Nutritional evaluation of former food products (ex-food) intended for pig nutrition

References

• [AOAC] Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 2005. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Gaithersburg (MD): AOAC Int.
   Google Scholar
• Bindelle J, Leterme P, Buldgen A. 2008. Nutritional and environmental consequences of dietary fibre in pig nutrition: a review. Biotechnol Agron Soc. 12:69–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boisen S, Fernández JA. 1997. Prediction of the total tract digestibility of energy in feedstuffs and pig diets by in vitro analyses. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 68:277–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouxin A. 2016. Use of food co-products in the feed sector: opportunities and challenges. Available from: http://www.elc-eu.org/uploads/news_documents/FEFAC_-_Food_co-products_in_feed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2009. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed establishes the sampling method and the methods of analysis of feed for control purposes. Off J. L 54:177. Feb 26.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013. Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials. Off J. L 29:1–64.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone P. 2014. Keeping food losses in the food chain through animal feed. In: Jovanka L, editor. XVI International Symposium “Feed Technology”. Novi Sad: University of Novi Sad, Institute of Food Technology p. 66. ISBN 978-86-7994-042-1
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone P. 2016. Challenges in global raw material supply: new raw materials. Available from: http://assets.nevedi.nl/p/229376/8_%20Presentatie%20P_%20Featherstone.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Giuberti G, Gallo A, Cerioli CA, Masoero FR. 2012. In vitro starch digestion and predicted glycemic index of cereal grains commonly utilized in pig nutrition. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 174:163–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just A. 1982. The influence of ground barley straw on the net energy value of diets for growth in pigs. Livest Prod Sci. 9:717–729.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr BJ, Shurson GC. 2013. Strategies to improve fiber utilization in swine. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 4:11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kil DY, Kim BG, Stein HH. 2013. Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Ajas. 26:1205–1217.
   Google Scholar
• Knudsen KB. 2001. The nutritional significance of “dietary fibre” analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 90:3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen KE, Lærke HN, Steenfeldt S, Hedemann MS, Jørgensen H. 2006. In vivo methods to study the digestion of starch in pigs and poultry. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 130:114–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard LA, Loosli JK, Hintz HF, Warner RG. 1979. Animal nutrition. Energy concepts. 7th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill Book; p. 186–189.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA, Sinclair LA, Wilkinson RG. 2012. Animal nutrition. 7th ed. Essex (England): Pearson Education Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4082-0423-8.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. revised ed. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; p. 11th.
   Google Scholar
• Noblet J, Fortune H, Shi XS, Dubois S. 1994. Prediction of net energy value of feeds for growing pigs. J Anim Sci. 72:344–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noblet J, Jaguelin-Peyraud Y. 2007. Prediction of digestibility of organic matter and energy in the growing pig from an in vitro method. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 134:211–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noblet J, Le Goff G. 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on the energy value of feeds for pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 90:35–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noblet J, Perez JM. 1993. Prediction of digestibility of nutrients and energy values of pig diets from chemical analysis. J Anim Sci. 71:3389–3398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettigrew JE, Moser RL. 1991. Swine Nutrition. Fat in swine nutrition. Boston (MA): Butterworth-Heineman; p. 133–146.
   Google Scholar
• Pinotti L, Dell ‘Orto V. 2011. Feed safety in the feed supply chain. Biotechnol Agron Soc. 15:9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinotti L, Krogdahl A, Givens I, Knight C, Baldi A, Baeten V, Van Raamsdonk L, Woodgate S, Marin DP, Luten J. 2014. The role of animal nutrition in designing optimal foods of animal origin as reviewed by the COST Action Feed for Health (FA0802)/Le rôle de l’alimentation animale dans l’amélioration du bien-être des animaux ainsi que de la qualité, de la sécurité et de la salubrité des aliments d’origine animale tel que révisé par le COST Action Feed for Health (FA0802). Biotechnol Agron Soc. 18:471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regmi PR, Ferguson NS, Zijlstra RT. 2009. In vitro digestibility techniques to predict apparent total tract energy digestibility of wheat in grower pigs. J Anim Sci. 87:3620–3629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehman ZU, Shah WH. 2005. Thermal heat processing effects on antinutrients, protein and starch digestibility of food legumes. Food Chem. 91:27–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauvant D, Perez JM, Tran G. 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses and fish. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Spranghers T, Ottoboni M, Klootwijk C, Ovyn A, Deboosere S, De Meulenaer B, Michiels J, Eeckhout M, De Clercq P, De Smet S. 2016. Nutritional composition of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) prepupae reared on different organic waste substrates. J Sci Food Agr. doi:10.1002/jsfa.8081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenmarck Å, Jensen C, Quested T, Moates G 2016. Estimates of European food waste levels. Report of the project FUSIONS (contract number: 311972) granted by the European Commission (FP7). ISBN 978-91-88319-01-2
   Google Scholar
• Stevnebø A, Sahlström S, Svihus B. 2006. Starch structure and degree of starch hydrolysis of small and large starch granules from barley varieties with varying amylose content. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 130:23–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumczynski D, Bubelova Z, Sneyd J, Erb-Weber S, Mlcek J. 2015. Total phenolics, flavonoids, antioxidant activity, crude fibre and digestibility in non-traditional wheat flakes and muesli. Food Chem. 174:319–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velayudhan DE, Kim IH, Nyachoti CM. 2015. Characterization of dietary energy in swine feed and feed ingredients: A review of recent research results. Ajas. 28:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Wenk C. 2001. The role of dietary fibre in the digestive physiology of the pig. Anim Feed Sci. 90:21–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woyengo TA, Jha R, Beltranena E, Zijlstra RT. 2016. In vitro digestion and fermentation characteristics of canola co-products simulate their digestion in the pig intestine. Animal. 10:911–918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zijlstra RT. 2006. Rapid methods for estimation of energy values of feedstuffs for pigs. In: NET energy systems for growing and fattening pigs. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Digestive Physiology in Pigs. CVB, Lelystad. The Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 74–80.
   Google Scholar