Article

Variation of Crude Protein and Amino Acids Concentrations in Corn, Wheat, and Barley from Different Countries

Su Hyun An1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6236-6815, Changsu Kong1,2,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3876-6488
Author Information & Copyright
1Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Kyungpook National University, Sangju 37224, Republic of Korea
2Professor, Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University, Sangju 37224, Republic of Korea
To whom correspondence should be addressed : changsukong@knu.ac.kr

© Copyright 2022, Korean Society of Poultry Science. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 10, 2022; Revised: May 26, 2022; Accepted: May 30, 2022

Published Online: Jun 30, 2022

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to investigate the variability in crude protein (CP) and amino acids (AA) content in cereal grains imported from different origins in Korea from 2006 to 2015. The values of CP and AA contents in corn, wheat, and barley were obtained from 430 and 325 samples from six countries, 83 and 56 samples from seven countries, and 60 and 58 samples from three countries, respectively. The CP concentrations in corn, wheat, and barley ranged from 7.12 (Brazil) to 7.68% (India), 10.55 (Ukraine) to 13.26% (Brazil), and 9.46 (India) to 10.49% (Ukraine), respectively. The Lys concentrations in the corn, wheat, and barley ranged from 0.18 (Argentina) to 0.24% (China), 0.26 (India) to 0.34% (China), and 0.23 (India) to 0.31% (Australia), respectively. The concentrations of CP and AA varied among different countries of origin (P<0.05), except for Met in wheat and CP in barley. The coefficients of variation for CP were 3.26, 9.06, and 5.36 from corn, wheat, and barley, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) between CP and Lys concentrations in corn, wheat, and barley were positively correlated and were 0.322, 0.277, and 0.542, respectively. In conclusion, CP and AA concentrations varied not only from different countries of origins but also within the same country due to the geographic region in which they are produced.

Keywords: nutritional content; cereal grain; protein; amino acids; origin

INTRODUCTION

Information on nutrient composition in feed ingredients is the most critical factor affecting accurate feed formulation to meet the nutrient requirements of poultry and swine to maximize productivity and to minimize the excretion of excessive nutrients from the livestock.

Cereal grains such as corn, wheat, and barley are commonly used for poultry and swine diets (Schnepf, 2011; Woyengo et al., 2014; Velayudhan et al., 2015). Dietary protein is supplied by meals from oilseeds such as soybean and canola, and cereal grains are used as energy sources. However, in general, the portion of cereal grains in feed formulation accounted for over 60% of the total, thus these supply a considerable amount of protein to the diet (Lilburn et al., 1999). Also, even within the same ingredient, the amino acids (AA) compositions of the same feed ingredient may have a different value. Therefore, the CP and AA profiles of cereal grains are important to accurate feed formulation.

The protein quality of cereal grains differs depending on the genetic background or diverse environmental conditions (Triboï et al., 2003; Ball et al., 2013). The growing conditions of feed ingredients might affect nutrient availability. Finally, the changes in nutrient concentrations in cereal grain by the environmental condition can influence the price of feed ingredients and animal diets. Therefore, the variability of nutrient concentrations according to origin take into account when the nutritional profile of feed ingredients was used for feed formulation. For these reasons, the consideration of the geographic difference of grains is important to estimate the dietary nutrient concentrations in feed formulation. The objective of this study was to compare the variability of the CP and AA concentrations in the cereal grains among different countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Data Collection

Samples of three cereal grains (corn, wheat, and barley) known to be imported to Korea from different countries were selected and analyzed by the CP and AA from 2006 to 2015 (Nonghyup analysis center, Anseong, Korea). A total of 430 and 325 corn samples from 6 countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Ukraine, and the USA), 83 and 56 wheat samples from 7 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Ukraine, and the USA), and 60 and 58 samples of barley from 3 countries (Australia, India, and Ukraine) for CP and AA were used in the present study, respectively. The analyzed values of CP and AA including Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr were used to test the variability in nutrient concentration within and among countries of origins. All of the analyzed values were presented as an as-is basis. Also, the AA to Lys ratio was calculated to compare the relative AA concentrations on the Lys concentration.

2. Chemical Analysis

The present study was conducted by using data from laboratories of major feed companies in Korea to understand the variations in nutrients of cereal grains imported to Korea from different countries. All the cereal grain samples were analyzed in duplicate for CP and AA including Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr. Crude protein was analyzed with Dumas combustion method (N × 6.25) by an N analyzer (Leco FP-528, St. Joseph, MI, USA). The AA was analyzed after acid hydrolysis using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC; Agilent 1200, Santa Clara, CA, USA), except for sulfur-containing AA. Methionine and cysteine were oxidized to methionine sulfone and cysteic acid by reaction with performic acid before acid hydrolysis and analyzed by HPLC.

3. Statistical Analysis

All data for each ingredient were analyzed by the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Data for the CP and AA concentrations were examined by one-way ANOVA, and the origin was determined as the fixed effect. The interquartile range (IQR) method was used to identify and remove the outliers. Data points with values larger than 1.5 times IQR were considered as outlier. The average nutrient concentration of CP and AA values and coefficient of variation (CV) of each grain samples were calculated. A correlation and regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between AA and CP concentrations in the grains used in the present study. The significance was determined at P<0.05.

RESULTS

The average values of CP and AA for corn is given in Table 1. Samples obtained from India and Brazil had the lowest and greatest values 7.12 and 7.68%, respectively. The CV of CP had the lowest and greatest in samples obtained from China (7.09% to 8.11%, CV=2.88%) and USA (6.10% to 8.77%, CV=5.25%). For AA, the Met and Thr had the lowest and greatest, respectively. The Met contents in corn ranged from 0.12% to 0.14%; Thr ranged from 0.22% to 0.27% values 0.12% and 0.22%, respectively. And the CV for AA had ranged from 5.90% (Cys) to 8.72% (Lys). The Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr concentration in samples obtained from Argentina (0.18, 0.12, 0.15, and 0.22%) and China (0.24, 0.14, 0.17, and 0.27%) had the lowest and greatest, respectively. The samples obtained from Argentina (19.21, 16.53, and 11.18%) had the greatest CV of AA (Lys, Cys, and Thr), except for Met. The Cys to Lys ratio differed (P=0.002) by countries of origin.

Table 1. Variability of crude protein (CP) and amino acids among six origins of corn (%, as-is basis)
Origin Amino acids (%)
CP Lys Met Cys Thr Met:Lys Cys:Lys Thr:Lys
Within country  
Argentina  
      n1 30 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
      Average 7.25 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.22 0.67 0.82 1.25
      CV2 4.51 19.21 14.49 16.53 11.18 13.99 16.92 13.22
Brazil  
      n1 57 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
      Average 7.12 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.24 0.60 0.76 1.17
      CV2 2.92 13.13 23.22 14.27 7.89 18.09 15.02 8.56
China  
      n1 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
      Average 7.60 0.24 0.14 0.17 0.27 0.62 0.71 1.16
      CV2 2.88 14.91 13.68 10.13 8.43 17.54 14.51 15.15
India  
      n1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
      Average 7.68 0.22 0.14 0.16 0.26 0.64 0.76 1.17
      CV2 5.2 11.2 17.7 14.5 6.6 25.9 23.0 9.5
Ukraine  
      n1 25 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
      Average 7.43 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.63 0.69 1.18
      CV2 5.03 14.23 14.88 8.90 10.31 11.66 12.11 11.96
USA  
      n1 251 192 192 192 192 192 192 192
      Average 7.17 0.21 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.63 0.74 1.16
      CV2 5.25 15.11 16.56 13.08 7.95 18.00 14.70 10.58
NRC (2012)  
      n1 163 132 130 112 129      
      Average 8.24 0.25 0.18 0.19 0.28 0.71 0.76 1.12
INRA (2003)  
      n1 2,634 2,634 2,634 2,634 2,634      
      Average 8.10 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.30 0.71 0.83 1.25
Among countries  
   n 430 325 325 325 325 325 325 325
   Minimum 7.12 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.22 0.60 0.69 1.16
   Maximum 7.68 0.24 0.14 0.17 0.27 0.67 0.82 1.25
   Average3 7.14 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.63 0.74 1.17
   CV2 3.26 8.72 7.43 5.90 6.73 4.05 5.98 2.95
   SEM4 0.338 0.032 0.022 0.020 0.021 0.112 0.113 0.135
   P-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.490 0.002 0.099

1 Values represent the number of observations of nutrient contents in corn to the corresponding country of origins or the publications.

2 CV=coefficient of variation.

3 Average values are calculated as a weighted average.

4 SEM=standard error of the mean.

Download Excel Table

The average values of CP and AA for wheat is shown in Table 2. For AA (Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr), samples obtained from China had the greatest values of 0.34, 0.17, 0.29, and 0.33%, respectively. The samples obtained from India had the lowest Lys (0.26%) and Met (0.14%). And the lowest Cys and Thr found in samples obtained from Canada (0.23%) and the USA (0.28%), respectively. The samples obtained from the USA had the lowest CV of Lys (4.17%), Met (7.86%), Cys (8.87%), and Thr (4.92%), respectively. Among AA, the Met and Lys had the lowest and greatest, respectively. The Met contents in wheat ranged from 0.14% to 0.17%; Lys ranged from 0.26% to 0.34%, respectively, and the CV for AA had ranged from 6.34% (Thr) to 10.04% (Lys). The Thr to Lys ratio differed (P<0.001) by countries of origin.

Table 2. Variability of crude protein (CP) and amino acids among seven origins of wheat (%, as-is basis)
Origin Amino acids (%)
CP Lys Met Cys Thr Met:Lys Cys:Lys Thr:Lys
Within country                
Australia                
      n1 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
      Average 11.70 0.27 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.59 0.89 1.13
      CV2 11.77 6.69 15.03 10.95 5.04 15.80 12.44 4.11
Brazil                
      n1 15 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
      Average 13.26 0.29 0.17 0.26 0.32 0.57 0.89 1.12
      CV2 8.55 12.31 19.21 12.83 14.42 10.89 3.91 9.29
Canada                
      n1 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
      Average 12.76 0.28 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.56 0.83 1.15
      CV2 8.78 13.32 20.07 9.84 12.76 21.94 13.69 5.18
China                
      n1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
      Average 13.10 0.34 0.17 0.29 0.33 0.51 0.83 0.98
      CV2 2.79 7.2 13.5 13.4 12.8 11.0 10.7 14.7
India                
      n1 13 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
      Average 11.70 0.26 0.14 0.24 0.30 0.54 0.93 1.17
      CV2 3.94 16.22 10.21 13.12 11.09 11.27 8.92 6.70
Ukraine                
      n1 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
      Average 10.55 0.30 0.16 0.25 0.29 0.55 0.86 0.99
      CV 9.92 17.32 15.81 15.74 10.04 20.36 15.31 10.78
USA                
      n1 12 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
      Average 10.83 0.27 0.14 0.24 0.28 0.54 0.90 1.07
      CV2 7.23 4.17 7.86 8.87 4.92 9.40 12.00 5.09
NRC (2012)                
      n1 64 34 29 26 32      
      Average 14.46 0.39 0.22 0.33 0.40 0.56 0.85 1.03
INRA (2003)                
      n1 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068      
      Average 10.50 0.31 0.17 0.26 0.32 0.55 0.84 1.03
Among countries                
   n 83 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
   Minimum 10.55 0.26 0.14 0.23 0.28 0.51 0.83 0.98
   Maximum 13.26 0.34 0.17 0.29 0.33 0.59 0.93 1.17
   Average3 11.95 0.29 0.16 0.25 0.31 0.55 0.87 1.07
   CV2 9.06 10.04 8.23 7.56 6.34 4.74 4.02 7.05
   SEM4 0.961 0.034 0.024 0.032 0.035 0.082 0.100 0.098
   P-value <0.001 <0.001 0.053 0.011 0.024 0.475 0.506 0.001

1 Values represent the number of observations of nutrient contents in wheat to the corresponding country of origins or the publications.

