Soybean meal (SBM) is used as the primary protein source in swine diets and a novel variety with less antinutritional factors has been developed from Ultra-High Protein, Low-Oligosaccharide (UHP-LO) soybeans. The experimental objective was to determine nutrient digestibility, digestible energy (DE), and metabolizable energy (ME) content of diets containing either conventional soybean meal (SBM-CONV) or UHP-LO SBM fed to growing pigs. A total of 30 barrows were selected (body weight = 43.0 ± 1.5 kg) and randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments: a corn control diet containing no SBM, a diet containing 28% SBM-CONV, or a diet containing 28% UHP-LO SBM. Pigs were housed individually in metabolism crates throughout the 10-d dietary adaptation period and 96-h total collection period of feces and urine. Pigs were limit-fed at 80% predicted ad-libitum intake in two equal meals daily. Feces and urine were collected for total energy balance with the marker-to-marker method using TiO2 and to calculate apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of nutrients. UHP-LO SBM increased ATTD of dry matter (DM) by 1.52% (P = 0.012) and gross energy by 1.04% (P < 0.001), but did not alter ATTD of crude protein (P ≥ 0.10) compared with SBM-CONV. The UHP-LO SBM diet had greater (P < 0.001) DE and ME (kcal/kg, DM basis) compared to the corn control diet and the SBM-CONV diet, indicating more bioavailable energy per unit of DM in UHP-LO. However, in comparison to the corn control diet, DE:ME decreased by 2.21% in the SBM-CONV diet and by 2.95% in the UHP-LO diet, indicating increased urinary energy losses with the high protein ingredient. On an individual ingredient basis, the calculated DE and ME of UHP-LO SBM were 3,723 and 3,507 kcal/kg, representing increases of 2.9% and 2.8% over SBM-CONV, respectively (P < 0.001). Overall, results indicate that dietary inclusion of UHP-LO provided increased energy utilization efficiency in growing pigs in the form of additional DE and ME compared to conventional SBM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dowell et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: