IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlcjs/v66y2021i10id56-2021-cjas.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of starch digestibility methods for extruded wheat grains (Triticum aestivum L.)

Author

Listed:
  • Dana Homolková

    (Department of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Vladimír Plachý

    (Department of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Anna Maňourová

    (Department of Crop Sciences and Agroforestry, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Michal Kaválek

    (Farmet a.s., Česká Skalice, Czech Republic)

  • Václav Dvořáček

    (Gene Bank, Crop Research Institute, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Boris Hučko

    (Department of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Milan Marounek

    (Department of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Ivo Doskočil

    (Department of Microbiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This study compared different methods of determining starch digestibility (in vivo vs in vitro) in wheat grains and evaluated the influence of extrusion on digestibility. In vivo starch digestibility was determined in broiler chickens by calculating the residual starch content in their ilea and the digestibility using a chromium oxide indicator. In vitro digestibility was examined using pepsin and pancreatin. During in vivo testing, the highest digestibility coefficient (DC) was achieved by the Bonanza variety in its extruded form (91.19 ± 0.40%). In contrast, the lowest DC was achieved by the Tobak variety in its non-extruded form (81.45 ± 1.92%). Generally, a higher DC was observed in vivo for extruded forms of wheat. During in vitro testing, the highest DC was achieved by the Stefii variety in its non-extruded form (96.10 ± 0.55%), whereas the lowest DC was observed in the Yetti variety in its extruded form (49.72 ± 0.41%). Overall, the in vitro experiments did not exhibit significant differences between extruded and non-extruded forms of wheat. Linear regression analysis showed a strong relationship (r2 = 0.860; 85.98%) between in vivo- and in vitro-derived DC values in all wheat varieties, both in extruded and non-extruded forms. The study showed that in vivo testing is a suitable method for the determination and control of starch levels in extruded materials. However, despite the accuracy of this technique, it is also very demanding in terms of time, space, equipment, and methodological knowledge. Therefore, based on the strong correlation between the in vivo and in vitro assays, we recommend in vitro digestibility testing as a preferable alternative.

Suggested Citation

  • Dana Homolková & Vladimír Plachý & Anna Maňourová & Michal Kaválek & Václav Dvořáček & Boris Hučko & Milan Marounek & Ivo Doskočil, 2021. "Comparison of starch digestibility methods for extruded wheat grains (Triticum aestivum L.)," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(10), pages 420-427.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:66:y:2021:i:10:id:56-2021-cjas
    DOI: 10.17221/56/2021-CJAS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/56/2021-CJAS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/56/2021-CJAS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/56/2021-CJAS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:66:y:2021:i:10:id:56-2021-cjas. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.