Determination and prediction of amino acid digestibility in rice bran for growing pigs

Article information

Anim Biosci. 2026;39.250280
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 August 25
doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.25.0280
1Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha, China
2College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Animal Production Safety, Changsha, China
*Corresponding Author: Rui Li, Tel: +86-0731-84619750, E-mail: lirui181000@163.com
Received 2025 April 21; Revised 2025 June 1; Accepted 2025 August 22.

Abstract

Objective

This experiment was conducted to determine the apparent ileal digestibility or standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) in 10 rice brans fed to pigs, and to construct predictive models for the SID of CP and AA based on the chemical composition of rice bran.

Methods

Twenty-two healthy (Duroc×[Landrace×Yorkshire]) pigs equipped with ileal T-cannulas (initial body weight: 30±1.5 kg) were selected for this experiment. A replicated 11×3 incomplete Latin square design was adopted. The experiment consisted of 3 periods each lasting for 7 days and had 11 dietary treatment groups. The diets included 10 rice bran diets as well as a nitrogen-free diet for determining endogenous losses of AA, and each treatment group had 6 replicates. Titanium dioxide was added to each diet as an indicator at a concentration of 0.3%.

Results

Except for dry matter (DM) and total phosphorus (TP), the coefficients of variation for the chemical components among 10 rice bran sources were all greater than 10%. The SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp in rice bran was 81.89%±6.23, 80.33%±2.21, 83.25%±5.51, 79.89%±5.68, and 72.12%±4.71, respectively. The best prediction equations for the SID of CP and four limiting AA in rice bran are as follows: SIDCP = 974.032–29.805TP–9.496DM (R2 = 0.88), SIDLys = 471.278–9.267TP–4.245DM+1.401dummy variable (R2 = 0.92), SIDMet = 122.281–2.712CP (R2 = 0.51), SIDThr = 51.864+2.204GE–1.324CF ([R2 = 0.97]; GE, gross energy; CF, crude fiber), and SIDTrp = 73.912–23.268Calcium–0.336NDF+0.318TS ([R2 = 0.96]; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; TS, total starch).

Conclusion

There was significant variability among the chemical components of 10 different sources of rice bran. Moreover, GE, DM, CP, TP, TS, CF, and NDF could serve as crucial predictors for the SID of AA.

INTRODUCTION

Feed cost accounts for more than 75% of pig production expenses, with energy ingredients such as corn constituting the largest proportion [1]. However, factors including African swine fever and geopolitical conflicts have led to a substantial surge in corn prices, driving continuous increases in feed costs and creating an urgent need for economically efficient alternative ingredients.

Rice bran, as a highly promising and cost-effective alternative energy ingredient for swine diets [24], boasts an annual global production of 83 million tons, 90% of which is utilized in livestock feed, demonstrating substantial resource advantages [4,5]. Rice bran is the primary byproduct generated during the milling (whitening) process for producing polished rice from brown rice after hulling, accounting for approximately 11% of the brown rice weight. Rice bran is composed of pericarp, tegmen, and aleurone of the grain [3]. As reported by the NRC [6], the digestible energy and metabolizable energy of rice bran on a fed basis are 12.97 MJ/kg and 12.54 MJ/kg, respectively. It can be used as an energy ingredient to replace corn. Additionally, rice bran is rich in essential fatty acids, minerals, vitamins, dietary fiber, antioxidants (e.g., tocopherols, tocotrienols, and γ-oryzanol), and high-quality protein [68]. The protein in rice bran, composed mainly of albumin (37.0%), globulin (36.0%), and glutelin (22.0%) [9], exhibits high digestibility, good biological value, and low allergenicity. Rice bran’s amino acid (AA) profile is well-balanced and contains notably higher levels of indispensable AA (particularly Lys) than other cereal brans [9]. Currently, significant variations exist in the chemical composition of rice bran compared to the ‘true value’ and ‘static parameter’ in existing databases due to factors such as rice bran variety, regional environment, and milling process. This poses challenges for achieving accurate nutritional formulation. Additionally, the limited studies on the AA digestibility of rice bran also affect the available use of rice bran in diets. Constructing dynamic prediction equations based on the chemical compositions of ingredients enables precise formulation design for animal feeds.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and AA in rice bran obtained from 10 different sources, while also developing a dynamic prediction equation for SIDAA in growing pigs based on the effective nutrient composition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sources of rice bran samples

The study collected 10 samples of rice bran from six provinces in China, namely Jiangxi (with the sample number n = 2; Table 1), Heilongjiang (n = 1), Guangdong (n = 2), Shandong (n = 1), Hunan (n = 3), and Hebei (n = 1). The rice bran samples were crushed and sieved through 40-mesh screen. Then, they were stored at −20°C prior to chemical analysis.

Sources of rice bran

Animals, diets, and experimental design

Twenty-two healthy (Duroc×[Landrace×Yorkshire]) barrows with an initial body weight of 30±1.5 kg were selected for the experiment. Each pig was implanted with a T-shaped cannula at the terminal ileum following the method described by Stein et al [10]. A replicated 11×3 incomplete Latin square design was applied to pigs. The experiment comprised 3 consecutive periods. Each period lasted 7 days, including a 5-day adaptation period followed by a 2-day collection period for ileal digesta samples [1]. In the end, there were 6 replicates for each treatment group. Each pig was individually housed in a metabolic cage measuring 1.8 m×0.8 m×0.6 m and fed 10 diets containing rice bran as the sole nitrogen source, along with one nitrogen-free diet to determine basal endogenous losses of AA (Table 2). All the diets were supplemented with titanium dioxide (TiO2) at a concentration of 0.3% as an index and provided with vitamins and minerals according to the NRC [6] recommendations for growing pigs weighing between 25 to 50 kg. Throughout the experimental period, daily feed intake was calculated at 4% of each pig’s body weight and divided into two equal portions which were offered at 08:00 and 15:00, respectively, with free access to water provided at all times. At the end of each experimental period, all 22 pigs were reweighed to calculate their subsequent daily feed intake [1012].

Composition of rice bran experimental diet (as-fed basis, %)

Collection and processing of samples

As described by Stein et al [10,13], a pre-numbered self-sealing bag was secured over the open cannula with a rubber band when collecting samples. The bag was replaced every thirty minutes or when it reached one-third of its capacity. In addition, during the collection process, 5 mL of 10% (V/V) formic acid was added to each bag to prevent bacterial reproduction. After the collection was completed, these bags were immediately stored at −20°C. After one period ended, the samples were subjected to vacuum freeze drying for three days using the freeze-drying equipment (ACIENTZ-50F/A; Ningbo Xinzhi Freeze Drying Equipment). Finally, the freeze-dried digesta was crushed using an oscillating high-speed rotating mill (FW100; Tianjin Taisite). The crushing was performed with single 10-second operations, each followed by a cooling interval of over 120 seconds, repeated six times. The sample was then sieved through a 40-mesh sieve. Undersized digesta that failed to pass through the sieve was reprocessed using the same procedure, while the sieved sample was used for subsequent tests.

The contents of dry matter (DM, 930.15), ether extract (EE, 920.39), CP (984.13), crude ash (Ash, 942.05), calcium (Ca, 968.08), and total phosphorus (TP, 964.06) in 10 rice bran materials and 11 experimental diets were analyzed according to the AOAC [14] procedure. The contents of crude fiber (CF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined by automatic fiber analyzer (FT12; Gerhardt Analytical Instrument). The gross energy (GE) contents of samples were measured by an oxygen bomb automatic calorimeter (HXR-6000 Calorimeter; Hunan Huaxing Energy Sources Instrument). The content of total starch (TS) in rice bran and experimental diets was determined by K-TSTA kit (Megazyme). The contents of CP, DM, and AA in rice bran, experimental diets and prepared ileal digesta were determined. The contents of Met and Cys in samples were determined according to the AOAC [14] method [982.30 E(a)]. The content of Trp was determined by spectrophotometric method of GB/T 15400-2018 [15]. After pretreatment of 15 AA in samples with 6 M HCl, the content was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (Agilent 1200; Agilent Technologies) [1,12,13].

The mathematical formula for calculation

The index method was employed to determine the digestibility rate of AA in experimental diets, with the following calculation formula utilized [13]:

(1) AID (%)=(1-[AAd×T]r/[AAr×Td])×100%,

AAd and Td represent the concentrations of AA and TiO2 in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM), respectively, while AAr and Tr are the concentrations of AA and TiO2 in the rice bran diets (g/kg of DM), respectively. The same equation was used to calculate the AID of CP:

(2) IAAend=(AAd×[Tr/Td]),

where IAAend represents the basal endogenous loss of each AA (g/kg of DM intake) and AAd and Td represent the concentrations of AA and TiO2 in the ileal digesta from the growing pigs fed the nitrogen-free diet, respectively. The Tr represents the concentration of TiO2 in the nitrogen-free diet. The same equation was used to calculate the endogenous loss of CP.

(3) SID (%)=(AID+[IAAend/AAr]×100%).

Statistical analysis

The variance equivalence and normality of the data were assessed using descriptive statistical procedures in IBM SPSS 22.0 (IBM). Outlier identification and analysis were performed using Z-scores. The correlation between the chemical composition of rice bran samples and the SID values of Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp was analyzed using the CORR procedure in SPSS 22.0. Stepwise regression analysis in SPSS 22.0 was conducted to develop a predictive model for SIDAA (Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp) based on ten rice bran samples. The optimal model was selected based on relative standard deviation (RSD) values, maximum coefficient of determination (R2) value, as well as significant differences with p-values below 0.05 [1,12]. Additionally, during the development of the predictive model, a dummy variable (DV) was introduced into the set of independent variables to differentiate between full-fat rice bran and defatted rice bran. The DV assumes values of 0 and 1, corresponding to defatted rice bran (0) and full-fat rice bran (1), respectively, in this study. In our study, significant differences are indicated as p<0.05 and highly significant differences as p<0.01.

RESULTS

The chemical composition and amino acid profile of rice bran and its diets

On a fed basis, the content of CP, DM, GE, Ash, EE, Ca, TP, TS, CF, NDF, ADF, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp in 10 rice bran averaged 14.51%±1.45, 88.32%±0.34, 16.52 MJ/kg±1.72, 9.19% ±1.65, 5.15%±5.65, 0.22%±0.22, 1.79%±0.16, 29.95%±4.49, 6.34%±1.93, 22.32%±4.43, 6.94%±2.87, 0.86%±0.10, 0.14%±0.02, 0.52%±0.06, and 0.19%±0.02, respectively (Table 3). The chemical components of the 10 rice bran samples exhibited great variability. Except for DM and TP, all coefficients of variation (CV) values for GE, CP, Ash, EE, Ca, TS, CF, NDF, ADF, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp exceeded 10%. Notably, DM had the smallest CV value at 0.39%, while EE displayed the largest variability at 109.82%. On a fed basis, the content of Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp in 10 diets averaged 0.29%±0.03, 0.05%±0.01, 0.19%±0.02, and 0.05%±0.01, respectively (Table 4). Among these four limiting AA, only the CV for Met and Trp exceeded 10%. In addition, we conducted correlation analysis and established regression equations specifically for the 7 defatted rice bran samples, with details provided in Supplement 1 and Supplement 2.

Analyzed chemical composition of 10 rice bran samples (as-fed basis, %)

Analyzed chemical composition of experiment diets (as-fed basis, %)

Apparent ileal digestibility and standardized ileal digestibility of crude protein and amino acid

The average values of AIDCP, AIDLys, AIDMet, AIDThr, and AIDTrp in 10 rice bran were 50.46%±6.35, 66.64%±2.22, 61.67%±5.19, 50.85%±4.70, and 58.79%±5.76 (Table 5), while the average values of SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDMet, SIDThr, and SIDTrp were 81.89%±6.23, 80.33%±2.21, 83.25%±5.51, 79.89%±5.68, and 72.12%±4.71 (Table 6), respectively. Except for Lys, the AID and SID of CP, Met, Thr, and Trp in the 10 rice bran samples all showed differences (p<0.01).

Apparent ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP) and amino acids in rice bran fed to growing pigs (%)

Standardlized ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP) and amino acids in rice bran fed to growing pigs (%)

Correlation analysis and prediction equations for standardized ileal digestibility of crude protein and amino acid

As shown in Figure 1, a correlation analysis was conducted on the chemical components of rice bran, the SIDCP and the SID of four limiting AA. The results showed that the SIDCP was negatively correlated with the contents of TP (p<0.01) and Ash (p<0.05). The SIDLys was positively correlated with SIDCP (p<0.01) and negatively correlated with the content of TP (p<0.05). The SIDMet showed a positive correlation with GE (p<0.05), SIDCP (p<0.01), and SIDLys (p<0.05), and a negative correlation with the contents of CP (p<0.05), Ash (p<0.05) and TP (p<0.05). The SIDThr was positively correlated with GE (p<0.01), the content of EE (p<0.01), SIDCP (p<0.05), and SIDMet (p<0.05), and negatively correlated with the contents of CP (p<0.01), Ash (p<0.01), CF (p<0.01), and TP (p<0.01). The SIDTrp showed a positive correlation with GE (p<0.05), SIDMet (p<0.05) and SIDThr (p<0.05), and a negative correlation with the contents of Ash (p<0.05) and Ca (p<0.01).

Figure 1

The correlation coefficients between the chemical components of 10 rice bran samples and the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and the first four limiting amino acids (AA). * p≤0.05, ** p≤0.01. DM, dry matter; GE, gross energy; EE, ether extract; Ash, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; Ca, Calcium; TP, total phosphorus; TS, total starch; SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDMet, SIDThr, and SIDTrp, SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp, respectively.

The prediction equations for estimating the SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp in rice bran were developed based on the levels of effective chemical components. The optimized prediction equations obtained were as follows: SIDCP = 974.032–29.805TP–9.946DM (RSD = 2.44, R2 = 0.88, and p<0.001; Table 7), SIDLys = 471.278–9.267TP–4.245DM+1.401DV (RSD = 0.77, R2 = 0.92, and p = 0.001), SIDMet = 122.281–2.712CP (RSD = 4.08, R2 = 0.51, and p = 0.020), SIDThr = 51.864+ 2.204GE–1.324CF (RSD = 1.21, R2 = 0.97, and p<0.001), and SIDTrp = 73.912–23.268Ca–0.336NDF+0.318TS (RSD = 1.10, R2 = 0.96, and p = 0.011).

Stepwise regression equations for SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr and Trp based upon the chemical characteristics of the 10 rice bran samples (as-fed basis, %)

DISCUSSION

Chemical composition and amino acid profile of rice bran

The chemical components of the rice bran samples were within the range of the published table values [6,1618]. In this study, the CV of DM and TP were lower than 10%, while those of CP and GE were close to 10%, indicating good homogeneity of these chemical components. The CP content or GE of some samples is relatively high, but still lower than the reported values of Huang et al [17] and Casas and Stein [19]. The CV of the rest of the chemical components in our samples obviously exceeded 10%. Among them, the CV of CF, ADF, Ca, and EE all exceeded 30%. Chemical composition and AA content of rice bran will vary greatly due to processing conditions, climatic conditions and production regions. During the rice milling process, different milling degrees will also cause changes in the chemical components and AA contents of rice bran. It has been reported [20] that the rice bran produced with an 8% milling degree has the lowest contents of protein, fat, and CF. The rice bran produced with a 6% milling degree has the highest mineral content, while the rice bran produced with a 2% milling degree has the highest vitamin content [20]. Moreover, the bran produced by friction mills can remove the aleurone layer more effectively and has a relatively high fat content, and abrasive mills remove the endosperm with a higher starch content at the same degree of milling [20]. The defatting of rice bran directly affects the changes in the content of chemical components. Since both full-fat rice bran and defatted rice bran were present in our experiment simultaneously, the CV of EE was as high as 109.82%. As can be seen from Table 3, for the samples with high EE content, their GE was mostly on the high side.

In this study, the average content range of 18 AA in 10 rice bran was between 0.14% and 1.89%, basically within the reported range of the tabulated values [6,1618]. Among them, the average content of Lys (0.86%) was higher than the reported values of the NRC [6] (0.67%) and the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16] (0.60%), but was basically within the range reported by previous researchers [18,21]. The average content of Thr (0.52%) was basically consistent with the reported values of NRC [6] (0.56%) and the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16] (0.46%). The average content of Met (0.14%) was lower than the reported values in the NRC [6] (0.3%) and Chinese Swine Nutrient Requirements [16] (0.24%), but within the range of values reported in the literature [2123]. The average content of Trp (0.19%) fell within the range of values reported by the NRC [6] (0.19%) and Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16] (0.14%). In our study, the CV of His, Ile, Cys, and Tyr in the 10 rice bran was within 10%, the CV of the other AA was basically greater than 10%. This indicates that the contents of AA in different rice bran fluctuated greatly and were unstable. From the perspective of plant morphology, rice bran in the strict sense is composed of the aleurone layer, nucellus layer, seed coat, pericarp layer, and several sub-layers among them [20]. However, in the actual production process of rice bran samples, rice bran usually contains rice germ and broken rice, which will directly affect the chemical components and AA contents of rice bran [20].

Accurately estimating the utilization rate of AA in diets is the basis for implementing the low-protein diet system. However, due to the large quantity of rice bran produced around the world, different processing techniques, and complex sources, it is difficult to identify and investigate. Therefore, it is necessary to measure its chemical components and AA contents, and to construct a dynamic prediction equation for the SIDAA of rice bran for pigs based on its chemical component contents [1,24]. In this study, multiple routine chemical component indicators and AA contents among different samples had relatively high fluctuation levels, which ensured the feasibility of establishing correlations and prediction equations and was conducive to the progress of subsequent experiments.

Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acid in rice bran

The SID is obtained by correcting the AID for basic endogenous losses [11,13]. This endows the SID values with the property of additivity and makes it the most recognized and effective method for estimating the availability of AA in the field of animal nutrition [24,25]. In our study, the average AID and SID values of AA and CP in the 10 rice bran samples were basically within the range of the published tabulated values [6,16,18,23,26]. Park et al [27] analyzed and summarized the basal endogenous losses of CP and AA in pigs fed nitrogen-free diets, and the basal endogenous losses of CP and AA in this study fall within the range of values presented in their summary table.

In the study by Casas et al [28], rice bran showed reduced SIDAA compared to brown rice. Kinh et al [29] further reported a hierarchy of SIDAA values in rice derivatives: broken rice>rice bran>paddy rice, attributing this pattern to variations in fiber content among these byproducts.

In contrast, EE content in rice bran positively modulates AA utilization. Casas et al [30] observed higher AIDAA in full-fat rice bran than in defatted samples. In Ouyang et al’s prediction equation [13], the EE content in brown rice was positively correlated with its AA digestibility. Cervantes-Pahm et al [31] showed that adding oil can increase the SIDAA in soybean meal. These studies are consistent with the phenomenon we observed. Cervantes-Pahm et al [31] hypothesized that this phenomenon may stem from two aspects: first, EE slows down the gastric emptying rate, thereby prolonging the contact time between feed protein and proteases; second, the presence of EE in the small intestine may reduce the passage rate of ingested feed, thus providing more sufficient time for the absorption of AA and peptides.

In our study, correlation analyses between EE content and the SID of CP or four limiting AA revealed a positive association between EE content and SIDThr (p<0.01). Furthermore, SIDAA of rice bran exhibited significant negative or positive correlations with multiple chemical constituents, including DM, TP, EE, NDF, and ADF. These results indicate that AA digestibility in rice bran is influenced by interactions among multiple chemical components, enabling dynamic prediction of SIDAA based on compositional parameters.