2 CV=coefficient of variation.

3 Average values are calculated as a weighted average.

4 SEM=standard error of the mean.

Download Excel Table

Samples obtained from India and Ukraine had the lowest and greatest values 9.46 and 10.49%, respectively (Table 3). The samples obtained from Ukraine (10.05% to 11.09%, CV=4.00%) and Australia (7.22% to 14.82%, CV=20.02%) had the lowest and greatest CV of CP. For AA (Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr), samples obtained from 0.23, 0.11, 0.16, and 0.25% and 0.31, 0.13, 0.20, and 0.30%, respectively. In the case of a CV of AA (Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr), the samples obtained from Ukraine (3.30, 7.27, 7.92, and 4.03%) had the lowest, and Australia (21.33, 13.62, 13.61%) had the greatest except for Lys. Met and Lys had the lowest and greatest, respectively. The Met contents in barley ranged from 0.11% to 0.13%; Lys ranged from 0.23% to 0.31%, respectively, and the CV for AA had ranged from 8.94% (Met) to 15.21% (Lys). The Thr to Lys ratio differed (P<0.001) by countries of origin.

Table 3. Variability of crude protein (CP) and amino acids among three origins of barley (%, as-is basis)
Origin Amino acids (%)
CP Lys Met Cys Thr Met:Lys Cys:Lys Thr:Lys
Within country                
Australia                
      n1 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
      Average 9.82 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.43 0.65 0.95
      CV2 20.02 12.31 21.33 13.62 13.61 19.59 13.58 5.65
India                
      n1 19 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
      Average 9.46 0.23 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.50 0.68 1.10
      CV2 4.72 16.55 13.53 12.43 7.91 12.89 9.69 10.09
Ukraine                
      n1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
      Average 10.49 0.30 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.45 0.67 1.02
      CV2 4.00 3.30 7.27 7.92 4.03 5.28 6.97 2.64
NRC (2012)                
      n1 76 38 35 34 37      
      Average 11.33 0.40 0.20 0.26 0.36 0.50 0.65 0.90
INRA (2003)                
      n1 2,739 2,739 2,739 2,739 2,739      
      Average 10.0 0.38 0.17 0.23 0.35 0.49 0.66 1.00
Among countries                
   n 60 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
   Minimum 9.46 0.23 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.43 0.65 0.95
   Maximum 10.49 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.68 1.10
   Average3 9.79 0.29 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.45 0.66 1.01
   CV2 5.36 15.21 8.94 13.52 10.07 8.41 2.94 7.45
   SEM4 1.523 0.040 0.026 0.026 0.039 0.067 0.071 0.070
   P-value 0.308 <0.001 0.040 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.186 <0.001

1 Values represent the number of observations of nutrient contents in barley to the corresponding country of origins or the publications.

2 CV=coefficient of variation.

3 Average values are calculated as a weighted average.

4 SEM=standard error of the mean.

Download Excel Table

The nutrient composition in corn, wheat, and barley varied not only among the country of origins but within origins (P<0.05). Concentrations of CP and AA in cereal grains differed (P<0.05) among countries, except for Met in wheat and CP in barley. The concentrations of CP and AA in barley had relatively wide variations rather than corn and wheat samples.

The concentrations of Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr in corn, wheat, and barley were positively correlated with the CP concentrations (Table 4). The concentrations of Thr had relatively high positive correlations (P<0.001) with the CP and Lys 0.393 and 0.548, 0.505 and 0.576, and 0.741 and 0.902 in corn, wheat, and barley, respectively. On the contrary, correlation coefficients between CP and AA for corn, wheat, and barley were weak at of 0.267 (Cys), 0.277 (Lys), and 0.476 (Cys), respectively.

Table 4. Correlation coefficients (r) between crude protein (CP) and amino acids in corn, wheat, and barley (as-is basis)1,2
Item Correlation coefficient (r)
CP Lys Met Cys Thr
Corn  
   CP - 0.322 0.288 0.267 0.393
   Lys   - 0.369 0.475 0.548
   Met     - 0.681 0.332
   Cys       - 0.389
   Thr         -
Wheat          
   CP - 0.277 0.397 0.362 0.505
   Lys   - 0.349 0.518 0.576
   Met     - 0.677 0.352
   Cys       - 0.332
   Thr         -
Barley          
   CP - 0.542 0.559 0.476 0.741
   Lys   - 0.660 0.819 0.902
   Met     - 0.832 0.744
   Cys       - 0.801
   Thr         -

