Effect of fat type and lysophosphatidylcholine addition to broiler diets on performance, apparent digestibility of fatty acids, and apparent metabolizable energy content

Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Animal Feed Science and Technology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anifeedsci

Effect of fat type and lysophosphatidylcholine addition to broiler diets on performance, apparent digestibility of fatty acids, and apparent metabolizable energy content Bingkun Zhang a , Li Haitao b , Dongqin Zhao a , Yuming Guo a,∗ , Adriana Barri c a b c

State Key Lab of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, PR China Kemin Industries (Zhuhai) Co. Ltd., Zhuhai 519040, PR China Kemin Agrifoods North America, IA 50306, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 9 October 2009 Received in revised form 13 October 2010 Accepted 13 October 2010

Keywords: Fat type Lysophosphatidylcholine Growth performance Fatty acids Broiler chickens

a b s t r a c t A completely randomized design study with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement was conducted to evaluate the effects of three different fat sources (soybean oil, tallow, and poultry fat) with or without emulsifier supplementation on performance, coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) of fatty acids, and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) content in broiler chickens. Two hundred and fifty-two one-day-old male Arbor Acres broiler chickens were randomly divided into 6 different treatments: (T1) basal diet containing soybean oil without lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) supplementation, (T2) basal diet containing soybean oil with LPC supplementation, (T3) basal diet containing tallow without LPC supplementation, (T4) basal diet containing tallow with LPC supplementation, (T5) basal diet containing poultry fat without LPC supplementation, and (T6) basal diet containing poultry fat with LPC supplementation. Body weight gains from broiler chicks fed diets containing tallow were lower (P<0.05) than the body weight gains from chicks that were fed diets containing soybean oil or poultry fat in both the starter and grower periods. Birds fed diets containing tallow had the highest FCR (P<0.05), followed by the birds that were fed diets containing poultry fat, and soybean oil. The CTTAD of C16:0, C18:2, and C18:3n3 was greater (P<0.05) for broilers fed diets containing soybean oil than for those fed diets containing tallow or poultry fat in the starter period. The addition of LPC increased (P<0.05) body weight gain of broiler chickens in the starter period and the AME of the diets in the grower period, and tended to reduce FCR (P=0.072) in the starter period. LPC supplementation increased (P<0.05) the CTTAD of C16:0, C18:1n7 and C18:1n9 in the starter period, and of C18:2, and C18:3n3 in the grower period (P<0.05). There were no significant interactions between fat sources and the addition of LPC. These data indicated that LPC supplementation can improve body weight gain of broiler chickens in the starter period. This effect may be associated with an increase of CTTAD of FA due to LPC activity. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: AME, apparent metabolizable energy; BWG, body weight gain; FI, feed intake; FCR, feed conversion ratio; LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; CTTAD, coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility; SFA, saturated fatty acids; UFA, unsaturated fatty acids; FA, fatty acids. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62733900; fax: +86 10 62733900. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y. Guo). 0377-8401/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.10.004