Correlation analysis and prediction equations for standardized ileal digestibility of amino acid in rice bran

Currently, the chemical composition of ingredients has been confirmed by multiple studies to be related to their digestibility [1,12,32]. Prediction equations for digestible energy, metabolizable energy, and AA digestibility in pig feeds have been widely developed. By referring to previous studies [1,12,32], we established prediction equations for the SIDAA of rice bran based on its chemical components using Pearson correlation analysis and stepwise linear regression methods.

Our study found that the SID values of CP and Lys were negatively correlated with the TP content, and both TP and DM were the key predictors for them at the same time. The negative impact of the TP content on the SID values of CP and Lys should be associated with phytic acid. Phytic acid is the main anti-nutritional factor in rice bran [33]. When the TP is relatively high, the content of phytic acid tends to be relatively high as well. Phytic acid has multiple phosphate groups [33]. It has been reported that it can combine with mineral ions and free AA to form highly stable and insoluble phytic acid-mineral-AA complexes [33,34]. Moreover, considering the exposed positively charged ɛ-amino group of Lys [24], it is more likely to combine with phytic acid to form complexes. As noted above, the positively charged ɛ-amino group of Lys endows it with strong reducing ability, rendering its digestibility highly sensitive to processing conditions. DV, serving as a categorical indicator that distinguishes full-fat from defatted rice bran, precisely captures this processing disparity—explaining its emergence as a predictor in the SIDLys equation.

Li et al [35] found in paddy rice that DM content made a negative contribution to the prediction equations of SIDCP and SIDLys. Higher DM content can lead to a relatively lower water content in food and a reduction in the number of water molecules around starch molecules. At this time, the opportunities for hydrogen bonds to form between the hydroxyl groups on starch molecules will increase [36], resulting in a denser food structure. Digestive enzymes can function better in a solution because enzymes need to diffuse through water to access substrates. Higher DM content makes it more difficult for digestive fluids to penetrate, thus impeding the contact between enzymes and substrates. Moreover, it brings phytic acid, minerals, and AA closer together, making it easier for them to form indigestible complexes. These factors may be the reasons why DM becomes a key predictor in the prediction equations of SIDCP and SIDLys. However, in our study, the CV for DM in rice bran was only 0.39%. When developing predictive models, the inclusion of an independent variable with such low variability compromises the stability of its practical application. For instance, if predicted rice bran DM values fall outside the parameter range established during modeling, the results may severely deviate from actual digestibility. Furthermore, DM itself may merely indirectly represent other unmeasured variables that could have more direct impacts on outcomes.

The key predictor of the SIDMet prediction equation is the CP content, and it is negatively correlated with SIDMet. In the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16], CP content is usually regarded as a prediction factor with a positive contribution. Li et al [1] also found that the SIDMet in barley was positively correlated with the CP content. However, considering that in our study, the CP content showed a very strong positive correlation with both the fiber content and the TP content simultaneously, this would lead to the CP content being able to replace the latter two, and thus exhibited a stronger fitting with SIDMet in the linear fitting.

The fiber component serves as a key predictor for both the SIDThr and SIDTrp, playing a negative contributory role. In previous reports, the fiber fraction was found to be negatively correlated with the ileal digestibility of AA, which is consistent with the results of our study [24,37]. There are multiple mechanisms by which the fiber fraction reduces the digestibility of AA. These include increasing the viscosity of digesta to slow down mass transfer and enzymatic reactions, augmenting endogenous AA losses, and combining with specific AA to form complexes that are difficult to hydrolyze, all of which act to reduce the digestibility of CP and AA [13].

In this study, we obtained two prediction equations for SIDCP, two equations for SIDLys, one equation for SIDMet, two equations for SIDThr, and three equations for SIDTrp from 10 rice bran samples respectively. Our results indicate that phytic acid, moisture content, and fiber fraction may be important factors affecting the digestibility of AA in rice bran.

Validate the prediction equations for standardized ileal digestibilitycrude protein and standardized ileal digestibilityamino acid of rice bran based on database

Due to the absence of some parameters in the NRC [6], we used the prediction equations and the parameters of full-fat rice bran in the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16] to predict SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDMet, SIDThr, and SIDTrp. The predicted values were 70.72%, 75.45%, 82.41%, 82.77%, and 71.91%, respectively, while the reported values in the Nutrient Requirements of Swine in China [16] were 75%, 75%, 80%, 80%, and 71% respectively. The predicted values are close to the reported values, but this validation is relatively basic. Future studies should conduct more rigorous validation of the equation through animal experiments. Additionally, Choi et al [38] used regression analysis to validate the digestible energy prediction equation, which is also a scientific validation method: they compared the known digestible energy values from the literature with those predicted by the equation, and judged the accuracy of the equation by checking whether the intercept was not significantly different from 0 and the slope was not significantly different from 1. However, when we attempted to use this method to validate the prediction equations for AA digestibility in rice bran, we faced the problem of insufficient data. This indicates that research on AA digestibility in rice bran still needs to be further advanced.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the chemical composition of 10 rice bran samples exhibited significant differences. The SID of CP and the first four limiting AA could be estimated from the analyzed contents of GE, TP, DM, CP, CF, NDF, and TS.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Li R.

Data curation: Tang H, Jiang X, Tian M.

Formal analysis: Tang H, Deng M, Jiang X, Feng G, Xiang Q.

Methodology: Li R, Tang H, Deng M, Feng G, Liu X, Qin O, Tian M.

Software: Tang H, Feng G, Xiang Q.

Validation: Tang H, Deng M, Feng G.

Investigation: Li R, Tang H, Deng M, Xiang Q.

Writing - original draft: Li R, Tang H, Xiang Q.

Writing - review & editing: Li R, Tang H, Deng M, Jiang X, Feng G, Liu X, Qin O, Tian M, Xiang Q.

FUNDING

This study is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32472957), National Key Research and Development Program (2021YFD1300201, 2021YFD1301004), the Key Project of Science and Technology of Yunnan Province (202202AE090032), Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2022JJ40532).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Not applicable.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

ETHICS APPROVAL

The animal experiments in the Animal Metabolism Laboratory of the Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, got approval from its internal animal care and use committee (IACUC#201302).

DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI

During the preparation of this work, the authors used DeepSeek (accessed on April 3, 2025) for grammar checking and language refinement during the drafting process. After using this tool, the manuscript was reviewed and edited as needed, with the authors ensure full responsibility for the publication.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary file is available from: https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.25.0280

Supplement 1. Stepwise regression equations for SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr and Trp based upon the chemical characteristics of the 7 defatted rice bran samples (as fed basis, %).

ab-25-0280-Supplementary-1.pdf

Supplement 2. Correlation coefficients among chemical composition and the SID of the crude protein and first four limiting amino acids of the 7 defatted rice bran samples.

ab-25-0280-Supplementary-2.pdf

Supplement 3. Endogenous losses of crude protein and amino acids in growing pigs in the experiment (%).

ab-25-0280-Supplementary-3.pdf

References

1. Li R, Tian M, Feng G, et al. Determination and prediction of digestible energy, metabolizable energy, and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in barley for growing pig. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2023;298:115607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115607.
2. Bin Rahman ANMR, Zhang J. Trends in rice research: 2030 and beyond. Food Energy Secur 2023;12:e390. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.390.
3. Cho SJ. Changes in the antioxidant properties of rice bran protein isolate upon simulated gastrointestinal digestion. LWT-Food Sci Technol 2020;126:109206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109206.
4. Manlapig JJD, Kondo M, Ban-Tokuda T, Matsui H. Effect of rice bran fermented with Ligilactobacillus equi on in vitro fermentation profile and microbial population. Anim Sci J 2024;95:e13955. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13955.
5. Najamuddin U, Gorji SG, Fitzgerald M. Genotypic variability in the composition of soluble protein from rice bran: opportunities for nutrition. J Food Compos Anal 2021;103:104077.
6. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Swine, National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of swine 11th edth ed. National Academies Press; 2012.
7. Sohail M, Rakha A, Butt MS, et al. Rice bran nutraceutics: a comprehensive review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2017;57:3771–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1164120.
8. Park HY, Lee KW, Choi HD. Rice bran constituents: immunomodulatory and therapeutic activities. Food Funct 2017;8:935–43. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FO01763K.
9. Meza SLR, Cañizares L, Dannenberg B, et al. Sustainable rice bran protein: composition, extraction, quality properties and applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 2024;145:104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104355.
10. Stein HH, Shipley CF, Easter RA. Technical note: a technique for inserting a T-cannula into the distal ileum of pregnant sows. J Anim Sci 1998;76:1433–6. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7651433x.
11. Kong C, Adeola O. Evaluation of amino acid and energy utilization in feedstuff for swine and poultry diets. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014;27:917–25. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.r.02.
12. Feng G, Li R, Jiang X, et al. Prediction of available energy and amino acid digestibility of Chinese sorghum fed to growing–finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 2023. 101skad262. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad262.
13. Stein HH, Sève B, Fuller MF, Moughan PJ, de Lange CFM. Invited review: amino acid bioavailability and digestibility in pig feed ingredients: terminology and application. J Anim Sci 2007;85:172–80. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-742.
14. Latimer GW. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International Official methods of analysis of AOAC International 18th edth ed. AOAC International; 2006.
15. Standardization Administration of China. GB/T 154002018 determination of tryptophan in feeds Standards Press of China; 2018.
16. Li DF. Nutrient requirements of swine in China China Agriculture Press; 2020.
17. Huang BB, Sun ZQ, Wang L, et al. Effects of different defatted rice bran sources and processing technologies on nutrient digestibility in cannulated growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2021. 99skab034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab034.
18. Huang BB, Wang L, Wang L, Lyu ZQ, Lai CH, Li DF. Concentration of available energy and digestibility of amino acids in extruded and pelleted defatted rice bran fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2021;280:115067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115067.
19. Casas GA, Stein HH. Effects of full fat or defatted rice bran on growth performance and blood characteristics of weanling pigs. J Anim Sci 2016;94:4179–87. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0565.
20. Rosniyana A, Hashifah MA, Norin SS. The physico-chemical properties and nutritional composition of rice bran produced at different milling degrees of rice. J Trop Agric Food Sci 2007;35:99–105.
21. Faccin GL, Miotto LA, do Nascimento Vieira L, Barreto PLM, Amante ER. Chemical, sensorial and rheological properties of a new organic rice bran beverage. Rice Sci 2009;16:226–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6308(08)60083-9.
22. Fontaine J, Schirmer B, Hörr J. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) enables the fast and accurate prediction of essential amino acid contents. 2. Results for wheat, barley, corn, triticale, wheat bran/middlings, rice bran, and sorghum. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:3902–11. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf011637k.
23. Huang B, Huang C, Lyu Z, et al. Available energy and amino acid digestibility of defatted rice bran fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2018;96:3138–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky191.
24. Tang H, Feng G, Zhao J, et al. Determination and prediction of amino acid digestibility in rapeseed cake for growing-finishing pigs. Animals 2024;14:2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14192764.
25. Ouyang Q, Li R, Feng G, et al. Determination and prediction of amino acid digestibility in brown rice for growing-finishing pigs. Anim Biosci 2024;37:1474–82. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0455.
26. Kaufmann C, Sauer WC, Cervantes M, et al. Amino acid and energy digestibility in different sources of rice bran for growing pigs. Can J Anim Sci 2005;85:355–63. https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-084.
27. Park N, Kim H, Kim BG. Prediction models for basal endogenous losses of crude protein and amino acids in pigs. Anim Biosci 2024;37:1962–9. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.24.0197.
28. Casas GA, Jaworski NW, Htoo JK, Stein HH. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in selected feed ingredients fed to young growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2018;96:2361–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky114.
29. Kinh LV, Loan NVTH, Huyen LTT, Ngoan LD. Apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of essential amino acids of paddy rice, broken rice and rice bran fed to growing pigs. Adv Anim Vet Sci 2025;13:297–303. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2025/13.2.297.303.
30. Casas GA, Almeida JAS, Stein HH. Amino acid digestibility in rice co-products fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015;207:150–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.05.024.
31. Cervantes-Pahm SK, Stein HH. Effect of dietary soybean oil and soybean protein concentration on the concentration of digestible amino acids in soybean products fed to growing pigs. J Anim Sci 2008;86:1841–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0721.
32. Noblet J, Perez JM. Prediction of digestibility of nutrients and energy values of pig diets from chemical analysis. J Anim Sci 1993;71:3389–98. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.71123389x.
33. Gallardo C, Dadalt JC, Trindade Neto MA. Carbohydrases and phytase with rice bran, effects on amino acid digestibility and energy use in broiler chickens. Animal 2020;14:482–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119002131.
34. Erdmanjr JW, Weingartner KE, Mustakas GC, Schmutz RD, Parker HM, Forbes RM. Zinc and magnesium bioavailability from acid-precipitated and neutralized soybean protein products. J Food Sci 1980;45:1193–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb06519.x.
35. Li R, Feng G, Ouyang Q, et al. Prediction of available energy and amino acid digestibility in the Chinese paddy rice fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2025;319:116155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.116155.
36. Trommsdorff U, Tomka I. Structure of amorphous starch. 2. Molecular interactions with water. Macromolecules 1995;28:6138–50. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00122a022.
37. Li PL, Wu F, Chen YF, et al. Determination of the energy content and amino acid digestibility of double-low rapeseed cakes fed to growing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015;210:243–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.10.012.
38. Choi H, Sung JY, Kim BG. Neutral detergent fiber rather than other dietary fiber types as an independent variable increases the accuracy of prediction equation for digestible energy in feeds for growing pigs. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020;33:615–22. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0103.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

The correlation coefficients between the chemical components of 10 rice bran samples and the standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of crude protein (CP) and the first four limiting amino acids (AA). * p≤0.05, ** p≤0.01. DM, dry matter; GE, gross energy; EE, ether extract; Ash, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; Ca, Calcium; TP, total phosphorus; TS, total starch; SIDCP, SIDLys, SIDMet, SIDThr, and SIDTrp, SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr, and Trp, respectively.

Table 1

Sources of rice bran

Sample number Type Sources
RB1 Defatted rice bran Nanchang city, Jiangxi
RB2 Defatted rice bran Harbin city, Heilongjiang
RB3 Defatted rice bran Foshan city, Guangdong
RB4 Full-fat rice bran Zhaoqing city, Guangdong
RB5 Full-fat rice bran Yichun city, Jiangxi
RB6 Defatted rice bran Rizhao city, Shandong
RB7 Defatted rice bran Zhuzhou city, Hunan
RB8 Defatted rice bran Changsha city, Hunan
RB9 Full-fat rice bran Changsha city, Hunan
RB10 Defatted rice bran Xiangyang city, Hubei

Table 2

Composition of rice bran experimental diet (as-fed basis, %)

Items Nitrogen-free diet Experimental diet
Corn starch 78.90 42.90
Rice bran 0.00 40.00
Sucrose 10.00 10.00
Soybean oil 3.00 3.00
Cellulose acetate 4.00 0.00
Limestone 0.50 0.50
CaH2PO4 1.90 1.90
TiO2 0.30 0.30
NaCl 0.40 0.40
Vitamin and mineral premix1) 0.50 0.50
K2CO3 0.40 0.40
MgO 0.10 0.10
Total 100.00 100.00
1)

Per kilogram of the diet, the following vitamins and minerals are provided: vit A 4,200 IU, vit B1 3.4 mg, vit B2 5.63 mg, vit B3 28 mg, vit B12 23 μg, vit D3 400 IU, vit E 36 IU, vit K3 1.2 mg, choline chloride 1.00 g, folic acid 0.8 mg, vit B5 20.5 mg, vit B6 2.7 mg, vit H 0.18 mg, Cu (as copper sulfate) 70 mg, Mn (as manganese sulfate) 40.0 mg, Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 70.0 mg, Zn (as zinc sulfate) 70.0 mg, Se (as sodium selenite) 0.3 mg, I (as potassium iodide) 0.3 mg.

Table 3

Analyzed chemical composition of 10 rice bran samples (as-fed basis, %)

Items Rice bran number Min Max Mean CV (%)

RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RB7 RB8 RB9 RB10
DM 88.34 88.61 88.27 88.3 88.56 88.39 88.33 88.45 88.56 87.4 87.40 88.61 88.32 0.39
GE (MJ/kg) 15.51 15.31 14.69 18.22 18.98 15.53 15.28 14.91 18.4 18.35 14.69 18.98 16.52 10.44
CP 16.29 15.13 14.99 11.84 13.83 16.02 15.33 15.35 12.71 13.63 11.84 16.29 14.51 10.02
EE 1.35 0.75 1.13 14.37 12.20 2.29 1.31 0.55 12.82 4.72 0.55 14.37 5.15 109.82
Ash 10.31 9.01 11.49 7.71 8.24 10.18 9.11 11.32 6.29 8.28 6.29 11.49 9.19 17.92
CF 9.97 5.93 5.64 4.23 5.00 9.67 6.06 6.29 5.24 5.32 4.23 9.97 6.34 30.46
NDF 29.35 22.35 18.74 21.58 16.72 28.24 21.72 20.43 26.68 17.34 16.72 29.35 22.32 19.87
ADF 11.97 7.06 6.66 6.06 6.18 11.59 7.08 3.67 3.19 5.94 3.19 11.97 6.94 41.36
Ca 0.13 0.22 0.64 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.20 0.61 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.64 0.22 98.50
TP 2.01 1.74 1.94 1.62 1.77 1.98 1.70 1.91 1.52 1.73 1.52 2.01 1.79 9.07
TS 25.01 36.14 32.48 34.34 25.04 25.9 35.22 31.18 28.97 25.26 25.01 36.14 29.95 14.98
Indispensable amino acids (%)
 Arginine 1.01 1.01 1.11 0.85 0.93 1.10 0.98 1.11 0.8 0.94 0.8 1.11 0.98 10.88
 Histidine 0.65 0.56 0.62 0.53 0.55 0.66 0.55 0.61 0.51 0.57 0.51 0.66 0.58 8.79
 Isoleucine 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.46 0.49 0.59 0.52 0.57 0.44 0.54 0.44 0.59 0.53 9.74
 Leucine 1.05 1.06 1.07 0.84 0.90 1.13 0.98 1.09 0.81 0.95 0.81 1.13 0.99 11.15
 Lysine 0.93 0.88 0.95 0.70 0.80 1.02 0.85 0.93 0.71 0.82 0.70 1.02 0.86 12.1
 Methionine 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.14 13.33
 Phenylalanine 0.70 0.70 0.7 0.57 0.60 0.75 0.65 0.71 0.54 0.65 0.54 0.75 0.66 10.35
 Threonine 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.44 0.48 0.60 0.51 0.58 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.60 0.52 11.35
 Tryptophan 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.15 0.23 0.19 12.22
 Valine 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.65 0.71 0.86 0.76 0.84 0.62 0.74 0.62 0.86 0.77 11.01
Dispensable amino acids (%)
 Alanine 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.68 0.73 0.96 0.82 0.91 0.66 0.76 0.66 0.96 0.82 13.00
 Aspartate 1.49 1.43 1.47 1.07 1.18 1.60 1.32 1.47 1.01 1.14 1.01 1.60 1.32 15.49
 Cystine 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.2 0.23 0.21 4.45
 Glutamine 1.97 2.16 2.17 1.56 1.63 2.13 1.98 2.21 1.49 1.59 1.49 2.21 1.89 15.31
 Glycine 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.58 0.64 0.82 0.7 0.79 0.56 0.66 0.56 0.82 0.71 13.15
 Proline 0.80 0.65 0.79 0.57 0.61 0.81 0.67 0.72 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.81 0.68 13.21
 Serine 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.47 0.52 0.67 0.56 0.62 0.46 0.56 0.46 0.67 0.57 11.93
 Tyrosine 0.35 0.37 0.41 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.33 0.42 0.33 0.42 0.38 8.01

CV, coefficient of variation; DM, dry matter; GE, gross energy; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; Ash, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; Ca, Calcium; TP, total phosphorus; TS, total starch.

Table 4

Analyzed chemical composition of experiment diets (as-fed basis, %)

Items Rice bran number Min Max Mean CV (%)

RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RB7 RB8 RB9 RB10
DM 90.02 90.31 90.25 90.04 90.18 90.33 90.06 90.15 90.34 90.28 90.02 90.34 90.20 0.14
GE (MJ/kg) 15.45 15.39 15.17 16.55 16.65 15.72 15.5 15.12 16.8 16.82 15.12 16.82 15.92 4.41
CP 6.53 5.43 4.89 5.19 5.18 6.36 6.35 5.97 4.36 3.27 3.27 6.53 5.35 19.07
EE 3.57 2.09 1.36 7.11 5.89 2.56 2.08 2.47 5.27 6.24 1.36 7.11 3.86 53.59
Ash 8.10 7.34 7.92 6.50 6.57 7.23 6.51 7.45 5.59 6.58 5.59 8.10 6.98 10.96
CF 4.24 2.68 2.33 2.33 2.08 3.48 2.3 2.42 2.10 2.02 2.02 4.24 2.60 27.50
NDF 11.8 10.16 7.36 8.56 7.77 12.34 8.9 8.99 10.3 7.76 7.36 12.34 9.39 18.24
ADF 4.40 3.22 2.53 2.29 2.77 4.97 2.66 3.04 2.65 2.33 2.29 4.97 3.09 29.15
TS 44.48 51.93 51.59 51.61 51.99 48.17 53.49 52.44 43.03 42.55 42.55 53.49 49.13 8.62
Indispensable amino acids (%)
 Arginine 0.38 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.33 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.4 0.33 0.4 0.36 6.40
 Histidine 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.26 0.22 9.17
 Isoleucine 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.19 6.41
 Leucine 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.37 7.06
 Lysine 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.29 9.75
 Methionine 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 19.28
 Phenylalanine 0.27 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.24 6.99
 Threonine 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.19 7.24
 Tryptophan 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.05 12.34
 Valine 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.31 0.28 6.79
Dispensable amino acids (%)
 Alanine 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.34 0.31 7.85
 Aspartate 0.58 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.47 0.58 0.52 0.53 0.46 0.51 0.44 0.58 0.50 9.55
 Cystine 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 10.43
 Glutamine 0.82 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.69 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.76 0.68 0.82 0.75 6.93
 Glycine 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.29 0.26 7.84
 Proline 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.28 0.23 11.73
 Serine 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.22 9.69
 Tyrosine 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.12 9.75

CV, coefficient of variation; DM, dry matter; GE, gross energy; CP, crude protein; EE, ether extract; Ash, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; TS, total starch.

Table 5

Apparent ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP) and amino acids in rice bran fed to growing pigs (%)

Items Rice bran number Mean SEM p-value

RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RB7 RB8 RB9 RB10
CP (%) 51.93bc 51.20bc 42.64d 56.61b 48.41cd 48.44cd 63.92a 51.07bc 47.97cd 42.39d 50.46 1.07 <0.001
Indispensable amino acids (%)
 Arginine 68.02c 69.13bc 68.11c 73.40abc 69.51bc 67.55c 74.97abc 73.53abc 76.63a 77.39a 71.83 0.85 0.023
 Histidine 87.74 84.09 83.49 86.11 86.56 87.42 86.32 82.92 82.52 83.21 85.04 0.56 0.245
 Isoleucine 63.91c 63.76c 64.67c 64.68c 66.83bc 63.07a 73.72c 71.55ab 75.18a 77.00a 68.44 0.85 <0.001
 Leucine 58.58d 57.03d 55.47d 65.35c 65.86c 57.77d 73.81a 68.22bc 71.24ab 73.61a 64.69 1.01 <0.001
 Lysine 63.54 65.49 65.20 66.80 63.10 67.75 68.81 67.49 69.29 68.92 66.64 0.60 0.186
 Methionine 57.77b 58.35b 55.96b 73.17a 62.55ab 57.38b 65.67ab 59.26b 61.69ab 64.89ab 61.67 1.25 0.059
 Phenylalanine 62.89bc 62.89bc 58.72c 66.15abc 72.52a 59.87c 72.32a 67.13abc 70.36ab 70.43ab 66.66 0.99 0.002
 Threonine 47.03c 48.01c 45.51c 55.99ab 55.06ab 46.56c 51.00bc 46.49c 55.02ab 57.82a 50.85 0.85 <0.001
 Tryptophan 58.73bc 62.47abc 48.76d 62.57abc 64.35a 59.95abc 62.89ab 54.84d 60.87c 63.64abc 58.79 0.85 <0.001
 Valine 56.01ef 58.14e 51.85f 64.25cd 68.64bc 60.51de 74.59a 67.53bc 66.61bc 70.23ab 63.84 0.99 <0.001
Dispensable amino acids (%)
 Alanine 53.91c 51.63c 50.92c 58.51abc 54.53c 56.38bc 64.86a 62.71ab 64.46a 66.47a 58.44 1.04 <0.001
 Aspartate 47.32de 46.09de 43.27e 51.92cd 57.10bc 47.96de 67.83a 57.32bc 57.97bc 62.93abc 53.97 1.15 <0.001
 Cystine 72.69a 56.69b 50.64b 72.54a 70.83a 66.24a 68.22a 56.83b 66.27a 68.62a 64.96 1.17 <0.001
 Glutamine 58.46ef 61.14de 54.69f 67.35bc 68.89abc 60.84de 73.94a 66.64cd 73.21ab 73.46ab 65.86 1.03 <0.001
 Glycine 38.08cd 36.49d 41.35bcd 40.22bcd 38.41cd 36.22d 50.11a 40.03bcd 43.82abc 46.46ab 41.12 0.84 <0.001
 Proline 53.43d 63.90ab 64.45ab 68.52a 50.03d 60.35bc 63.82ab 51.99d 54.86cd 63.04ab 59.44 1.01 <0.001
 Serine 52.03bcd 45.29d 49.81cd 47.19d 54.06bcd 46.83d 64.75a 57.68abc 60.01ab 64.75a 54.24 1.27 <0.001
 Tyrosine 73.47ab 78.02b 60.76ab 77.64ab 80.10a 74.87b 78.40a 66.35b 71.32ab 77.39a 73.83 0.76 <0.001
a–f

Means in the same row with no letter the same letter are not different at p<0.05.

