Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:12:34.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbohydrases and phytase with rice bran, effects on amino acid digestibility and energy use in broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

C. Gallardo Open the ORCID record for C. Gallardo [Opens in a new window] ,
J. C. Dadalt  and
M. A. Trindade Neto Open the ORCID record for M. A. Trindade Neto [Opens in a new window]
C. Gallardo
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences and Biological, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima 15067, Peru
J. C. Dadalt
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, CEP: 13635900, Pirassununga, Sao Paulo, Brazil
M. A. Trindade Neto*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, CEP: 13635900, Pirassununga, Sao Paulo, Brazil
*
†E-mail: messiastn@usp.br
Get access

Abstract

Protein sources from cereals are used in broiler diets, usually in order to reduce feeding costs. However, their efficient use in poultry diets is limited by the level of fiber whose compounds are resistant to digestion in the small intestine; due to this sugars are not digested by endogenous poultry enzymes. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of multi-carbohydrase (MC) and phytase (Phy) on the total retention of nutrients, retention of apparent metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen (AMEN) (trial 1) and apparent and standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids (trial 2) of rice bran (RB). A total of 245-day-old male broilers (Cobb 500) was distributed at 21-day-old in a completely randomized design in a 2 × 2 + 1 (0 and 200 mg/kg MC; 0 and 50 mg/kg Phy, and basal diet – BD) factorial arrangement of treatments, to give seven replicates and seven birds per replicate. The BD based on corn (trial 1) and cornstarch and casein (trial 2) was used only to determine the coefficients of retention of nutrients and energy, and coefficients of digestibility of amino acids of the RB. The test diets were made by mixing BD and RB 7 : 3 wt/wt basis. There was interaction (P<0.05) between MC × Phy for DM, nitrogen and AMEN, retention and no interaction (P>0.05) for ash, calcium, phosphorous and NDF was observed. Enzymes interacted (P<0.05) on standardized ileal digestibility of arginine, histidine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, proline and serine. Dietary combination of MC and Phy resulted in higher (P<0.05) standardized digestibility of arginine, histidine, methionine and threonine relative to single enzyme supplementation or control diet without enzymes. Enzyme isolated inclusions in the diets improved (P<0.05) standardized digestibility of methionine. The supplementation of carbohydrases and Phy in RB will improve the nitrogen, energy and amino acids utilization for broiler chickens.

Keywords

amino acid digestibilityantinutritional factorenergyenzymenitrogen retention
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , March 2020 , pp. 482 - 490
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annison, G, Moughan, PJ and Thomas, DV 1995. Nutritive activity of soluble rice bran arabinoxylans in broiler diets. British Poultry Science 36, 479–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2005. Official methods of analysis, volume 2, 18th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bao, YM, Romero, LF and Cowieson, AJ 2013. Functional patterns of exogenous enzymes in different feed ingredients. World’s Poultry Science Journal 69, 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowieson, AJ, Aureli, R, Guggenbuhl, P and Fru-Nji, F 2014. Possible involvement of myo-inositol in the physiological response of broilers to high doses of microbial phytase. Animal Production Science 55, 710–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowieson, AJ, Ruckebusch, JP, Sorbara, JBO, Wilson, JW, Guggenbuhl, P and Roos, FF 2017. A systematic view on the effect of phytase on ileal amino acid digestibility in broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 225, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadalt, JC, Gallardo, C, Polycarpo, GV, Berto, DA and Trindade Neto, MA 2017. Ileal amino acid digestibility in micronized full fat soybean meal and textured soy flour fed to piglets with or without multicarbohydrase and phytase supplementation Animal Feed Science and Technology 229, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dersjant-Li, Y, Van De Belt, K, Van Der Klis, JD, Kettunen, H, Rinttila, T and Awati, A 2015. Effect of multi-enzymes in combination with a direct-fed microbial on performance and welfare parameters in broilers under commercial production settings. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 24, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, MZ and Sauer, WS 1995. Determination of apparent ileal amino acid digestibility in barley and canola meal for pigs with the direct, difference, and regression methods. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2364–2374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freitas, DM, Vieira, SL, Angel, CR, Favero, A and Maiorka, A 2011. Performance and nutrient utilization of broilers fed diets supplemented with a novel mono-component protease. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 20, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallardo, C, Dadalt, JC, Kiarie, E and Trindade Neto, MA 2017. Effects of multi-carbohydrase and phytase on standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids and apparent metabolizable energy in canola meal fed to broiler chicks. Poultry Science 96, 3305–3313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallardo, C, Dadalt, JC and Trindade Neto, MA 2018. Nitrogen retention, energy, and amino acid digestibility of wheat bran, without or with multicarbohydrase and phytase supplementation, fed to broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science 96, 2371–2379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, HK and Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). In Agriculture handbook (ed. Agricultural Research Service), pp. 1–20. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Hill, FW and Anderson, DL 1958. Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. Journal of Nutrition 64, 587–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiarie, E, Walsh, MC and Nyachoti, CM 2016. Performance, digestive function and mucosal responses to selected feed additives for pigs. Journal of Animal Science 94, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S, Sauer, WC, Huang, SX and Gabert, VM 1996. Effect of beta-glucanase supplementation to hulless barley- or wheat-soybean meal diets on the digestibilities of energy, protein, beta-glucans, and amino acids in young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1649–1656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, N and Ru, YJ 2010. Effect of phytate and phytase on the ileal flows of endogenous minerals and amino acids for growing broiler chickens fed purified diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 156, 126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, ET 1984. Comparative nutrition of fowl and swine: the gastrointestinal systems, 1st revised edition. University of Guelph, Guelph, CA.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry, 9th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nyachoti, CM, De Lange, CFM and Schulze, H 1997. Estimating endogenous amino acid flows at the terminal ileum and true ileal amino acid digestibilities in diets for growing pigs using the homoarginine method. Journal of Animal Science 75, 3206–3213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onyango, EM, Elikplimi, KA and Adeola, O 2009. Phytic acid increases mucin and endogenous amino acid losses from the gastrointestinal tract of chickens. British Journal of Nutrition 101, 836–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Opapeju, FO, Golian, A, Nyachoti, CM and Campbell, LD 2006. Amino acid digestibility in dry extruded-expelled soybean meal fed to pigs and poultry. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1130–1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravindran, V, Selle, PH and Bryden, WL 1999. Effects of phytase supplementation, individually and in combination, with glycanase, on the nutritive value of wheat and barley. Poultry Science 78, 1588–1595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renuka, DR and Arumughan, C 2007. Phytochemical characterization of defatted rice bran and optimization of a process for their extraction and enrichment. Bioresour Technology 98, 3037–3043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodehutscord, M, Krause, G and Pfeffer, E 1998. The effect of phytase on the availability of phosphorus in different ingredients in swine. In Proceedings of BASF Technical Symposium/Carolina Swine Nutrition Conference, 12 November 1998, Durham, NC, USA, pp. 32–45.Google Scholar
Rutherfurd, SM, Chung, TK and Moughan, PJ 2002. The effect of microbial phytase on ileal phosphorus and amino acid digestibility in the broiler chicken. British Poultry Science 44, 598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selle, PH. Cowieson, AJ and Ravindran, V 2009. Consequences of calcium interactions with phytate and phytase for poultry and pigs. Livestock Science 124, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sera, N, Morita, K, Nagasoe, M, Tokieda, H, Kitaura, T and Tokiwa, H 2005. Binding effect of polychlorinated compounds and environmental carcinogens on rice bran fibre. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 16, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slominski, BA 2011. Recent advances in research on enzymes for poultry diets. Poultry Science 90, 2013–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System 2009. User’s guide. Version 9.2 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Woyengo, TA, Kiarie, E and Nyachoti, CM 2010. Energy and amino acid utilization in expeller-extracted canola meal fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1433–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woyengo, TA and Nyachoti, CM 2011. Review: Supplementation of phytase and carbohydrases to diets for poultry. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar