# Effects of rapeseed meal fiber content on phosphorus and calcium digestibility in growing pigs fed diets without or with microbial phytase

Marion Bournazel, Michel Lessire, Michel Jacques M.J. Duclos, M. Magnin, Nathalie Meme, C. Peyronnet, Emilie Recoules, A. Quinsac, Etienne Labussière, Agnès Narcy

► To cite this version:

Marion Bournazel, Michel Lessire, Michel Jacques M.J. Duclos, M. Magnin, Nathalie Meme, et al. Effects of rapeseed meal fiber content on phosphorus and calcium digestibility in growing pigs fed diets without or with microbial phytase. Animal, 2017, 12 (1), pp.34-42. 10.1017/S1751731117001343. hal-01605891

HAL Id: hal-01605891

https://hal.science/hal-01605891

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Effects of rapeseed meal fiber content on phosphorus and calcium digestibility in growing pigs fed diets without or with microbial phytase

M. Bournazel¹,², M. Lessire¹, M. J. Duclos¹, M. Magnin², N. Même¹, C. Peyronnet³, E. Recoules¹, A. Quinsac⁴, E. Labussière⁵ and A. Narcy¹†

¹URA, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France; ²MiXscience, Centre d'affaires Odyssee, ZAC Cicé Blossac, 35172 Bruz, France; ³Terres Univia, 11 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris, France; ⁴Terres Inovia, 11 rue Monge, Parc Industriel, 33600 Pessac, France; ⁵PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, Domaine de la Prise, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France

(Received 4 November 2016; Accepted 18 April 2017)

The optimization of dietary phosphorus (P) and calcium (Ca) supply requires a better understanding of the effect of dietary fiber content of co-products on the digestive utilization of minerals. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of dietary fiber content from 00-rapeseed meal (RSM) on P and Ca digestibility throughout the gastrointestinal tract in growing pigs fed diets without or with microbial phytase. In total, 48 castrated male pigs (initial BW = 36.1 ± 0.4 kg) were housed in metabolic crates for 29 days. After an 8-day adaptation period, pigs were allocated to one of the eight treatments. The impact of dietary fiber was modulated by adding whole RSM (wRSM), dehulled RSM (dRSM) or dRSM supplemented with 4.5% or 9.0% rapeseed hulls (dRSMh1 and dRSMh2). Diets contained 0 or 500 phytase unit of microbial phytase per kg. From day 14 to day 23, feces and urine were collected separately to determine apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) and apparent retention (AR) of P and Ca. At the end of the experiment, femurs and digestive contents were sampled. No effect of variables of interest was observed on growth performance. Microbial phytase increased ATTD and AR of P (P < 0.001) but the P equivalency with the wRSM diet was lower than expected. Moreover, stomach inorganic P (iP) solubility was improved by microbial phytase (P < 0.001). The ATTD of Ca was not affected by microbial phytase which increased AR of Ca and femur characteristics (P < 0.05). Ileal recovery of P was not affected by microbial phytase but cecal recovery was considerably reduced by microbial phytase (P < 0.001). The decrease in digesta pH between the distal ileum and cecum (7.6 v. 5.9) enhanced the solubility of iP and may have improved its absorption, as supported by the negative relationship between soluble iP and pH (R² = 0.40, P < 0.001 without microbial phytase and R² = 0.24, P = 0.026 with microbial phytase). The inclusion of hulls improved the solubility of iP (P < 0.05). In conclusion, dehulling does not largely increase nutrient digestibility although dRSM seems to improve the efficacy of microbial phytase in releasing phosphate in the stomach. Moreover, dietary fiber may affect solubilization process in the cecum which potentiates the effect of microbial phytase on P digestibility.

**Keywords:** calcium, dietary fiber, microbial phytase, phosphorus, rapeseed meal

## Implications

Dehulling is a relevant process to reduce the fiber content of rapeseed meal and to concentrate protein and energy fraction. However it seems to have a low impact on phosphorus (P) and calcium (Ca) digestibility, whereas it improves phosphorus equivalency of microbial phytase. This implies that phosphorus equivalencies need to be adapted according to the type of rapeseed meal used and to the fiber level.

## Introduction

The inclusion of co-products, such as 00-rapeseed meal (RSM), in pig diets increased over the last decade because of its higher availability and its low glucosinolates and erucic acid content. Nevertheless, RSM is characterized by a relatively high dietary fiber and phytate content (0.50%) which are considered as anti-nutritional factors. Procedures, such as dehulling the seed, are of great interest to reduce the dietary fiber fraction which is mainly located in the hulls (Carré et al., 2015). However, the impact of dietary fiber of RSM on P digestibility remains unknown whereas dietary

<footnote>† E-mail: agnes.narcy@inra.fr</footnote>
provision of P for pigs is still an environmental and economic
challenge. Previous studies focused on measuring the
apparent, true or standardized digestibility of P in diets with
RSM, but did not investigate the specific effect of RSM fiber
on digestive process (Adhikari et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015).

According to the literature, the effects of dietary fiber on P digestibility in pigs are not consistent and depend strongly on the source and the inclusion level (Metzler and Monsenthin, 2008). Dietary fiber can affect digestive process in the upper gastrointestinal tract because of their physico-chemical properties (Jha and Berrosco, 2015), and consequently phytate degradation by microbial phytase (Kemme et al., 2006; Dersjant-Li et al., 2015). The decrease of the pH between the terminal ileum and the cecum (from 7.0 to 6.0) due to microbial breakdown of fiber may improve the solubility of minerals, thereby increasing their absorption (Scholz-Arhens and Schrezenmeir, 2007). In addition, dietary fiber could affect Ca digestibility (Nortey et al., 2008) modifying in this way Ca and P balance and consequently bone mineralization. In this regard, we hypothesized that (1) dehulling the seed could improve nutrient digestibility by reducing the fiber matrix effect, (2) the hull content could lead to fermentations in the lower intestine enhancing mineral solubility and (3) the response to microbial phytase might be affected by RSM inclusion.