178

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

1. Introduction In poultry diets, animal fats and vegetable oils are usually added to increase their energy concentration so that growth performance can be improved and industry standards can be achieved (Blanch et al., 1996). Fatty acids (FA) result from the enzymatic hydrolysis of lipids (oils and fats) which are water insoluble. Under normal physiological conditions, the small intestine of an animal is an aqueous environment. In order for FA to pass through the liquid phase of the small intestine and get absorbed as hydrophobic components, FA aggregate to form micelles. This process is naturally mediated by emulsifiers, such as bile salts. In young birds, the assimilation of dietary fats is limited because they have a reduced capacity to produce and secrete bile salts and lipase until their gastrointestinal tract matures (10–14 days of age) (Noy and Sklan, 1998). This limitation causes an inability to form mixed micelles in the intestinal lumen which further decreases fat digestion and absorption of nutrients (Leeson and Atteh, 1995). It may be theorized that exogenous emulsifiers may aid in fat emulsification optimizing lipase activity and FA incorporation into micelles. Therefore, fat digestion and absorption in young birds could be improved carrying out a positive effect on growth performance throughout production. There is limited and inconsistent research evaluating available external emulsifiers. Some poultry studies indicate that dietary supplementation of bile salts improves emulsification, micelle formation, and fat digestibility (Polin et al., 1980; Kussaibati et al., 1982), and that supplementation of lecithin improves growth performance of broiler chickens (Emmert et al., 1996; Huang et al., 2007). Other research reports that the addition of lecithin to broiler diets has no positive effects on growth performance (Blanch et al., 1996; Azman and Ciftci, 2004). These contrasts may be associated with an interaction between the type of fat and (or) the use of external emulsifiers. Additionally, chicks can better use FA from fat sources that are rich in unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) than from fats that are rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA) (Wiseman et al., 1991; Leeson and Atteh, 1995; Smits et al., 2000). Lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) is the product of phospholipase A2 enzyme activity. LPC can spontaneously form very small micelles because it has a critical micelle concentration (CMC) of 0.02–0.2 mM/L, which is 20–200 times more effective than bile (CMC = 4 mM/L) and lecithin (CMC = 0.3–2 mM/L) (Zubay, 1983; Langmuir, 2002). This indicates that LPC has a higher emulsification and micelle formation capacity than bile salts and lecithin, thus making it a better source as an exogenous emulsifier. Even though LPC has been demonstrated to enhance cellular uptake of lipophilic nutrients such as oleic acid, ␤-carotene, and lutein in some in vitro and in vivo studies (Rampone and Long, 1977; Koo and Noh, 2001; Sugawara et al., 2001; Baskaran et al., 2003; Lakshminarayana et al., 2006), there are no published research data, known to the authors, that evaluate the effects of LPC on nutrient digestibility and broiler performance through grow-out. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of three different fat sources (soybean oil, tallow, and poultry fat) with or without LPC supplementation on body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), feed conversion (FCR), coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility (CTTAD) of different FA, and apparent metabolizable energy (AME). It is hypothesised that LPC supplementation will enhance the performance of broiler chickens by increasing the CTTAD of FA, and this effect may be dependent on the fat type.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Experimental design The study consisted of a completely randomized experimental design with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments, three sources of fat (soybean oil, tallow, and poultry fat) and with or without LPC (LysoforteTM , Kemin Industries) supplementation. LysoforteTM is a commercial powdered preparation mainly containing LPC (each 1 kg of LysoforteTM contains 250 g LPC). The trial had 6 different dietary treatments: (T1) basal diet containing soybean oil without LPC supplementation, (T2) basal diet containing soybean oil with LPC supplementation, (T3) basal diet containing tallow without LPC supplementation, (T4) basal diet containing tallow with LPC supplementation, (T5) basal diet containing poultry fat without LPC supplementation, and (T6) basal diet containing poultry fat with LPC supplementation.

2.2. Broilers and diets Two hundred and fifty-two one-day-old male Arbor Acres broiler chickens were obtained from a commercial hatchery and randomly divided into 6 treatments with 7 replicates of 6 birds each. The experimental period lasted 42 d. Chickens were raised in a temperature-controlled room with 24-h constant light. The temperature of the room was 35–33 ◦ C for the first 3 days, and then it declined 3 ◦ C weekly until 22–24 ◦ C. All birds were provided with feed and water ad libitum throughout the grow-out period. The diets were corn–soybean meal based, and formulated to meet or exceed the feeding standard of chicken (China, 2004) requirements. The dietary phases consisted of starter (0 –21 d) and grower (22–42 d) and are shown in Table 1. Experimental procedures were approved and conducted under the guidelines of the China Agricultural University Animal Care and Use Committee.

