin and lysolecithin on the digestibility of fat sources in diets for weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 68 (Suppl. 1): 78 (Abstr.). Jones D.B., Hancock, J.D., Nelssen, J.L. and Hines, R.H., 1990b. Effect of lecithin and lysolecithin additions on growth,performante and nutrient digestibility in weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 68 (Suppl. 1): 79 (Abstr.). Jones, D.B., Hancock, J.D., Harmon, D.L. and Walker, C.E., 1992. Effects of exogenous emulsifiers and fat sources on nutrient digestibility, serum lipids, and growth performance in weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 70: 3473. Kanyo, L., Szabo, P. and Herold, I., 1985. Effect of lecithin supplementation of diets on pig rearing. Allattenyeszteses Takarmanyozas, 34: 313. Leibbrandt, V.D., Hays, V.W., Ewan, R.C. and Speer, V.C., 1975. Effect of fat on baby and growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 40: 1081. Li, D.F., Thaler, R.C., Nelssen, J.L., Harmon, D.L., Allee, G.L. and Weeden, T.L., 1990. Effect of fat sources and combinations on starter pig performance, nutrient digestibility and intestinal morphology. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 3694. Martin, J.C., Niyongabo, T., Moreau, L., Antoine, J.M., Lanson, M., Berger, C., Lamisse, F., Bougnoux, P. and Couet, C., 1991.

Essential fatty acid composition of human colostrum triglycerides: its relationship with adipose tissue composition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 54: 829. NRC, 1988. Nutrient Requirements of Swine (9th Rev. edn.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 0verland. M., Tokach, M.D., Cornelius, S.G., Pettigrew, J.E. and Rust, J.E., 1993a. Lecithin in swine diets: I. weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 71: 1187-1193. Plverland, M., Tokach, M.D., Cornelius, S.G., Pettigrew, J.E. and Wilson, M.E., 1993b. Lecithin in swine diets: II. growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 71: 1187-1193. 0verland. M., Morz, Z. and Sundstel, F., 1994. Effect of lecithin on apparent ileal and overall digestibility of crude fat and fatty acids in pigs. J. Anim. Sci., 72: 2022-2028. Owsley, W., Orr, D.E. and Tribble, L.F., 1986. Effects of nitrogen and energy source on nutrient digestibility in the young pig. J. Anim. Sci., 63: 492. SAS, 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Gary, NC. Sundstel, F. 1974. Hydrogenated marine fat as feed supplement. Report of The Agricultural University of Norway. Vol. 53. No. 24. Thaler, R.C., Nelssen, J.L., and Allee, G.L., 1988. Effect of fat source and fat combination on starter pig performance. Kansas State Univ., Agric. Exp. Station, Report of Progress No. 556.38-4. Van Wormer, D.M. and Pollman, D.S., 1985. Effect of lecithin addition to starter pig diets with and without added fat and dried whey. Nutr. Rep. Int., 32: 8.

R&urn6 0verland, M. et Sundstol, F., 1995. Effets de la lecithine sur l’utilisation des graisses par les ports sevres. Liuest. Prod. Sci., 41: 217-224. Une experience de digestibilite (Exp. 1) et une experience de croissance (Exp. 2) ont servi a evaluer 2% de soja-lecithine comme dmulsifiant de 6% de graisse d’@mrrissage dans un aliment de demarrage en 2 phases (phase 1 =j 0 ii j 14 apt& sevrage; phase 2=j 14 a j 35 apms sevrage) . Dam 1’Exp. 1, il n’ y avait pas d’interaction entre la ldcithine et la graisse d’equarrissage. La lecithine ameliomit l’efficacite alimentaire (G/F) (P< 0.01) et le rapport gain/EM (P < 0,05) pendant la phase 1, mais n’avait pas d’effet significatif sur les performances des ports pendant la phase 2. Au tours de la pdriode totale, la lecithine ameliorait (P < 0.1) le gain moyen quotidien (ADG) et G/F, mais n’avait pas d’effet (P > 0.1) sur la consommation joumaliere moyenne d’aliment ( ADFI) ou gain/EM. La graisse d’&puurissage ameliorait significativement ADG, ADFI et G/F pendant la phase 2 et pendant la p&iode totale, mais n’affectait pas gain/EM (P> 0,l). Dans 1’Exp. 2, la lecithine n’ameliorait pas la digestibilite de la graisse d’equanissage, mais celle-ci augmentait la digestibilite apparente des mat&es grasses (P < 0,Ol) . La lecithine diminuait (P < 0,05) la digestibilite de DM et de N lorsqu’elle &it distribuee avec la graisse d’equanissage. La lecithine et la graisse d’equarrissage n’avaient pas d’effet (P > 0.1) sur l’utilisation de 1’EBou de N par les ports. Dans cette etude, la lecithine n’ameliorait pas l’utilisation de la graisse d’equarrissage par les ports sevres.

Kurzfassung Overland, M. und Sunstol, F., 1995. Wirkung des Lecithins auf die Verwertung von Fett durch Absatzferkel. Liuest. Prod. Sci., 41: 217-224. Eine Verdaulichkeitsbestimmung (Versuch 1) und ein Wachstumsversuch (Versuch 2) dienten der Auswertung des Zuwachses von 2% Sojalecithin als Emulgator von 6% Mischfett in der zweiphasigen Aufzuchtflltterung (phase 1: Tag 0 bis 14 nach dem Absetzen; phase 2: Tag 14 bis Tag 35 nach dem Absetzen). Im Vemuch 1 ergab sich keine Interaktion zwischen Lecithin und Fe& Lecithin verbesserte das Verhahnis Zuwachs zu Futter (P < 0,Ol) und Zuwachs zu ME (P < 0,05) in der phase 1, hatte jedoch keinen signitikanten EinRuB auf die Leistung der Schweine phase 2. Insgesamt verbesserte Lecithin die tagliche Zunahme und die Futterverwertung (P < 0,l) , hatte aber keinen Effekt (P > 0,l) auf den taglichen Futterverzehr und das Verhiiltnis Zuwachs zu ME. Mischfett verbesserte signifikant die Tageszunahme, den tiglichen Futterverzehr und Futterverwertung in phase 2 und insgesamt, hatte jedoch keinen Effekt auf das Verhitnis Zuwachs zu ME (P > 0,l) Im Versuch 2 emiedrigte Lecithin die Verdaulichkeit von Trockenmasse und N (P< 0,05), wenn es zusammen mit Mischfett verabreicht wurde. Lecithin und Mischfett hatten keinen Effekt (P > 0.1) auf Verwertung von Bruttoenergie und N durch die Schweine. Lecithin verbesserte nicht die Verwertung des Mischfettes durch Absatzferkel in dieser Untersuchung.