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate
the effects of dietary fiber content of RSM on P and Ca
digestibility as well as on bone mineralization in growing pigs
fed diets without or with microbial phytase, and to evaluate
their impacts on P and Ca solubility in relation to the pH, and
their recovery throughout the gastrointestinal tract.

Material and methods

The experimental protocol was approved by the Regional
Ethics Committee on animal experimentation (Rennes,
France) and the French Ministry of Higher Education and
Research (Paris, France; authorization: 02402.03).

Raw materials and experimental diets

The RSM used was a 00-rapeseed meal. From a single
batch of seed, whole RSM and dehulled RSM were processed
at the CREOL pilot plant (Pessac, France; Supplementary
Table S1). The dehulling of seed was performed before oil
extraction and hulls were collected. Extraction was done
using hexane.

The eight experimental diets were based on 67% corn and
10% soybean meal. Phosphorus and Ca were marginally
deficient in diets without microbial phytase according to the
French recommendations for 40 kg pigs (Jondreville and
Dourmad, 2005). The dietary fiber content of the diets was
modulated by adding RSM. The first diet (wRSM) included
15% whole RSM to adjust the protein concentration to 15%
(Table 1). The second diet (dRSM) included 10.5% dehulled
RSM to provide similar amounts of protein to wRSM. The
third and fourth diets (dRSMh1 and dRSMh2, respectively)
included 10.5% dRSM and 4.5% or 9.0% hulls, respectively.

Diets were supplemented with 0 or 500 phytase units (FTU) microbial phytase per kg (Natuphos® from Aspergillus niger, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany). The level of apparent digestible P (Sauvant *et al.*, 2004) was fixed at 0.16% in diets without microbial phytase and at 0.24% in diets supplemented with microbial phytase, in accordance with the French recommendations, considering an equivalency of 0.8 g/kg of apparent digestible P with 500 FTU microbial phytase/kg (Jondreville and Dourmad, 2005). The Ca: apparent digestible P ratio was adjusted to 2.6 using calcium carbonate. Titanium dioxide (TiO₂, 0.30%) was added as an indigestible marker. The diets were offered to pigs as pellets.

Animals and experimental procedures

The experiment included 48 castrated male Piétrain × (Land-race × Large White) pigs weighing 36.1 ± 0.4 kg. Animals were housed in crates equipped with a slatted floor with a tray underneath that allowed separation of urines and feces collection. From day 0 to day 7, the pigs received a standard diet covering all their nutrient requirements (9.7 MJ net energy and 18% CP). At day 8, pigs were assigned to one of the eight experimental diets (six pigs/diet) in a complete randomized block design (six blocks of eight treatments). The pigs were offered an equal quantity of feed daily distributed in two equivalent meals corresponding to 4% of their BW. Daily feed intake was recorded individually during the experimental period. Collection period started at day 14 and ended at day 23 after an overnight fast to ensure the emptying of the intestine. Feces were collected at meal times (twice a day) and pooled by pig. At the end of the collection period, feces were mixed thoroughly with water, sampled, weighed and freeze-dried. Acidified urine (1% of the total, with 3 ml of 10% sulfuric acid/l of urine) was also collected individually each day and stored at -20°C. Pigs were weighed at day 0, day 8, day 14 and day 23. Room temperature was maintained at 20 ± 1°C. At the end of the experiment, individual pigs received half of their daily feed allowance in the morning and the other half 2 h 30 min before slaughter. They were anesthetized by electroimmobilization and slaughtered by exsanguination. The viscera were immediately removed and samples of digesta were collected from stomach, duodenum, jejunum (from the end of duodenum to the beginning of ileum), proximal ileum (1 m before distal ileum), distal ileum (80 cm anterior to the ileocecal valve), cecum and middle of the colon, homogenized and stored at -80°C. A sample of digesta from the cecum and the distal ileum was freeze-dried for 48 h and then ground. Femurs were also collected and stored at -20°C.

Analyses

All samples were analyzed in duplicate. The crude fiber content was measured with the Weende method (NF V03 040), and NDF, ADF and ADL were obtained according to Van Soest et al. (1991). Soluble and insoluble fibers were determined according to Prosky method (AOAC 991.42 and 993.19). The initial pH and the buffering capacity to pH 3 were measured according to Lawlor et al. (2005). Dry matter of diets, feces and digestive content of ileum and cecum, and P, Ca and TiO₂
analysis were performed as previously explained by Rousseau et al. (2016). Phytase activity was measured according to Engelen et al. (1994). Levels of Ca and P content were measured in diets, feces and urine to determine apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) and apparent retention (AR). Levels of P, Ca and TiO₂ were measured in diets and digesta to determine Ca and P recovery. The soluble Ca and inorganic P (iP) levels were determined in the stomach and cecal supernatant fractions, after centrifuging the samples at 23 000 g for 10 min at 4°C. Inorganic P was analyzed using a kit (Kit Phosphore UV 61571; bioMérieux, 69280 Marcy l'Etoile, France). Nitrogen (NF EN ISO 5983-2) and fat (NF ISO 6492) were determined in diets. The pH was measured on all digestive contents with a pH meter (InLab Solid Pro-ISM with SevenGo Duo™ SG23; Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland). Right femurs were broken and then defatted using ether, dried at 103°C for 18 h and finally ashed in a muffle furnace at 600°C for 16 h. The left femurs were analyzed using computed tomography (Siemens Emotion Duo, Erlangen, Germany). Bone densitometry (BD) was determined using X-ray absorbance: mineral density was proportional to grayscale value in Hounsfield units (HU), from 250 to 1500 HU.

### Calculations and statistical analysis

Ileal and cecal recovery were calculated using the following equation:

$$Recovery = (X_{diet}/X_{digesta}) \times (TiO_{2digesta}/TiO_{2diet})$$

Where X is the amount of P or Ca in the diet or in the digesta (mg/g DM) and TiO₂ the amount of TiO₂ in the diet or in the digesta (mg/g DM).

The P equivalency values were calculated using the ATTD of P and the dietary P content following the method of Kerr et al. (2010), and the analyzed values of phytase activity.

All data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) as appropriate for a randomized complete block design. Crates location was the blocking factor and pigs were the experimental unit. The model included diets as fixed effect and block as random effect. Orthogonal polynomial contrasts were used to separate treatment means. Contrasts were chosen to study the effects of (1) microbial phytase (linear (Lin), mean of diets without phytase v. mean of diets with phytase), (2) dehulled rapeseed without microbial phytase (Lin, wRSM - v. dRSM -) and (3) with microbial phytase (Lin, wRSM + v. dRSM +), (4) the hull content without microbial phytase (Lin, quadratic (Qua), dRSM - v. dRSMh1 - v. dRSMh2 -) and (5) with microbial phytase (Lin, Qua, dRSM + v. dRSMh1 + v. dRSMh2 +). Differences were considered significant at *P* < 0.05 and to have a tendency at 0.05 ≤ *P* < 0.10. Relationships between the pH and the mineral solubility in the stomach and in the cecum were quantified using regression analysis with the REG procedure of SAS. The relation between the iP solubility in the stomach and BD was estimated using a quadratic regression model as well as broken-line and curvilinear-plateau regression models. Estimates were obtained using REG and NLIN procedures of SAS (Supplementary Figure S1).

## Results

### Nutritional values of experimental diets

The P and Ca concentrations analyzed in the experimental diets were in accordance with the expected values (Table 1). Analyzed phytase activity was 650, 450, 870 and 630 FTU/kg in wRSM +, dRSM +, dRSMh1 + and dRSMh2 + diets, respectively, and less than the detection limit of 100 FTU/kg in the diets without microbial phytase. As expected, NDF, ADF, ADL, insoluble and soluble fiber contents decreased when including dRSM (7.8%, 2.9%, <0.5%, 1.2% and 10.7%, respectively). The dRSMh1 diet contained almost the same level of fibers as wRSM while dRSMh2 presented the highest level of fibers (13.1%, 7.3%, 2.8%, 1.8% and 15.5%, respectively).

### Growth performance and bone mineralization

There was no significant effect of microbial phytase, dehulled seed and hull content on BW at day 8, day 23 or on average daily gain between day 8 and day 23 (Table 2). The inclusion of hulls without microbial phytase influenced the feed conversion ratio (Qua; *P* = 0.037) and the inclusion of hulls with microbial phytase increased the average daily feed intake (*P* = 0.017). Microbial phytase increased femur ash weight (*P* < 0.001) and content (*P* = 0.005), and bone density (*P* < 0.001).

### Phosphorus and calcium balance

Microbial phytase decreased P fecal excretion (−25%, *P* < 0.001; Table 3), increased P urinary excretion (+30%, *P* = 0.020), ATTD of P (+18.4 points; *P* < 0.001), AR of P (+17.6 points; *P* < 0.001), Ca fecal excretion (+33%, *P* < 0.001) and AR of Ca (+6.7 points; *P* = 0.011). With microbial phytase, the inclusion of hulls affected P urinary excretion (+36%; Qua, *P* = 0.040). The P equivalency values were 0.48, 0.69, 0.88 and 0.84 g of apparent digestible P/kg of diet for wRSM, dRSM, dRSMh1 and dRSMh2, respectively.

### pH of digestive contents and stomach solubility, ileal recovery and cecal solubility and recovery of phosphorus and calcium

Microbial phytase increased duodenum (*P* = 0.031) and colon pH (*P* = 0.017; Table 4) except in the duodenum of pigs fed the wRSM diet. The dRSM-diet increased jejunum (*P* = 0.006) and cecum pH (*P* < 0.001) compared with wRSM-. Without microbial phytase, the inclusion of hulls decreased cecum pH (Lin, *P* = 0.006). Total and soluble P and Ca in the stomach and cecum are presented in the Supplementary Table S2. Microbial phytase increased iP solubility in the stomach (*P* < 0.001; Table 4) and decreased iP solubility (*P* = 0.008) and P recovery in the cecum (*P* < 0.001). Without microbial phytase, the inclusion of hulls increased iP solubility (Lin and Qua, *P* < 0.001) and recovery of Ca in the cecum (Lin, *P* = 0.017 and Qua, *P* = 0.033). With microbial phytase, the inclusion of hulls increased iP solubility (Lin, *P* = 0.026 and Qua, *P* = 0.014) and decreased Ca solubility (Lin, *P* = 0.001 and Qua, *P* = 0.032).
<table><caption>**Table 1** Ingredients and chemical composition of experimental diets (as-fed basis)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">wRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh1</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh2</th></tr><tr><th>-</th><th>+</th><th>-</th><th>+</th><th>-</th><th>+</th><th>-</th><th>+</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Ingredients (%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>67.01</td><td>67.01</td><td>67.00</td><td>67.00</td><td>66.99</td><td>66.99</td><td>66.99</td><td>66.99</td></tr><tr><td>Soybean meal</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td><td>10.00</td></tr><tr><td>Rapeseed meal</td><td>15.00</td><td>15.00</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Dehulled rapeseed meal</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>10.50</td><td>10.50</td><td>10.50</td><td>10.50</td><td>10.50</td><td>10.50</td></tr><tr><td>Rapeseed hulls</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4.50</td><td>4.50</td><td>9.00</td><td>9.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cornstarch</td><td>5.78</td><td>5.24</td><td>9.99</td><td>9.45</td><td>5.73</td><td>5.28</td><td>1.43</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>Calcium carbonate</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.56</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Dicalcium phosphate</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Sodium chloride</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Titanium dioxide</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>Sodium bicarbonate</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>L-Lysine HCl</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>DL-Methionine</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>L-Threonine</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>L-Tryptophan</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>L-Valine</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Nutritional characteristics¹ (%)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>DM</td><td>87.3</td><td>88.5</td><td>88.0</td><td>87.9</td><td>87.3</td><td>88.2</td><td>87.4</td><td>88.7</td></tr><tr><td>Phytase (FTU/kg)</td><td>&lt;100</td><td>650</td><td>&lt;100</td><td>450</td><td>&lt;100</td><td>870</td><td>&lt;100</td><td>630</td></tr><tr><td>Ca</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Total P</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>digP<sup>2, 3</sup></td><td>0.16</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Ca : digP</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fat</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>CP (N × 6.25)</td><td>15.4</td><td>14.6</td><td>14.6</td><td>14.5</td><td>14.7</td><td>14.3</td><td>15.2</td><td>15.3</td></tr><tr><td>NDF</td><td>10.5</td><td>10.5</td><td>7.8</td><td>7.8</td><td>10.0</td><td>10.0</td><td>13.1</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>ADF</td><td>5.1</td><td>5.1</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.9</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.3</td><td>7.3</td><td>7.3</td></tr><tr><td>ADL</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.6</td><td>&lt;0.5</td><td>&lt;0.5</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Soluble fiber</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Insoluble fiber</td><td>13.1</td><td>13.1</td><td>10.7</td><td>10.7</td><td>12.7</td><td>12.7</td><td>15.5</td><td>15.5</td></tr><tr><td>Net energy (MJ/kg<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>9.95</td><td>9.89</td><td>10.30</td><td>10.24</td><td>9.86</td><td>9.80</td><td>9.41</td><td>9.36</td></tr><tr><td>Initial pH</td><td>6.9</td><td>7.0</td><td>7.1</td><td>7.0</td><td>7.0</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.9</td></tr><tr><td>BUF 3</td><td>147</td><td>158</td><td>123</td><td>153</td><td>124</td><td>165</td><td>122</td><td>162</td></tr></tbody></table>

wRSM = whole rapeseed meal; dRSM = dehulled rapeseed meal; dRSMh1 = dehulled rapeseed meal with 4.5% rapeseed hulls; dRSMh2 = dehulled rapeseed meal with 9% rapeseed hulls (− = without microbial phytase and + = with 500 FTU/kg); BUF = buffering capacity to pH 3.

¹Analyzed values (as described in 'Material and methods' section).

²Calculated values.

³Apparent digestible phosphorus (Sauvant et al., 2004).

## Regression analysis

With microbial phytase, soluble iP was negatively correlated with the pH of the stomach content ($R^2 = 0.31, P = 0.009$; Figure 1a) but no effect was observed without microbial phytase. Soluble Ca was negatively correlated with the pH of the stomach content without microbial phytase ($R^2 = 0.53, P < 0.001$; Figure 1b) and with MP ($R^2 = 0.85, P < 0.001$). Soluble iP in the cecum was negatively correlated with pH without ($R^2 = 0.40, P < 0.001$; Figure 2) and with microbial phytase ($R^2 = 0.24, P = 0.026$).

## Discussion

Using dRSM instead of wRSM or adding hulls did not affect the ATTD or AR of P and Ca. However, the P equivalency

value was twofold lower with the wRSM diet than expected (0.48 v. 0.83 g/kg; Kerr et al., 2010). Moreover, the solubility of iP in the stomach tended to be enhanced with dehulled seeds in diets supplemented with microbial phytase. These results suggest that dehulling the seed enhances the action of microbial phytase which takes place mainly in the stomach. Phytate is distributed throughout the kernel in sub-cellular inclusions known as globoids (Singh, 2008). Removing hulls from the seed may reduce binding and physical entrapment of phytate, improving in this way the accessibility to the enzyme (Baye et al., 2015). This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the positive effect is remaining with the dRSMh1 + diet although it almost contains the same level of fibers as wRSM +. In addition, neither dehulled seeds nor the inclusion of hulls significantly affected
<table><caption>**Table 2** Growth performance and femurs characteristics in pigs fed experimental diets namely whole rapeseed meal (wRSM), dehulled RSM (dRSM) or dRSM supplemented with 4.5% or 9.0% rapeseed hulls (dRSMh1 and dRSMh2, respectively)<fnref n="1" /></caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Description</th><th colspan="2">wRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh1</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh2</th><th colspan="8">P-value<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">Effect of microbial phytase</th><th colspan="2">Effect of dRSM</th><th colspan="2">Effect of hulls content</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>SEM</th><th>1, 3, 5, 7 v. 2, 4, 6, 8</th><th>1 v. 3</th><th>2 v. 4</th><th>3 v. 5 v. 7</th><th>4 v. 6 v. 8</th></tr><tr><th>MP suppl.<sup>3</sup></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Qua</th></tr><tr><th>Diets</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>SEM</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BW day 8 (kg)</td><td>40.3</td><td>40.4</td><td>40.1</td><td>39.8</td><td>39.5</td><td>40.7</td><td>40.2</td><td>40.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>BW day 23 (kg)</td><td>52.8</td><td>53.2</td><td>52.6</td><td>52.3</td><td>52.0</td><td>53.4</td><td>52.0</td><td>52.8</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>ADG (g/day)</td><td>833</td><td>850</td><td>833</td><td>828</td><td>833</td><td>850</td><td>789</td><td>822</td><td>15</td><td>0.36</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>ADFI (kg/day)</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.59</td><td>1.56</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.60</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.093</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>FCR</td><td>1.87</td><td>1.88</td><td>1.93</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.88</td><td>2.02</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Femurs characteristics</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dry weight (g)</td><td>83.8</td><td>91.4</td><td>89.0</td><td>85.2</td><td>81.4</td><td>97.0</td><td>87.1</td><td>88.8</td><td>1.5</td><td>0.063</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Ash weight (g)</td><td>31.6</td><td>36.8</td><td>32.3</td><td>36.0</td><td>29.9</td><td>38.0</td><td>32.3</td><td>36.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.55</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>Ash (% DM)</td><td>38.3</td><td>40.3</td><td>36.5</td><td>42.6</td><td>37.0</td><td>39.4</td><td>37.6</td><td>41.3</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>BD (cm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>6.40</td><td>8.44</td><td>6.93</td><td>7.75</td><td>5.99</td><td>8.50</td><td>6.91</td><td>8.27</td><td>0.17</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.66</td></tr></tbody></table>

ADG = average daily gain; ADFI = average daily feed intake; FCR = feed conversion ratio; BD = bone density: area greater than 250 HU; Lin = linear; Qua = quadratic.

<table><caption>**Table 3** Intake, fecal excretion, urinary excretion, apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD), apparent retention (AR) in pigs fed experimental diets namely whole rapeseed meal (wRSM), dehulled RSM (dRSM) or dRSM supplemented with 4.5% or 9.0% rapeseed hulls (dRSMh1 and dRSMh2, respectively)<fnref n="1" /></caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Description</th><th colspan="2">wRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh1</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh2</th><th colspan="8">P-value<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">Effect of microbial phytase</th><th colspan="2">Effect of dRSM</th><th colspan="2">Effect of hulls content</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>SEM</th><th>1, 3, 5, 7 v. 2, 4, 6, 8</th><th>1 v. 3</th><th>2 v. 4</th><th>3 v. 5 v. 7</th><th>4 v. 6 v. 8</th></tr><tr><th>MP suppl.<sup>3</sup></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Lin</th><th colspan="2">Qua</th></tr><tr><th>Diets</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>SEM</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Phosphorus</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intake (g/day)</td><td>7.10</td><td>6.84</td><td>6.70</td><td>6.58</td><td>6.92</td><td>6.98</td><td>6.99</td><td>7.19</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.011</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Fecal excretion (g/day)</td><td>5.01</td><td>3.90</td><td>4.94</td><td>3.62</td><td>5.25</td><td>3.78</td><td>5.26</td><td>3.99</td><td>0.11</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.040</td></tr><tr><td>Urinary excretion (g/day)</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.020</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.040</td></tr><tr><td>ATTD (% of intake)</td><td>29.5</td><td>43.0</td><td>26.3</td><td>45.0</td><td>24.1</td><td>45.8</td><td>24.7</td><td>44.5</td><td>1.6</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>AR (% of intake)</td><td>28.2</td><td>39.8</td><td>24.5</td><td>43.2</td><td>22.5</td><td>43.8</td><td>23.0</td><td>42.0</td><td>1.5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>Calcium</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intake (g/day)</td><td>6.68</td><td>9.49</td><td>6.18</td><td>8.81</td><td>6.66</td><td>8.83</td><td>6.77</td><td>9.27</td><td>0.19</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Fecal excretion (g/day)</td><td>3.61</td><td>4.64</td><td>3.07</td><td>4.14</td><td>3.46</td><td>4.16</td><td>3.33</td><td>4.83</td><td>0.13</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.089</td><td>0.055</td><td>0.055</td></tr><tr><td>Urinary excretion (g/day)</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.059</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>ATTD (% of intake)</td><td>50.3</td><td>51.2</td><td>50.4</td><td>53.1</td><td>48.1</td><td>52.9</td><td>50.9</td><td>50.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>AR (% of intake)</td><td>32.6</td><td>45.7</td><td>39.3</td><td>45.0</td><td>39.3</td><td>46.8</td><td>42.7</td><td>43.2</td><td>1.4</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.54</td></tr></tbody></table>

Lin = linear; Qua = quadratic.

<footnote n="1">¹n = 6 pigs per diet.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Contrast analysis: linear effect of microbial phytase; linear effect of dehulled rapeseed seed without and with microbial phytase; linear and quadratic effects of the inclusion of hulls without and with microbial phytase.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Microbial phytase supplementation: — = without microbial phytase and + = with 500 FTU/kg.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹n = 6 pigs per diet.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Contrast analysis: linear effect of microbial phytase; linear effect of dehulled rapeseed seed without and with microbial phytase; linear and quadratic effects of the inclusion of hulls without and with microbial phytase.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Microbial phytase supplementation: — = without microbial phytase and + = with 500 FTU/kg.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4** *Phosphorus and calcium solubility in the stomach and the cecum, recovery in the ileum and cecum and pH of digesta in different segments of the digestive tract in pigs fed experimental diets namely whole rapeseed meal (wRSM), dehulled RSM (dRSM) or dRSM supplemented with 4.5% or 9.0% rapeseed hulls (dRSMh1 and dRSMh2, respectively, DM basis)¹*</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Description</th><th colspan="2">wRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSM</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh1</th><th colspan="2">dRSMh2</th><th colspan="8">P-value<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">+</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">+</th><th colspan="2">Effect of microbial phytase</th><th colspan="2">Effect of dRSM</th><th colspan="2">Effect of hulls content</th><th colspan="2">—</th></tr><tr><th>MP suppl.<sup>3</sup></th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">+</th><th colspan="2">—</th><th colspan="2">+</th><th colspan="2">1, 3, 5, 7 v. 2, 4, 6, 8</th><th colspan="2">1 v. 3</th><th colspan="2">2 v. 4</th><th colspan="2">3 v. 5 v. 7</th><th colspan="2">4 v. 6 v. 8</th></tr><tr><th>Diets</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>SEM</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th><th>Lin</th><th>Qua</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>pH of digestive content</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stomach</td><td>5.26</td><td>5.53</td><td>5.55</td><td>5.56</td><td>5.45</td><td>5.45</td><td>5.18</td><td>5.64</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.47</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Duodenum</td><td>5.79</td><td>5.69</td><td>5.77</td><td>6.02</td><td>5.61</td><td>6.09</td><td>5.48</td><td>6.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.92</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jejunum</td><td>6.36</td><td>6.45</td><td>6.59</td><td>6.44</td><td>6.50</td><td>6.49</td><td>6.46</td><td>6.49</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.74</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Proximal ileum</td><td>7.36</td><td>7.49</td><td>7.53</td><td>7.20</td><td>7.65</td><td>7.44</td><td>7.41</td><td>7.28</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.81</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Distal ileum</td><td>7.52</td><td>7.79</td><td>7.57</td><td>7.44</td><td>7.63</td><td>7.68</td><td>7.60</td><td>7.50</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.062</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.73</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cecum</td><td>5.75</td><td>6.05</td><td>6.14</td><td>5.93</td><td>6.03</td><td>5.97</td><td>5.84</td><td>5.85</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.84</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.010</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.29</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colon</td><td>6.06</td><td>6.36</td><td>6.03</td><td>6.28</td><td>6.07</td><td>6.12</td><td>6.01</td><td>6.23</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.88</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Inorganic phosphorus solubility (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stomach</td><td>9.97</td><td>17.50</td><td>8.43</td><td>21.92</td><td>9.51</td><td>20.60</td><td>9.74</td><td>18.11</td><td>0.93</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.067</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.12</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cecum</td><td>2.55</td><td>1.87</td><td>1.97</td><td>1.92</td><td>2.55</td><td>1.99</td><td>3.36</td><td>2.71</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.88</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.026</td><td>0.014</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Calcium solubility (%)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Stomach</td><td>6.84</td><td>8.99</td><td>5.78</td><td>7.95</td><td>7.59</td><td>9.37</td><td>8.03</td><td>6.54</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.16</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cecum</td><td>1.17</td><td>1.30</td><td>0.98</td><td>1.61</td><td>1.05</td><td>0.99</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.032</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Phosphorus recovery</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ileum</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.083</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cecum</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.02</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.77</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Calcium recovery</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ileum</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.43</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cecum</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.082</td><td>0.11</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Lin = linear; Qua = quadratic.

