Limits...
Influence of grinding on the nutritive value of peas for ruminants: comparison between in vitro and in situ approaches.

Giger-Reverdin S, Maaroufi C, Chapoutot P, Peyronnet C, Sauvant D - Food Sci Nutr (2014)

Bottom Line: The aim of this study was to compare the in situ method with an in vitro method on the same pea either in a coarse pea flour form (PCF) or in a ground pea fine flour form (PFF) to understand the effect of grinding.This study points out the high sensitivity of the in situ method to grinding.The study needs to be validated by in vivo measurements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: INRA, UMR791 Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants F-75005, Paris, France ; AgroParisTech, UMR 791 Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants F-75005, Paris, France.

ABSTRACT
In ruminant nutrition, peas are characterized by high protein solubility and degradability, which impair its protein value estimated by the official in situ method. Grinding can be used as a technological treatment of pea seeds to modify their nutritional value. The aim of this study was to compare the in situ method with an in vitro method on the same pea either in a coarse pea flour form (PCF) or in a ground pea fine flour form (PFF) to understand the effect of grinding. Both forms were also reground (GPCF and GPFF). PCF presented a lower rate of in vitro degradation than PFF, and more stable fermentation parameters (pH, ammonia, soluble carbohydrates) even if gas production was higher for the PCF after 48 h of incubation. In situ dry matter and protein degradation were lower for PCF than those for PFF; these differences were more marked than with the in vitro method. Reground peas were very similar to PFF. The values for pea protein digestible in the intestine (PDI) were higher for PCF than those for PFF. This study points out the high sensitivity of the in situ method to grinding. The study needs to be validated by in vivo measurements.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Pea particle size distribution of coarse and fine ground pea flours. PCF, pea coarse flour, obtained with a crushing roller with a 2.5 mm space; PFF, pea fine flour, obtained with hammer mill with a 2 mm screen.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4221829&req=5

fig01: Pea particle size distribution of coarse and fine ground pea flours. PCF, pea coarse flour, obtained with a crushing roller with a 2.5 mm space; PFF, pea fine flour, obtained with hammer mill with a 2 mm screen.

Mentions: The fine flour had a lower mean particle size estimated by the median diameter and a higher specific surface area (around four times) than the coarse one. Nevertheless, the apparent density was similar for both flours. The particle distribution showed a satisfactory discrimination between the two flours, as less than 10% of particles presented the same size (Fig. 1).


Influence of grinding on the nutritive value of peas for ruminants: comparison between in vitro and in situ approaches.

Giger-Reverdin S, Maaroufi C, Chapoutot P, Peyronnet C, Sauvant D - Food Sci Nutr (2014)

Pea particle size distribution of coarse and fine ground pea flours. PCF, pea coarse flour, obtained with a crushing roller with a 2.5 mm space; PFF, pea fine flour, obtained with hammer mill with a 2 mm screen.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4221829&req=5

fig01: Pea particle size distribution of coarse and fine ground pea flours. PCF, pea coarse flour, obtained with a crushing roller with a 2.5 mm space; PFF, pea fine flour, obtained with hammer mill with a 2 mm screen.
Mentions: The fine flour had a lower mean particle size estimated by the median diameter and a higher specific surface area (around four times) than the coarse one. Nevertheless, the apparent density was similar for both flours. The particle distribution showed a satisfactory discrimination between the two flours, as less than 10% of particles presented the same size (Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: The aim of this study was to compare the in situ method with an in vitro method on the same pea either in a coarse pea flour form (PCF) or in a ground pea fine flour form (PFF) to understand the effect of grinding.This study points out the high sensitivity of the in situ method to grinding.The study needs to be validated by in vivo measurements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: INRA, UMR791 Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants F-75005, Paris, France ; AgroParisTech, UMR 791 Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants F-75005, Paris, France.

ABSTRACT
In ruminant nutrition, peas are characterized by high protein solubility and degradability, which impair its protein value estimated by the official in situ method. Grinding can be used as a technological treatment of pea seeds to modify their nutritional value. The aim of this study was to compare the in situ method with an in vitro method on the same pea either in a coarse pea flour form (PCF) or in a ground pea fine flour form (PFF) to understand the effect of grinding. Both forms were also reground (GPCF and GPFF). PCF presented a lower rate of in vitro degradation than PFF, and more stable fermentation parameters (pH, ammonia, soluble carbohydrates) even if gas production was higher for the PCF after 48 h of incubation. In situ dry matter and protein degradation were lower for PCF than those for PFF; these differences were more marked than with the in vitro method. Reground peas were very similar to PFF. The values for pea protein digestible in the intestine (PDI) were higher for PCF than those for PFF. This study points out the high sensitivity of the in situ method to grinding. The study needs to be validated by in vivo measurements.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus