Loading…

Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of lysolecithin on performance and nutrient digestibility of nursery pigs and to determine the effects of fat encapsulation by spray drying in diets fed in either meal or pelleted form. In Exp. 1, 108 pigs (21 d of age; 5.96 ± 0.16 kg BW) were al...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2004-09, Vol.82 (9), p.2601-2609
Main Authors: Xing, J. J., van Heugten, E., Li, D. F., Touchette, K. J., Coalson, J. A., Odgaard, R. L., Odle, J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03
container_end_page 2609
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2601
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 82
creator Xing, J. J.
van Heugten, E.
Li, D. F.
Touchette, K. J.
Coalson, J. A.
Odgaard, R. L.
Odle, J.
description Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of lysolecithin on performance and nutrient digestibility of nursery pigs and to determine the effects of fat encapsulation by spray drying in diets fed in either meal or pelleted form. In Exp. 1, 108 pigs (21 d of age; 5.96 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of four dietary treatments (as-fed basis): 1) control with no added lard, 2) control with 5% added lard, 3) treatment 2 with 0.02% lysolecithin, and 4) treatment 2 with 0.1% lysolecithin in a 35-d experiment. Added lard decreased ADG (P = 0.02) and ADFI (P < 0.06) during d 15 to 35 and overall. Lysolecithin improved ADG linearly (P = 0.04) during d 15 to 35 and overall, but did not affect ADFI or G:F. Addition of lard decreased the digestibility of DM (P = 0.10) and CP (P = 0.05) and increased (P = 0.001) fat digestibility when measured on d 10. Lysolecithin at 0.02%, but not 0.10%, tended to improve the digestibility of fat (P = 0.10). On d 28, digestibilities of DM, fat, CP, P, (P = 0.001), and GE (P = 0.03) were increased with the addition of lard, and lysolecithin supplementation linearly decreased digestibilities of DM (P = 0.003), GE (P = 0.007), CP, and P (P = 0.001). In Exp. 2, 144 pigs (21 d of age, 6.04 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of six treatments in a 3 × 2 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) level (as-fed basis) and source of fat (control diet with 1% lard; control diet with 5% additional lard; and control diet with 5% additional lard from encapsulated, spray-dried fat) and 2) diet form (pelleted or meal). Addition of lard decreased feed intake during d 0 to 14 (P = 0.04), d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.008), and improved G:F for d 15 to 35 (P = 0.04) and overall (P = 0.07). Encapsulated, spray-dried lard increased ADG (P = 0.004) and G:F (P = 0.003) during d 15 to 28 compared with the equivalent amount of fat as unprocessed lard. Pelleting increased ADG (P = 0.006) during d 0 to 14, decreased feed intake during d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.07), and increased G:F during all periods (P < 0.02). Fat digestibility was increased (P = 0.001) with supplementation of lard, and this effect was greater when diets were fed in meal form (interaction, P = 0.004). Pelleting increased the digestibility of DM, OM, and fat (P < 0.002). Results indicate that growth performance may be improved by lysolecithin supplementation to diets with added lard and by encapsulation of lard through spray dry
doi_str_mv 10.2527/2004.8292601x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218107095</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>689343281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKtH78Gzq5PsbjZ7lFI_oOCl9yXNTkrKNlmTLNr_3tTWwzCPNz_mwSPknsETr3nzzAGqJ8lbLoD9XJAZq3ldlEyUl2QGwFkhJePX5CbGHQDjdVvPSFwagzpF6g3F_TREa6xWyXr3SI1KFJ1WY5yGs6VcT0ccBkzWbal39BuVG456tHkwGB_2ymn8I92UgkWXaG-3GJPd2MGmA7slV0YNEe_Oe07Wr8v14r1Yfb59LF5WhWbQ1gUrZa_KRite8qyM0K0AaDdC9ZVCXonK1LJRGivNDShW9fncS1FlpNVQzsnD6e0Y_NeU87udn4LLiR1nkkGTQzJUnCAdfIwBTTcGu1fh0DHojq12x1a7_1bLX1eTa5M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218107095</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Xing, J. J. ; van Heugten, E. ; Li, D. F. ; Touchette, K. J. ; Coalson, J. A. ; Odgaard, R. L. ; Odle, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Xing, J. J. ; van Heugten, E. ; Li, D. F. ; Touchette, K. J. ; Coalson, J. A. ; Odgaard, R. L. ; Odle, J.</creatorcontrib><description>Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of lysolecithin on performance and nutrient digestibility of nursery pigs and to determine the effects of fat encapsulation by spray drying in diets fed in either meal or pelleted form. In Exp. 1, 108 pigs (21 d of age; 5.96 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of four dietary treatments (as-fed basis): 1) control with no added lard, 2) control with 5% added lard, 3) treatment 2 with 0.02% lysolecithin, and 4) treatment 2 with 0.1% lysolecithin in a 35-d experiment. Added lard decreased ADG (P = 0.02) and ADFI (P &lt; 0.06) during d 15 to 35 and overall. Lysolecithin improved ADG linearly (P = 0.04) during d 15 to 35 and overall, but did not affect ADFI or G:F. Addition of lard decreased the digestibility of DM (P = 0.10) and CP (P = 0.05) and increased (P = 0.001) fat digestibility when measured on d 10. Lysolecithin at 0.02%, but not 0.10%, tended to improve the digestibility of fat (P = 0.10). On d 28, digestibilities of DM, fat, CP, P, (P = 0.001), and GE (P = 0.03) were increased with the addition of lard, and lysolecithin supplementation linearly decreased digestibilities of DM (P = 0.003), GE (P = 0.007), CP, and P (P = 0.001). In Exp. 2, 144 pigs (21 d of age, 6.04 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of six treatments in a 3 × 2 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) level (as-fed basis) and source of fat (control diet with 1% lard; control diet with 5% additional lard; and control diet with 5% additional lard from encapsulated, spray-dried fat) and 2) diet form (pelleted or meal). Addition of lard decreased feed intake during d 0 to 14 (P = 0.04), d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.008), and improved G:F for d 15 to 35 (P = 0.04) and overall (P = 0.07). Encapsulated, spray-dried lard increased ADG (P = 0.004) and G:F (P = 0.003) during d 15 to 28 compared with the equivalent amount of fat as unprocessed lard. Pelleting increased ADG (P = 0.006) during d 0 to 14, decreased feed intake during d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.07), and increased G:F during all periods (P &lt; 0.02). Fat digestibility was increased (P = 0.001) with supplementation of lard, and this effect was greater when diets were fed in meal form (interaction, P = 0.004). Pelleting increased the digestibility of DM, OM, and fat (P &lt; 0.002). Results indicate that growth performance may be improved by lysolecithin supplementation to diets with added lard and by encapsulation of lard through spray drying. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Key Words: Digestibility, Emulsifier, Encapsulated Fat, Lysolecithin, Spray Drying, Swine</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/2004.8292601x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Body fat ; Diet ; Hogs ; Meat processing ; Nutrients ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2004-09, Vol.82 (9), p.2601-2609</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Sep 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xing, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heugten, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, D. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Touchette, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coalson, J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odgaard, R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odle, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of lysolecithin on performance and nutrient digestibility of nursery pigs and to determine the effects of fat encapsulation by spray drying in diets fed in either meal or pelleted form. In Exp. 1, 108 pigs (21 d of age; 5.96 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of four dietary treatments (as-fed basis): 1) control with no added lard, 2) control with 5% added lard, 3) treatment 2 with 0.02% lysolecithin, and 4) treatment 2 with 0.1% lysolecithin in a 35-d experiment. Added lard decreased ADG (P = 0.02) and ADFI (P &lt; 0.06) during d 15 to 35 and overall. Lysolecithin improved ADG linearly (P = 0.04) during d 15 to 35 and overall, but did not affect ADFI or G:F. Addition of lard decreased the digestibility of DM (P = 0.10) and CP (P = 0.05) and increased (P = 0.001) fat digestibility when measured on d 10. Lysolecithin at 0.02%, but not 0.10%, tended to improve the digestibility of fat (P = 0.10). On d 28, digestibilities of DM, fat, CP, P, (P = 0.001), and GE (P = 0.03) were increased with the addition of lard, and lysolecithin supplementation linearly decreased digestibilities of DM (P = 0.003), GE (P = 0.007), CP, and P (P = 0.001). In Exp. 2, 144 pigs (21 d of age, 6.04 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of six treatments in a 3 × 2 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) level (as-fed basis) and source of fat (control diet with 1% lard; control diet with 5% additional lard; and control diet with 5% additional lard from encapsulated, spray-dried fat) and 2) diet form (pelleted or meal). Addition of lard decreased feed intake during d 0 to 14 (P = 0.04), d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.008), and improved G:F for d 15 to 35 (P = 0.04) and overall (P = 0.07). Encapsulated, spray-dried lard increased ADG (P = 0.004) and G:F (P = 0.003) during d 15 to 28 compared with the equivalent amount of fat as unprocessed lard. Pelleting increased ADG (P = 0.006) during d 0 to 14, decreased feed intake during d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.07), and increased G:F during all periods (P &lt; 0.02). Fat digestibility was increased (P = 0.001) with supplementation of lard, and this effect was greater when diets were fed in meal form (interaction, P = 0.004). Pelleting increased the digestibility of DM, OM, and fat (P &lt; 0.002). Results indicate that growth performance may be improved by lysolecithin supplementation to diets with added lard and by encapsulation of lard through spray drying. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Key Words: Digestibility, Emulsifier, Encapsulated Fat, Lysolecithin, Spray Drying, Swine</description><subject>Body fat</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Meat processing</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1kM1LAzEQxYMoWKtH78Gzq5PsbjZ7lFI_oOCl9yXNTkrKNlmTLNr_3tTWwzCPNz_mwSPknsETr3nzzAGqJ8lbLoD9XJAZq3ldlEyUl2QGwFkhJePX5CbGHQDjdVvPSFwagzpF6g3F_TREa6xWyXr3SI1KFJ1WY5yGs6VcT0ccBkzWbal39BuVG456tHkwGB_2ymn8I92UgkWXaG-3GJPd2MGmA7slV0YNEe_Oe07Wr8v14r1Yfb59LF5WhWbQ1gUrZa_KRite8qyM0K0AaDdC9ZVCXonK1LJRGivNDShW9fncS1FlpNVQzsnD6e0Y_NeU87udn4LLiR1nkkGTQzJUnCAdfIwBTTcGu1fh0DHojq12x1a7_1bLX1eTa5M</recordid><startdate>20040901</startdate><enddate>20040901</enddate><creator>Xing, J. J.</creator><creator>van Heugten, E.</creator><creator>Li, D. F.</creator><creator>Touchette, K. J.</creator><creator>Coalson, J. A.</creator><creator>Odgaard, R. L.</creator><creator>Odle, J.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040901</creationdate><title>Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1</title><author>Xing, J. J. ; van Heugten, E. ; Li, D. F. ; Touchette, K. J. ; Coalson, J. A. ; Odgaard, R. L. ; Odle, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Body fat</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Meat processing</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xing, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heugten, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, D. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Touchette, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coalson, J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odgaard, R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odle, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xing, J. J.</au><au>van Heugten, E.</au><au>Li, D. F.</au><au>Touchette, K. J.</au><au>Coalson, J. A.</au><au>Odgaard, R. L.</au><au>Odle, J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2004-09-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2601</spage><epage>2609</epage><pages>2601-2609</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of lysolecithin on performance and nutrient digestibility of nursery pigs and to determine the effects of fat encapsulation by spray drying in diets fed in either meal or pelleted form. In Exp. 1, 108 pigs (21 d of age; 5.96 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of four dietary treatments (as-fed basis): 1) control with no added lard, 2) control with 5% added lard, 3) treatment 2 with 0.02% lysolecithin, and 4) treatment 2 with 0.1% lysolecithin in a 35-d experiment. Added lard decreased ADG (P = 0.02) and ADFI (P &lt; 0.06) during d 15 to 35 and overall. Lysolecithin improved ADG linearly (P = 0.04) during d 15 to 35 and overall, but did not affect ADFI or G:F. Addition of lard decreased the digestibility of DM (P = 0.10) and CP (P = 0.05) and increased (P = 0.001) fat digestibility when measured on d 10. Lysolecithin at 0.02%, but not 0.10%, tended to improve the digestibility of fat (P = 0.10). On d 28, digestibilities of DM, fat, CP, P, (P = 0.001), and GE (P = 0.03) were increased with the addition of lard, and lysolecithin supplementation linearly decreased digestibilities of DM (P = 0.003), GE (P = 0.007), CP, and P (P = 0.001). In Exp. 2, 144 pigs (21 d of age, 6.04 ± 0.16 kg BW) were allotted to one of six treatments in a 3 × 2 factorial randomized complete block design. Factors included 1) level (as-fed basis) and source of fat (control diet with 1% lard; control diet with 5% additional lard; and control diet with 5% additional lard from encapsulated, spray-dried fat) and 2) diet form (pelleted or meal). Addition of lard decreased feed intake during d 0 to 14 (P = 0.04), d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.008), and improved G:F for d 15 to 35 (P = 0.04) and overall (P = 0.07). Encapsulated, spray-dried lard increased ADG (P = 0.004) and G:F (P = 0.003) during d 15 to 28 compared with the equivalent amount of fat as unprocessed lard. Pelleting increased ADG (P = 0.006) during d 0 to 14, decreased feed intake during d 15 to 35 (P = 0.01), and overall (P = 0.07), and increased G:F during all periods (P &lt; 0.02). Fat digestibility was increased (P = 0.001) with supplementation of lard, and this effect was greater when diets were fed in meal form (interaction, P = 0.004). Pelleting increased the digestibility of DM, OM, and fat (P &lt; 0.002). Results indicate that growth performance may be improved by lysolecithin supplementation to diets with added lard and by encapsulation of lard through spray drying. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Key Words: Digestibility, Emulsifier, Encapsulated Fat, Lysolecithin, Spray Drying, Swine</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/2004.8292601x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2004-09, Vol.82 (9), p.2601-2609
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_218107095
source Oxford Journals Online
subjects Body fat
Diet
Hogs
Meat processing
Nutrients
Zoology
title Effects of emulsification, fat encapsulation, and pelleting on weanling pig performance and nutrient digestibility1
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T22%3A26%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20emulsification,%20fat%20encapsulation,%20and%20pelleting%20on%20weanling%20pig%20performance%20and%20nutrient%20digestibility1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Xing,%20J.%20J.&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2601&rft.epage=2609&rft.pages=2601-2609&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/2004.8292601x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E689343281%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1095-138da37ca2328daf6c96009b6ad4ae2464f587ace4c2f0a14d600d8649b69c03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218107095&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true