SEM, standard error of the mean.

Table 6

Standardlized ileal digestibility of crude protein (CP) and amino acids in rice bran fed to growing pigs (%)

Items Rice bran number Mean SEM p-value

RB1 RB2 RB3 RB4 RB5 RB6 RB7 RB8 RB9 RB10
CP (%) 76.63d 80.97bcd 75.71d 87.67ab 79.56cd 73.89d 89.31a 78.13cd 85.10abc 91.90a 81.89 1.08 <0.001
Indispensable amino acids (%)
 Arginine 83.98 87.73 86.16 90.94 87.80 84.15 91.87 89.60 93.71 92.70 88.86 0.83 0.055
 Histidine 97.34 94.78 94.29 95.74 96.81 95.84 95.14 92.35 93.83 93.02 94.91 0.54 0.570
 Isoleucine 76.93d 78.19d 79.54cd 79.31cd 80.73cd 75.65d 86.36ab 84.59bc 89.63ab 90.83a 82.18 0.84 <0.001
 Leucine 71.34c 71.67c 70.65c 80.47b 81.11b 70.56c 87.06a 81.43b 85.86ab 87.63a 78.78 1.01 <0.001
 Lysine 76.97 79.85 79.55 81.20 78.05 79.31 81.35 79.60 83.05 84.33 80.33 0.60 0.190
 Methionine 76.24c 82.35bc 77.12c 92.00a 82.80bc 81.76bc 84.35b 77.89bc 82.70bc 92.07a 83.25 0.94 <0.001
 Phenylalanine 78.18cd 80.48bcd 77.11cd 84.37abc 90.54a 75.45d 88.32ab 83.20abcd 88.22ab 87.31ab 83.63 1.01 <0.001
 Threonine 72.71d 77.88cd 77.05cd 86.65a 87.21a 73.65cd 79.52bc 74.07cd 84.82ab 85.34ab 79.89 0.93 <0.001
 Tryptophan 71.53b 73.73ab 67.25c 77.50a 76.53ab 71.43b 75.15ab 62.97c 72.13b 74.94ab 72.12 0.74 <0.001
 Valine 67.09cd 70.59c 64.62d 77.08b 81.42ab 71.30c 85.92a 78.75b 79.17b 82.04ab 75.80 0.99 <0.001
Dispensable amino acids (%)
 Alanine 67.51c 67.25c 66.99c 75.10abc 71.13bc 70.05bc 79.26a 76.78ab 80.56a 81.49a 73.61 1.03 <0.01
 Aspartate 72.40d 76.28d 74.32d 84.93c 88.23bc 73.42d 95.99a 84.89c 90.11abc 91.55ab 83.21 1.21 <0.001
 Cystine 95.56a 81.37cd 76.71d 98.30a 96.46a 91.26ab 93.33ab 82.91cd 87.48bc 88.18bc 89.15 1.12 <0.001
 Glutamine 71.81d 75.98cd 70.29d 83.41ab 84.83ab 74.88cd 87.66a 80.31bc 88.84a 87.79a 80.58 1.04 <0.001
 Glycine 79.56c 83.83b 90.67a 90.47a 89.16ab 77.90c 94.18a 82.40c 92.37a 91.67a 87.22 0.96 <0.001
 Proline 74.11de 86.99ab 87.91ab 90.18a 74.20de 78.19cd 82.92bc 70.89e 79.60cd 86.28ab 81.13 1.05 <0.01
 Serine 72.76cd 69.92d 76.70bcd 75.23cd 81.59abc 71.40d 90.05a 81.90abc 86.10ab 86.98a 79.26 1.26 <0.001
 Tyrosine 88.86ab 86.11abc 85.79abc 84.58bc 89.01ab 81.48c 91.66a 80.68c 84.03bc 85.13abc 85.73 0.74 0.015

Basal endogenous losses (g/kg dry matter intake) averaged as CP, 17.91; Arg, 0.68; His, 0.24; Ile, 0.29; Leu, 0.57; Lys, 0.43; Met, 0.14; Phe, 0.46; Thr, 0.62; Trp, 0. 15; Val, 0.37; Ala, 0.52; Asp, 1.62; Cys, 0.15; Glu, 1.21; Gly, 1.34; Pro, 0.55; Ser, 0. 60; Tyr, 0.12. Detailed basal endogenous loss data are presented in Supplement 3.

a–e

Means in the same row with no letter the same letter are not different at p<0.05.

SEM, standard error of the mean.

Table 7

Stepwise regression equations for SID of CP, Lys, Met, Thr and Trp based upon the chemical characteristics of the 10 rice bran samples (as-fed basis, %)

Items Prediction equation RSD R2 p-value
SIDCP SIDCP = 135.252–29.780TP 4.16 0.60 0.008
SIDCP SIDCP = 974.032–29.805TP–9.946DM 2.44 0.88 <0.001
SIDLys SIDLys = 97.526–9.598TP 1.67 0.50 0.023
SIDLys SIDLys = 420.943–9.608TP–3.662DM 1.06 0.82 0.002
SIDLys SIDLys = 471.278–9.267TP–4.245DM+1.401DV 0.77 0.92 0.001
SIDMet SIDMet = 122.281–2.712CP 4.08 0.51 0.020
SIDThr SIDThr = 30.752+2.975GE 2.57 0.82 <0.001
SIDThr SIDThr = 51.864+2.204GE–1.324CF 1.21 0.97 <0.001
SIDTrp SIDTrp = 76.344–19.045Ca 2.34 0.78 <0.001
SIDTrp SIDTrp = 84.769–21.405Ca–0.357NDF 1.81 0.86 0.040
SIDTrp SIDTrp = 73.912–23.268Ca–0.336NDF+0.318TS 1.10 0.96 0.011

DVs take values of 0 and 1, which in this study correspond to defatted rice bran (0) and full-fat rice bran (1) respectively.

p<0.05 means significant difference; p<0.01 means extremely significant difference.

SID, standardized ileal digestibility; CP, crude protein; RSD, relative standard deviation; R2, R-square; TP, total phosphorus; DM, dry matter; DV, dummy variable; GE, gross energy; CF, crude fiber; Ca, Calcium; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; TS, total starch.