1 All data have shown significant difference (P<0.001).

2 The number of observations of corn, wheat, and barley are 325, 56, and 58, respectively.

Download Excel Table

DISCUSSION

It is important to know information on the accurate nutritional profile in the feed ingredients when the feed formulating. However, it is difficult to analyze the nutrient concentrations of all the feed ingredients used in feed formulation. For this reason, the data presented in publications is used for feed formulation (McDonald et al., 2002; Sauvant et al., 2004; AMINODat®4.0, 2010; Rostagno et al., 2011; NRC, 2012). Among the reference lists, NRC was the most commonly used for citing the nutrient composition of feed ingredients (Cromwell et al., 1999). In this study, the values from NRC (2012) and Sauvant et al. (2004) were used to compare with the analyzed average value. Average values of CP in corn, wheat, and barley (7.14, 11.95, and 9.79%) were less than that listed in NRC (8.24, 14.50, and 11.30%), respectively. Sauvant et al. (2004) (8.10, 10.50, and 10.0%) showed relatively high CP concentrations in corn and barley but less than in wheat compared with the CP values in the present study. There are differences in CP concentration of cereal grains between studies but the values of respective AA to Lys ratio of corn, wheat, and barley were similar to table values of NRC (2012) and Sauvant et al. (2004).

Protein composition of cereal grains has been used as criteria of feeding quality of feed ingredient and affects the cost of feed ingredients. However, the CP and AA concentrations depend primarily on the genotype; it is also significantly affected by growing conditions (Skogerson et al., 2010; Ray et al., 2015). Some studies on the environmental conditions in which it was grown have been shown to affect CP concentrations in wheat (Triboï et al., 2003) and barley (Torp et al., 1981). The environmental-related conditions, including temperature (Ray et al., 2015), drought (Lilburn et al., 1999; Triboï et al., 2003), and N application (Li et al., 2016) can alter nutritional composition and grain yield (Simmonds, 1994; Ray et al., 2015). The change in CP concentration of cereal grains under heat and drought stress is mainly caused by the altered quantity of total nitrogen (N) accumulated during growth of wheat (Triboï et al., 2003). In addition, the application of N increases protein concentrations of cereal grains, but there was no beneficial effect on its nutritional value for chicks (Cromwell et al., 1983). According to Li et al. (2016), on the other hand, the N application up to 225 kg/ha increased CP concentration and in vitro dry matter digestibility of wheat improved with increasing N application up to 225 kg/ha. These previous results can be possibly explained that the nutritional composition and nutrient availability of cereal grains are affected by various growing conditions, and the change of nutritional composition of grains can be easily affected by the growing conditions. Therefore, for accurate feed formulation, not only the information on nutritional concentration of the feed ingredients but also the efficacy of feed ingredients by the animal should be evaluated.

The chemical analysis to measure AA concentrations is time-consumed and costly, but AA estimation using a prediction equation is relatively simple. We analyzed possible relationships among CP, Lys, Met, Cys, and Thr to estimate respective AA concentration using prediction equation. Some studies (Cromwell et al., 1999; Brandt et al., 2000; Olukosi and Adebiyi, 2013) developed the prediction models for estimation of AA concentrations in the cereal grains by using CP concentration. The positive correlation was shown between CP and AA concentrations. The observed results from this study were in agreement with earlier published (Cromwell et al., 1999). However, some studies (Brandt et al., 2000; Belyea et al., 2004) showed a negative correlation between CP and AA concentration. We do not show the equation to estimate AA concentrations using the CP concentration of cereal grains because most correlation coefficient (r2) values of prediction equations are lower than 0.5. It might be due to the low tendency of AA concentration to change in CP concentration or the concentrated samples in a certain country. Therefore, further study is needed to generate the prediction equation for estimate the AA concentration in a large number of observations.

The results from this study confirmed the variability of CP and AA concentrations dependent on not only the across the country but also on within the same country, the trends of AA to Lys ratio of corn and barley were similar to the values of within and across countries. This result represents that the concentrations of CP and AA in cereal grains from different countries can vary depending on growing conditions both among and within counties. Therefore, in conclusion, when the animal diet is formulated, the information on nutritional composition of cereal grains should be taking into account their country of origins.

REFERENCES

1.

AMINODat®4.0 2010 AMINODat® The Amino Acid Composition of Feedstuffs, Evonik Degussa, Platinum version. Hanau, Germany.

