Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:36:55.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of chitosan on production performance of feedlot lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2019

F. M. Pereira ,
G. G. P. Carvalho ,
T. S. Magalhães ,
J. E. Freitas Júnior ,
L. F. B. Pinto ,
G. B. Mourão ,
A. J. V. Pires ,
C. E. Eiras ,
D. Novais-Eiras  and
J. A. G. Azevêdo
...Show all authors
F. M. Pereira
Affiliation:
State University of Southeast Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil
G. G. P. Carvalho*
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
T. S. Magalhães
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
J. E. Freitas Júnior
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
L. F. B. Pinto
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
G. B. Mourão
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
A. J. V. Pires
Affiliation:
State University of Southeast Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil
C. E. Eiras
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
D. Novais-Eiras
Affiliation:
Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
J. A. G. Azevêdo
Affiliation:
State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
A. Eustáquio Filho
Affiliation:
Federal Institute of Northern Minas Gerais, Salinas, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: G. G. P. Carvalho, E-mail: gleidsongiordano@ufba.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intake, digestibility, nitrogen (N) balance, microbial protein synthesis, weight gain, yields of the main commercial cuts and carcass morphometric measurements were evaluated in lambs fed diets containing different levels of chitosan. Sixty Santa Inês crossbred sheep with an average body weight (BW) of 24 ± 2.2 kg were assigned to three treatments (diets containing 0, 136 or 272 mg chitosan/kg BW) in a completely randomized design. There was no effect of chitosan on dry matter (DM) intake. Ingested and retained N showed a quadratic response, with the highest values estimated at the chitosan levels of 142 and 152 mg/kg BW, respectively. Similar to N balance, microbial protein synthesis showed the same quadratic response, in which the level of 136 mg/kg BW resulted in higher synthesis when compared with the other levels. No effect of chitosan was detected on average daily gain, final weight, or carcass variables (hot carcass weight, cold carcass weight, yield of commercial cuts and morphometric measurements of the carcass). Conformation, visceral fat content and fatness of carcasses were also not altered by the use of chitosan. Chitosan improves the digestibility of DM, crude protein and neutral detergent fibre, and increases N balance and microbial protein synthesis but does not change the production performance of feedlot lambs.

Keywords

Additivedigestibilityintake
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Issue 9 , November 2018 , pp. 1138 - 1144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Allan, CR and Hadwiger, LA (1979) The fungicidal effect of chitosan on fungi of varying cell wall composition. Experimental Mycology 3, 285–287.Google Scholar
AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Edn. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemistry.Google Scholar
AOAC (2002) Official Methods of Analysis, 12th Edn. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemistry.Google Scholar
Araújo, APC, Venturelli, BC, Santos, MCB, Gardinal, R, Cônsolo, NRB, Calomeni, GD, Freitas, JE, Barletta, RV, Gandra, JR, Paiva, PG and Rennó, FP (2015) Chitosan affects total nutrient digestion and ruminal fermentation in Nellore steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 206, 114–118.Google Scholar
Benediktsdóttir, BE, Baldursson, Ó and Másson, M (2014) Challenges in evaluation of chitosan and trimethylated chitosan (TMC) as mucosal permeation enhancers: from synthesis to in vitro application. Journal of Controlled Release 173, 18–31.Google Scholar
Brasil (2000) Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Instrução normativa n. 3, de 17 de Janeiro de 2000. Aprova o regulamento técnico de métodos de insensibilização para o abate humanitário de animais de açougue. Brasília, Brasil: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A and Devant, M (2002) Effects of pH and pH fluctuations on microbial fermentation and nutrient flow from a dual-flow continuous culture system. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 574–579.Google Scholar
Cezar, MF and Sousa, WH (2007) Carcaças ovinas e caprinas: obtenção-avaliação-classificação. Uberaba, Brazil: Agropecuária Tropical.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W (1980) Chemical control of rumen microbial metabolism. In Ruckebusch, Y and Thivend, P (eds), Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 325–347.Google Scholar
Chen, XB and Gomes, MJ (1992) Estimation of Microbial Protein Supply to Sheep and Cattle based on Urinary Excretion of Purine Derivatives: an Overview of the Technical Details. Occasional Publication. Aberdeen, UK: Rowett Research Institute.Google Scholar
Clark, JH, Klusmeyer, TH and Cameron, MR (1992) Microbial protein synthesis and flows of nitrogen fractions to the duodenum of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2304–2323.Google Scholar
Del Valle, TA, de Paiva, PG, de Jesus, EF, de Almeida, GF, Zanferari, F, Costa, AGBVB, Bueno, ICS and Rennó, FP (2017) Dietary chitosan improves nitrogen use and feed conversion in diets for mid-lactation dairy cows. Livestock Science 201, 22–29.Google Scholar
Goiri, I, Oregui, LM and Garcia-Rodriguez, A (2010) Use of chitosans to modulate ruminal fermentation of a 50:50 forage-to-concentrate diet in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 88, 749–755.Google Scholar
Gois, FD, Cairo, PLG, Cantarelli, VS, Costa, LCB, Fontana, R, Allaman, IB, Sbardella, M, de Carvalho, FM Jr. and Costa, LB (2016) Effect of Brazilian red pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi) essential oil on performance, diarrhea and gut health of weanling pigs. Livestock Science 183, 24–27.Google Scholar
Horton, GM (1980) Use of feed additives to reduce ruminal methane production and deaminase activity in steers. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1160–1164.Google Scholar
Kong, M, Chen, XG, Xing, K and Park, HJ (2010) Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and mode of action: a state of the art review. International Journal of Food Microbiology 144, 51–63.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.Google Scholar
Mingoti, RD, Freitas, JE Jr., Gandra, JR, Gardinal, R, Calomeni, GD, Barletta, RV, Vendramini, THA, Paiva, PG and Rennó, FP (2016) Dose response of chitosan on nutrient digestibility, blood metabolites and lactation performance in Holstein dairy cows. Livestock Science 187, 35–39.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2001) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2007) Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Angora, Dairy, and Meat Goats. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Raafat, D and Sahl, HG (2009) Chitosan and its antimicrobial potential--a critical literature survey. Microbial Biotechnology 2, 186–201.Google Scholar
Russell, JB and Houlihan, AJ (2003) Ionophore resistance of ruminal bacteria and its potential impact on human health. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 27, 65–74.Google Scholar
Russell, JB and Strobel, HJ (1988) Effects of additives on in vitro ruminal fermentation: a comparison of monensin and bacitracin, another gram-positive antibiotic. Journal of Animal Science 66, 552–558.Google Scholar
Russell, JB, O'Connor, JD, Fox, DG, Van Soest, PJ and Sniffen, CJ (1992) A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: I. Ruminal fermentation. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3551–3561.Google Scholar
Tang, H, Zhang, P, Kieft, TL, Ryan, SJ, Baker, SM, Wiesmann, WP and Rogelj, S (2010) Antibacterial action of a novel functionalized chitosan-arginine against gram-negative bacteria. Acta Biomaterialia 6, 2562–2571.Google Scholar
Valadares, RFD, Broderick, GA, Valadares Filho, SC and Clayton, MK (1999) Effect of replacing alfalfa silage with high moisture corn on ruminal protein synthesis estimated from excretion of total purine derivatives. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2686–2696.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Vendramini, THA, Takiya, CS, Silva, TH, Zanferari, F, Rentas, MF, Bertoni, JC, Consentini, CEC, Gardinal, R, Acedo, TS and Rennó, FP (2016) Effects of a blend of essential oils, chitosan or monensin on nutrient intake and digestibility of lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 214, 12–21.Google Scholar
Vishu Kumar, AB, Varadaraj, MC, Gowda, LR and Tharanathan, RN (2005) Characterization of chito-oligosaccharides prepared by chitosanolysis with the aid of papain and Pronase, and their bactericidal action against Bacillus cereus and Escherichia coli. Biochemical Journal 391, 167–175.Google Scholar