¹n = 6 pigs per diet.

²Contrast analysis: linear effect of microbial phytase; linear effect of dehulled rapeseed seed without and with microbial phytase; linear and quadratic effects of the inclusion of hulls without and with microbial phytase.

³Microbial phytase supplementation: — = without microbial phytase and + = with 500 FTU/kg.

the absorption of P and Ca in the small intestine. There is some evidence that fiber can modulate the absorption of minerals from the upper gastrointestinal tract (Metzler and Monsenthin, 2008). The estimated content in hemicelluloses fractions was increased by almost 20% between dRSM and wRSM or dRSMh2 diets. The ability of hemicelluloses to bind Ca is particularly high at neutral pH, especially compared with lignin (Claye et al., 1998). The level of inclusion of hulls in the present experiment might have been too low to induce significant effects in the small intestine on mineral availability. The hull content of the diet did not affect the cecal recovery of P. Nevertheless, increasing the level of hulls reduced the pH of the cecal content (6.14 v. 5.84) in pigs fed diets without microbial phytase and slightly improved the solubility of iP in the cecal content. Fiber from hulls, although mostly insoluble, may have been fermented and thus lowered the pH. The higher acidity produced through fermentation resulted in greater solubility and availability

of P. Indeed, both soluble and insoluble dietary fiber can be degraded by intestinal bacteria, but insoluble fiber is less easily, rapidly and completely fermented than soluble fiber (Bach Knudsen and Hansen, 1991). The effects of fiber on mineral absorption in the hindgut are controversial. The source and the inclusion level of dietary fiber have a considerable effect on P absorption or secretion in the large intestine as a result of the different bacteria P needs for fermentation (Metzler and Monsenthin, 2008). For instance, an increase in the cellulose content of the diet from 3% to 9% was reported to negatively affect the absorption of P from the large intestine (Partridge, 1978b). In contrast, some studies using various types of fiber have suggested greater P absorption (Den Hartog et al., 1988; Heijnen and Beynen, 1998). The cecal recovery of Ca was higher when the inclusion level of hulls was increased (from 0.53 to 0.61 on average for dRSM and dRSMh2, respectively). Moreover, although low, the solubility of Ca was reduced when the hull
Microbial phytase significantly improved the ATTD of P from 26.1% to 44.6%. A similar improvement in the ATTD of P from 28% to 56% was previously reported when phytase was added (863 FTU/kg) to a diet containing 13.2% canola meal (Akinmusire and Adeola, 2009). Microbial phytase supplementation led to an increase of Ca intake as dietary Ca level was adjusted using calcium carbonate in order to keep an equal Ca: apparent digestible P ratio. However, microbial phytase had no impact on ATTD of Ca. This result is particularly surprising since microbial phytase is well known to improve Ca digestibility in canola meal as shown by González-Vega *et al.* (2013). However, in our experiment, calcium carbonate was added and its level was twice as high in diets supplemented with microbial phytase. According to González-Vega *et al.* (2015a), Ca from calcium carbonate is more easily bound to phytate, less soluble or less digestible than other sources which could explain the lack of significant effect of microbial phytase on ATTD of Ca. Calcium AR was significantly improved in pigs fed diets supplemented with microbial phytase (45.2% v. 38.5%) with a reduction in urinary Ca (from 21% to 12% of the absorbed Ca). Microbial phytase also caused a large improvement of bone ash content, as previously reported in finishing pigs fed diets supplemented with 1000 FTU of microbial phytase/kg which led to an 8 percentage units increase compared with unsupplemented diets (Varley *et al.*, 2010). These observations are related to the greater availability of P for bone mineralization and illustrate the close relationship between P and Ca at the metabolic level. Both minerals are deposited together in the skeleton to form hydroxyapatite crystals and the element in excess compared with the other is excreted in the urine (Létourneau-Montminy *et al.*, 2010).

There was a strong negative relationship between
stomach pH and iP solubility in pigs fed diets supplemented
with microbial phytase. The presence of feed in the stomach
induces distension, with a subsequent increase in intra-
gastric pressure that stimulates acid secretion (Yen, 2001).
The relatively acidic pH (5.45) is particularly favorable to
phytate solubility and phytase activity (Yi and Kornegay,
1996). In consequence, a large amount of phosphate was
released in this compartment. There was also a negative
relationship between stomach pH and Ca solubility in pigs
fed diets without or with microbial phytase. Maintenance of
a low stomach pH may thus prevent the formation
of Ca-phosphate complexes. Moreover, the higher level of
provision of calcium carbonate in the diets supplemented
with microbial phytase led to a higher buffering capacity of
the feed (129 v. 159). This caused a slight increase in pH
of the stomach content (5.36 v. 5.54) which remained
sufficiently low for optimal activity of microbial phytase
which is between pH 2.5 and 5.5 (Dersjant-Li *et al.*, 2015).
Solubilization and hydrolysis processes occurring in the
stomach proved to be limiting steps in P utilization (Kemme
*et al.*, 2006). This was supported by the positive relationship
between iP solubility in the stomach and bone density as the
skeleton is the main storage site of P in the body (c.f. Sup-
plementary Material). However, it is worthy to note that pH

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Figure 1** Relation between stomach pH and stomach solubility of P (a) and Ca (b) in pigs fed diets without microbial phytase (□) or with microbial phytase (●). (a) Without microbial phytase: y = 0.139 + 0.027x, R² = 0.02, P = 0.52, n = 24; with microbial phytase: y = 2.790 - 0.396x, R² = 0.31, P = 0.009, n = 20. (b) Without microbial phytase: y = 1.223 - 0.188x, R² = 0.53, P < 0.001, n = 24; with microbial phytase: y = 2.098 - 0.329x, R² = 0.85, P < 0.001, n = 21.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Figure 2** Relation between cecum pH and cecum solubility of P in pigs fed diets without microbial phytase (□) and with microbial phytase (●). Without microbial phytase: y = 2.178 - 0.296x, R² = 0.40, P < 0.001, n = 24; with microbial phytase: y = 1.337 - 0.183x, R² = 0.24, P = 0.026, n = 21.

content in diets supplemented with microbial phytase was
increased. These results can be explained by the higher Ca
requirement to buffer the excess of acidity in the cecum with
progressing fermentation as illustrated by Metzler-Zebeli
et al. (2010) who reported a negative relationship between
volatile fatty acids in feces and net post-ileal Ca absorption.
values in the stomach are higher than those generally found
in the literature and must be taken with care. The δ between
sampling and pH measurement may explain these results
as a consequence of acid secretion disruption. Microbial
phytase did not have any effect on the ileal recovery of
P while a significant decrease in cecal recovery occurred.
These results suggest that part of the absorption of P occurred
in the cecum, which potentiates the effects of microbial
phytase through the absorption of P released by enzymes
in the proximal part of the digestive tract. The small intestine is
the major site of P absorption (Breves and Schröder, 1991).
The role of the large intestine in the regulation of P absorption
is more controversial. Some authors have reported secretion
of P in the large intestine (Partridge, 1978a; Partridge et al.,
1986), whereas others have reported significant absorption
in both the cecum and the proximal colon (Liu et al., 2000).
A significant decrease in the pH of the digestive content
from the ileum to the cecum occurred (from 7.6 to 5.9),
presumably due to volatile fatty acids production resulting
from fiber fermentation. Results of previous studies showed a
decrease in pH of 6.6 to 7.2 near the ileocecal junction to 5.7
to 6.8 in the cecum of pigs fed various wheat- or oat-based
diets (Bach Knudsen and Hansen, 1991). Moreover, a strong
negative relationship between the pH of the digesta of the
cecum and the solubility of iP was found. The low pH in
the large intestine might have resulted in the improvement of
the solubility of Ca and phosphate, with a subsequent increase
in their absorption (González-Vega et al., 2015b). It is of
note that the solubility of both P and Ca in the cecum was
extremely low (around 2.4%). This could be attributed to
the buffering functions of Ca and phosphate in order to
compensate for the low pH. Indeed, Ca and phosphate
have a major role for the buffering capacity throughout the
intestinal lumen, forming insoluble complexes at pH values
above 6 (Lawlor et al., 2005; Selle et al., 2009). The higher
Ca intake in pigs fed diets with phytase caused an increase in
the flow of Ca entering the large intestine, which might
explain the higher pH of the digesta of the colon observed with
microbial phytase.

In conclusion, the present findings indicate that dietary fiber
content of RSM does not have a strong effect on digestive
processes in the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract of
pigs. However, dehulling of RSM improved the availability of
phytate and the phosphate released in the stomach. This study
showed that the large intestine has a significant role in the
absorption of P and potentiates the effect of microbial phytase
due to its low pH. Dietary fiber from rapeseed induces
acidification of the cecal content, thereby improving iP solubi-
lity, which may improve its absorption.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to MiXscience, Terres Inovia and
Terres Univia for their financial support, M. Alix, A. Chauvin,
F. Le Gouevec, C. Jaeger, R. Janvier, J. Liger and V. Piedvache for the
animal care, Y. Jaguelin and A. Starck for their help with laboratory
analysis and D. Gaudré for his expert advice on bone density results.

**Supplementary material**

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117001343

**References**

Adhikari PA, Heo JM and Nyachoti CM 2015. True and standardized total tract phosphorus digestibility in canola meals from *Brassica napus* black and *Brassica juncea* yellow fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 209–216.

Akinmusire AS and Adeola O 2009. True digestibility of phosphorus in canola and soybean meals for growing pigs: influence of microbial phytase. Journal of Animal Science 87, 977–983.

Bach Knudsen KE and Hansen I 1991. Gastrointestinal implications in pigs of wheat and oat fractions – part 1. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 217–232.

Baye K, Guyot JP and Mouquet-River C 2015. The unresolved role of dietary fibers on mineral absorption. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57, 949–957.

Breves G and Schröder B 1991. Comparative aspects of gastrointestinal
phosphorus metabolism. Nutrition Research Review 4, 125–140.

Carré P, Quinsac A, Citeau M and Fine F 2015. A re-examination of the technical feasibility and economic viability of rapeseed dehulling. Oilseeds & Fats Crops and Lipids 22, D304.

Claye SS, Idouraine A and Weber CW 1998. *In-vitro* mineral binding capacity of five fiber sources and their insoluble components for magnesium and calcium. Food Chemistry 61, 333–338.

Den Hartog LA, Huisman J, Thielen WJG, Van Schayk GHA, Boer H and Van Weeden EJ 1988. The effect of including various structural polysaccharides in pig diets on ileal and faecal digestibility of amino acids and minerals. Livestock Production Science 18, 157–170.

Dersjant-Li Y, Awati A, Schulze H and Partridge G 2015. Phytase in non-ruminant animal nutrition: a critical review on phytase activities in the gastrointestinal tract and influencing factors. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 95, 878–896.

Engelen AJ, van der Heeft FC, Randsdorp PHG and Smits ELC 1994. Simple and rapid determination of phytase activity. Journal of AOAC International 77, 760–764.

González-Vega JC, Walk CL, Liu Y and Stein HH 2013. Determination of endogenous intestinal losses of calcium and true total tract digestibility of calcium in canola meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4807–4816.

González-Vega JC, Walk CL and Stein HH 2015a. Effect of microbial phytase on apparent and standardized total tract digestibility of calcium in calcium supplements fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 2255–2264.

González-Vega JC, Walk CL and Stein HH 2015b. Effect of phytate, microbial phytase, fiber, and soybean oil on calculated values for apparent and standardized total tract digestibility of calcium and apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus in fish meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4808–4818.

Heijnen ML and Beynen A 1998. Effect of consumption of uncooked (RS2) and retrograded (RS3) resistant starch on apparent absorption of magnesium, calcium and phosphorus in pigs. European Journal of Nutrition 37, 13–17.

Jha R and Berrosco JD 2015. Review: dietary fiber utilization and its effects on physiological functions and gut health in swine. Animal 9, 1441–1452.

Jondreville C and Dourmad JY 2005. Le phosphore dans la nutrition des porcs. INRA Productions Animales 18, 183–192.

Kemme PA, Schlemmer U, Mroz Z and Jongbloed AW 2006. Monitoring the stepwise phytate degradation in the upper gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86, 612–622.

Kerr BJ, Weber TE, Miller PS and Southern LL 2010. Effect of phytase on apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus in corn-soybean meal diets fed to finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 238–247.

Lawlor PG, Lynch PB, Caffrey PJ, O'Reill JJ and Connell MK 2005. Measurements of the acid-binding capacity of ingredients used in pigs diets. Irish Veterinary Journal 58, 447–452.

Létourneau-Montminy MP, Narcy A, Magnin M, Sauvant D, Bernier JF, Pomar C and Jondreville C 2010. Effect of reduced dietary calcium concentration and phytase supplementation on calcium and phosphorus utilization in weanling pigs with modified mineral status. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1706–1717.
Rapeseed fiber and mineral digestibility

Liu J, Bollinger DW, Ledoux DR and Venum TL 2000. Effects of dietary calcium: phosphorus ratios on apparent absorption of calcium and phosphorus in the small intestine, cecum, and colon of pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78, 106–109.

Metzler BU and Monsenthin R 2008. A review of Interactions between dietary fiber and the gastrointestinal microbiota and their consequences on intestinal phosphorus metabolism in growing pigs. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 21, 603–615.

Metzler-Zebeli BU, Hooda S, Mosenthin R, Gänzle MG and Zijlstra RT 2010. Bacterial fermentation affects net mineral flux in the large intestine of pigs fed diets with viscous and fermentable nonstarch polysaccharides. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3351–3362.

Nortey TN, Patience JF, Sands JS, Trottier NL and Zijlstra RT 2008. Effects of xylanase supplementation on the apparent digestibility and digestible content of energy, amino acids, phosphorus, and calcium in wheat and wheat by-products from dry milling fed to grower pig. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3450–3464.

Partridge IG 1978a. Studies on digestion and absorption in the intestines of growing pigs. 3. Net movements of mineral nutrients in the digestive tract. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 527–537.

Partridge IG 1978b. Studies on digestion and absorption in the intestines of growing pigs. Effect of dietary cellulose and sodium levels on mineral absorption. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 539–545.

Partridge IG, Simons O and Bergner H 1986. The effects of treated straw meal on ileal and faecal digestibility of nutrients in pigs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 36, 351–359.

Rousseau X, Valable AS, Létourneau-Montminy MP, Même N, Godet E, Magnin M, Nys Y, Duclos MJ and Narcy A 2016. Adaptive response of broilers to dietary phosphorus and calcium restrictions. Poultry Science 95, 1–12.

Sauvant D, Perez JM and Tran G 2004. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage: porcs, volailles, bovins, ovins, caprins, lapins, chevaux, poissons. INRA Editions, Versailles, France.

Scholz-Arhens KE and Schrezenmeir J 2007. Inulin and oligofructose and mineral metabolism: the evidence from animal trials. The Journal of Nutrition 137, 2513S–2523S.

Selle PH, Cowieson AJ and Ravindran V 2009. Consequences of calcium interactions with phytate and phytase for poultry and pigs. Livestock Science 124, 126–141.

Shi C, He J, Yu B, Mao X, Zheng P, Huang Z and Chen D 2015. Amino acid, phosphorus and energy digestibility of *Aspergillus niger* fermented rapeseed meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 93, 2916–2925.

Singh PK 2008. Significance of phytic acid and supplemental phytase in chicken nutrition: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 64, 553–580.

Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB and Lewis A 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.

Varley PF, Lynch PB, Callan JJ and O'Doherty JV 2010. Effect of phytase concentration in a low phosphorus weaner pig diet and its subsequent effect on bone development in the finished pig. Livestock Science 134, 218–220.

Yen JT 2001. Anatomy of the digestive system and nutritional physiology. In Swine nutrition, 2nd edition (ed. AJ Lewis and LL Southern), pp. 31–57. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Yi Z and Kornegay ET 1996. Sites of phytase activity in the gastrointestinal tract of young pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61, 361–368.