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

179

Table 1 Composition and nutrients’ levels of diets. Ingredient (g/kg)

Starter diets (1–21 d)

Corn Soybean meal Cottonseed meal Soybean oil Tallow Poultry fat Dicalcium phosphate Limestone NaCl Vitamin and mineral premixa Choline chloride 15% Aureomycinb DL-methionine Lysine Hcl Ethoxyquinoline (33%)c Zeolited LysoforteTM Calculated composition CP, g/kg GEe , MJ/kg Ca, g/kg Available P, g/kg Lys, g/kg Met, g/kg

Grower diets (22–42 d)

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

550.8 339.1 40 30 – – 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 –

550.8 339.1 40 30 – – 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0 0.5

550.8 339.1 40 ‘ 30 – 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 –

550.8 339.1 40 – 30 – 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0 0.5

550.8 339.1 40 – – 30 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0

550.8 339.1 40 – – 30 15.7 14 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0 0.5

591 269.2 60 40 – – 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 –

591 269.2 60 40 – – 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 – 0.5

591 269.2 60 – 40 – 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 –

591 269.2 60 – 40 – 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 – 0.5

591 269.2 60 – – 40 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 –

591 269.2 60 – – 40 11.5 17.4 3.4 2.2 1.6 1 1.6 0.4 0.2 – 0.5

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

230 17.4 10 4.0 11 4.2

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

190 17.5 10 3.5 10 4.0

a Mineral and vitamin premix supplied (per kg of final diet): Cu, 8 mg (CuSO4 ·5H2 O); Zn, 75 mg (ZnSO4 ); Fe, 80 mg (FeSO4 ); Mn, 100 mg (MnSO4 ·H2 O); Se, 0.15 mg (Na2 SeO3 ); I, 0.35 mg (KI); vitamin A, 12,500 IU (retinylacetate); cholecalciferol, 62.5 ␮g; vitamin K3 , 2.65 mg; thiamine, 2 mg; riboflavin, 6 mg; vitamin B12 , 0.025 mg; vitamin E, 30 IU (␣-tocopherol acetate); biotin, 0.0325 mg; folic acid, 1.25 mg; pantothenic acid, 12 mg; niacin, 50 mg. b Supplied by JinHe Biotechnology Co. Ltd., China. c Supplied by Blooming Biotechnology Co. Ltd., China. d LysoforteTM was added to the feed at the expense of zeolite in the diet by first mixing with the premix and a small proportion of ground corn. e Analyzed.

2.3. Performance parameters Chicks and feed were weighed by pen at day of hatch, 21 and 42 days. Feed intake was measured, and BWG and FCR were calculated for each period and cumulatively for the grow-out. 2.4. Fecal samples From days 14 to 17 and from 35 to 38, fecal samples were collected from each pen following the standard total excreta collection method (Wang et al., 2008). Contaminants such as feathers, down, and scales were removed, and samples were stored in plastic containers at −30 ◦ C until further analysis. Fecal samples were freeze-dried (temperature −56 ◦ C and vacuum between 0.145 and 0.133 mBar) to a constant weight using an Edwards Modulyo lyophilizer (Edwards High Vacuum International, Norfolk, UK), they were ground to pass a 0.5-mm sieve, and further stored in sealed plastic bags at 4 ◦ C until further analysis. 2.5. Coefficient of total tract apparent digestibility: fatty acids, crude protein, dry matter and apparent metabolizable energy Diets and freeze-dried excreta were analyzed for crude protein (CP), dry matter (DM) and FA. Total nitrogen was determined by the standard Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1995) and DM was determined using the methods established by the AOAC (1995). The resulting values were used to calculate the CTTAD of CP and DM. Fatty acids from the three different fat samples (soy oil, tallow, and poultry fat), diets and freeze-dried excreta were determined by gas chromatograph as described previously (Yang et al., 2010). Total lipid extracts of samples were transmethylated into fatty acid methyl esters (Sukhija and Palmquist, 1988). Fatty acids were separated and identified using an HP 6890 gas chromatograph equipped with a flame-ionization detector and a DB-23 capillary column (0.25 mm × 60 m × 0.25 ␮m; J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA). Nonadecanoic acid (C19:0, Fluka, Buchs, Switzerland) is used as the internal standard. Fatty acids were identified by matching their retention times with those of their relative standards. The CTTAD of nutrients in the diets was calculated using the following formula: CTTAD =

nutrient ingested − nutrient excreted nutrient ingested

where nutrient is CP or FA.

180

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

Table 2 Fatty acid profile from soybean oil, poultry fat and tallow (g/kg of oil). Fat type

Soybean oil Poultry fat Tallow a

Fatty acida C12:0

C14:0

C16:0

C17:0

C18:0

C18:1n9

C18:1n7

C18:2

C18:3n6

C18:3n3

C20:0

C20:1n7

C20:2

C22:0

C24:0

0.3 0.4 0.8

1.7 6.0 30.3

131.5 218.2 253.7

1.0 1.3 12.3

37.0 54.3 259.1

223.3 402.7 245.2

13.2 17.2 7.0

466.7 166.8 15.1

0.5 1.5 0.2

60.4 8.0 1.1

3.4 0.9 2.5

1.9 3.1 1.1

0.3 0.9 0.3

3.6 0.3 0.4

1.2 0.1 0.2

Number of carbon atoms and double bonds designated to the left and right of colon, respectively.

Table 3 Effect of fat sources and LPC on growth performance of broiler chickens.a , b Fat sources

LPC

Treatments

Day 1–21

Day 1–42 FI, g

FCR

Soybean oil

−c +c

T1 T2

560 566

831 826

1.49 1.46

1730 1762

3142 3192

1.82 1.81

Tallow

− +

T3 T4

510 538

807 834

1.58 1.55

1620 1671

3145 3251

1.94 1.95

Poultry fat

− +

T5 T6

543 574

824 834

1.52 1.46

1691 1743

3177 3169

1.88 1.82

SEM Source of variation (P-value) Fat sources LPC Fat sources × LPC a b c

BWG, g

FI, g

FCR

BWG, g

5.4

6.5

0.012

0.002 0.022 0.462

0.846 0.418 0.635

0.002 0.072 0.755

14.8 0.014 0.107 0.945

27.1 0.893 0.383 0.717

0.016 0.001 0.492 0.625

Each value represents the mean values of 7 pens of 6 animals each (n = 7). LPC: lysophosphatidylcholine; BWG: body weight gain; FI: feed intake; FCR: feed conversion ratio. − represents without LPC supplementation; + represents supplemented with 500 mg/kg diet of a LysoforteTM .

The CTTAD of DM in the diets was calculated using the following formula: CTTAD =

DM ingested − DM excreted . DM ingested

The AME of each diet was calculated from the gross energy values of the diet and freeze-dried excreta. Gross energy values of the diet and excreta samples were measured using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Parr6300, Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL). 2.6. Statistical analysis Data were subjected to ANOVA using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SPSS (SPSS v10.0, 1995). Pen was considered the experimental unit. The models included main effects of fat sources (soybean oil, tallow, or poultry fat) and LPC inclusion (with or without), and all two way interactions. The model was: Yij =  + ai + tj + (at)ij + eij where Yij is the observed dependent variable;  is the overall mean; ai is the main effect of fat source; tj is the main effect of LPC; (at)ij is the interaction between fat source and LPC and eij is the random error. Significance was determined at P<0.05, and a tendency was defined as P<0.1. All values are expressed as treatment means with their pooled SEM. 3. Results 3.1. Fatty acid composition The FA composition of each fat source is shown in Table 2. The FA profile of soybean oil was comprised mainly of linoleic (C18:2), oleic (C18:1n9), and palmitic (C16:0) FA. For tallow, the predominant FA were C18:1n9, C16:0, and stearic (C18:0) and for poultry fat the main FA present were C18:1n9, C16:0, and C18:2. The SFA:UFA proportions were 18:82, 67:33, and 31:69 for soybean oil, tallow, and poultry fat, respectively. 3.2. Growth performance Results for BWG, FI, and FCR in both starter (1–21 d) and grower (21–42 d) periods are shown in Table 3. There were no LPC by fat source significant interactions observed at any feeding period (P>0.05). Main effects for fat source on BWG and

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

181

Table 4 Effect of fat sources and LPC on the CTTAD of DM and CP and the AME of broiler chickens.a , b Fat sources

LPC

Treatments

DM

CP

AME, MJ/Kg

DM

CP

AME, MJ/Kg

Soybean oil

−c +c

T1 T2

0.710 0.728

0.713 0.722

12.23 12.55

0.737 0.728

0.750 0.755

12.61 12.93

Tallow

− +

T3 T4

0.701 0.708

0.698 0.718

12.13 12.29

0.733 0.748

0.721 0.761

12.48 12.77

Poultry fat

− +

T5 T6

0.706 0.712

0.716 0.710

12.28 12.46

0.734 0.749

0.705 0.734

12.68 13.02

0.060

0.004

0.004

0.061

0.060

0.0048

0.281 0.175 0.791

0.686 0.394 0.500

0.391 0.071 0.846

0.701 0.469 0.526

0.242 0.140 0.670

0.287 0.010 0.982

SEM Source of variation (P-value) Fat sources LPC Fat sources × LPC a b c

Day 14–17

Day 35–38

Each value represents the mean values of 7 pens of 6 animals each (n = 7). LPC: lysophosphatidylcholine; AME: apparent metabolizable energy; CP: crude protein; DM: dry matter. − represents without LPC supplementation; + represents supplemented with 500 mg/kg diet of a LysoforteTM .

FCR in both starter and grower periods were observed; BWG was lighter (P<0.05) in broilers fed diets containing tallow than in those chicks fed diets containing soybean oil or poultry fat in both the starter and the grower periods. Birds fed diets containing tallow had the poorest FCR (P<0.05), when compared to chicks fed diets containing poultry fat or soybean oil. Supplementation with LPC increased (P<0.05) BWG of broiler chickens regardless of fat source in the starter period. The FCR showed a tendency (P=0.072) for an improvement in the starter period by 3 points when LPC was added in combination with soybean oil or tallow, and by 6 points (P=0.072) when LPC was used in combination with poultry fat. In the grower period, no differences were observed for FCR (P>0.05). There were no differences in FI at any feeding period (P>0.05). 3.3. AME, CP, and DM Results for AME, CP, and DM are shown in Table 4. The AME values for the diets in the starter and grower periods were not affected by different sources of fat (P>0.05). However, supplementation with LPC tended to increase (P=0.071) the AME of diets in the starter period and increased (P<0.05) AME values during the grower period. There were no two way interactions (LPC by fat sources) or main effect differences in any feeding period for CP and DM (P>0.05). 3.4. CTTAD of fatty acids The effects of fat source and LPC on the CTTAD of FA in the starter and grower periods are shown in Table 5. In the starter period, the CTTAD for linolenic (C18:3n3), C18:2, and C16:0 FA was greater (P<0.05) in broilers fed diets containing soybean oil than for those that were fed diets containing tallow or poultry fat. Supplementation with LPC to broiler diets improved (P<0.05) CTTAD for C16:0 and both oleic FA isomers (C18:1n9 and C18:1n7). During the grower period, fat source had a significant effect on CTTAD for all FA, being C16:0, C18:0, C18:1n7, and C18:1n9 higher (P<0.05) in concentration in the poultry fat diets or in the soybean oil diets. The lowest concentration values were found in the tallow diet experimental groups (P<0.05). Regardless of fat source, supplementation with LPC improved (P<0.05) CTTAD for C18:2 and C18:3n3 FA. There were no two way interactions on CTTAD of fatty acids at any feeding period (P>0.05). 4. Discussion This paper had the objective of evaluating the effects that LPC would have as an exogenous emulsifier on the CTTAD of fat and broiler performance according to the type of fat in the diet. The results in this study supported the hypothesis that LPC supplementation would enhance performance of broiler chickens by increasing the CTTAD of FA. Throughout the duration of this experiment, fat source had an effect on broiler chicks’ performance (BWG and FCR). These findings are supported by different papers that show that chicks’ growth performance responds differently depending on whether the fat is of animal or vegetable origin. For instance, studies indicate that chickens fed vegetable oil diets gain more weight than those fed animal fat diets (Chung et al., 1993). Chung et al. (1993) observed that broiler chickens that were fed sunflower oil in their diets gained significantly more weight over the first 21 days of age post-hatch and had a significantly better feed:gain ratio than those fed diets containing tallow. Dänicke et al. (1997, 2000) reported that live weight gain and feed conversion were better in birds fed soybean oil diets (100 g/kg) than in those chicks that were fed diets containing tallow as the energy source. Zollitsch et al. (1997) also found that when broilers were fed diets containing soybean oil performed better than those fed animal/vegetable fat blend diets.