2.

Ball MEE, Owens B, McCracken KJ 2013 The effect of cultivar and growing conditions on the chemical composition and nutritive value of wheat for broilers. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 26:378-385.

3.

Belyea RL, Rausch KD, Tumbleson ME 2004 composition of corn and distillers dried grains with solubles from dry grind ethanol processing. Bioresource Technol 94:293-298.

4.

Brandt DA, Brand TS, Cruywagen CW 2000 The use of crude protein content to predict concentrations of lysine and methionine in grain harvested from selected cultivars of wheat, barley and triticale grown in the western cape region of South Africa. S Afr J Anim Sci 30:22-25.

5.

Cromwell GL, Calvert CC, Cline TR, Crenshaw TD, Crenshaw RA, Easter RA, Ewan RC, Hamilton CR, Hill GM, Lewis AJ, Mahan DC, Miller ER, Nelssen JL, Pettigrew JE, Tribble LF, Veum TL, Yen JT 1999 Variability among sources and laboratories in nutrient analyses of corn and soybean meal. J Anim Sci 77: 3362-3273.

6.

Cromwell GL, Bitzer MJ, Stahly TS, Johnson TJ 1983 Effects of soil nitrogen fertility on the protein and lysine content and nutritional value of normal and Opaque-2 corn. J Anim Sci 57:1345-1351.

7.

Lilburn MS, Ngidi EM, Ward NE, Llames C 1999 The influence of severe drought on selected nutritional characteristics of commercial corn hybrids. Poult Sci 70:2329-2334.

8.

McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA, Sinclair LA, Wilkinson RG 2002 Animal Nutrition. 7th ed. John Wiley and Sons, NY, USA.

9.

NRC 2012 Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 11th ed. National Academics Press, Washington, DC, USA.

10.

Olukosi OA, Adebiyi AO 2013 Chemical composition and prediction of amino acid content of maize and wheat distiller’s dried grains with soluble. Anim Feed Sci Technol 185:183-189.

11.

Ray DK, Gerber JS, MacDonald GK, West PC 2015 Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat Commun 6:5989.

12.

Rostagno HS, Albino LFT, Donzele JL, Gomes PC, de Oliveira RF, Lopes DC, Ferreira AS, Barreto SLT, Euclides RF 2011 Brazilian Tables for Poultry and Swine: Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements. 3rd ed. H. S. Rostagno, (ed). Federal Univ. Viҫosa, Viҫosa, Brazil.

13.

Sauvant D, Pérez JM Tran G 2004 Tables of Composition and Nutritional Value of Feed Materials Pigs, Poultry, Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Rabbits, Horses And Fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.

14.

Schnepf R 2011 US Livestock and poultry feed use and availability: background and emerging issues. Congressional Research Service http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs, 41956. Accessed on Mar, 12, 2022.

15.

Simmonds NW 1994 The relation between yield and protein in cereal grain. J Sci Food Agric 67:309-315.

16.

Skogerson K, Harrigan GG, Reynolds TL, Halls SC, Ruebelt M, Iandolino A, Pandravada A, Glenn KC, Fiehn O 2010 Impact of genetics and environment on the metabolite composition of maize grain. J Agric Food Chem 58:3600-3610.

17.

Torp J, Doll H, Haahr V 1981 Genotypic and environmental influence upon the nutritional composition of barley grain. Euphytica 30:719-728.

18.

Triboï E, Martre P, Triboï-Blondel AM 2003 Environmentally-induced changes in protein composition in developing grains of wheat are related to changes in total protein content. J Exp Bot 54:1731-1742.

19.

Velayudhan DE, Kim IH, Nyachoti CM 2015 Characterization of dietary energy in swine feed and feed ingredients: a review of recent research results. Asian-Austalas J Anim Sci 28:1-13.

20.

Woyengo TA, Beltraneana E, Zilstra RT 2014 Nonruminant nutrition symposium: controlling feed cost by including alternative ingredients into pig diets: a review. J Anim Sci 92:1293-1305.

21.

Li CJ, Xu ZH, Dong ZX, Shi SL, Zhang JG 2016 Effects of nitrogen application rate on the yields, nutritive value and silage fermentation quality of whole-crop wheat. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 29:1129-1135.