182

Fat sources

LPC

Treatments

C16:0

C18:0

C18:1n9

C18:1n7

C18:2

C18:3n3

C16:0

C18:0

C18:1n9

C18:1n7

C18:2

C18:3n3

Soybean oil

−c +c

T1 T2

0.669 0.749

0.432 0.566

0.751 0.801

0.670 0.733

0.808 0.842

0.881 0.907

0.643 0.677

0.437 0.528

0.710 0.713

0.651 0.717

0.773 0.797

0.882 0.888

Tallow

− +

T3 T4

0.568 0.566

0.440 0.444

0.766 0.776

0.639 0.659

0.753 0.741

0.784 0.818

0.367 0.445

0.318 0.384

0.662 0.706

0.593 0.606

0.632 0.653

0.755 0.779

Poultry fat

− +

T5 T6

0.539 0.653

0.415 0.451

0.735 0.783

0.668 0.708

0.731 0.761

0.776 0.826

0.662 0.682

0.538 0.551

0.767 0.798

0.725 0.743

0.728 0.800

0.765 0.849

0.0189

0.0172

0.0086

0.0101

0.0101

0.0122

0.0250

0.0218

0.0119

0.0148

0.0133

0.0118

0.002 0.045 0.302

0.215 0.083 0.246

0.697 0.039 0.558

0.074 0.036 0.634

<0.001 0.299 0.465

0.001 0.076 0.878

<0.001 0.137 0.690

<0.001 0.113 0.652

0.001 0.202 0.699

<0.001 0.177 0.595

<0.001 0.015 0.324

<0.001 0.018 0.102

SEM Source of variation (P-value) Fat sources LPC Fat sources × LPC a b c

Day 14–17

Day 35–38

Each value represents the mean values of 7 pens of 6 animals each (n = 7). LPC: lysophosphatidylcholine. − represents without LPC supplementation; + represents supplemented with 500 mg/kg diet of a LysoforteTM .

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

Table 5 Effect of fat sources and LPC on the CTTAD of fatty acids of broiler chickens.a , b

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

183

It is well established that CTTAD of dietary fats is dependent not only on fat source but also on the composition of the diet. The chemical nature of the FA is an important factor for fat CTTAD (Wiseman, 1984; Ketels and De Groote, 1989; Dänicke et al., 2000). Indeed, chicks can better assimilate FA from fat sources that are rich in UFA than from fats that are rich in SFA (Wiseman et al., 1991; Leeson and Atteh, 1995; Smits et al., 2000). Wongsuthavas et al. (2008) indicated that the lower the SFA:UFA proportion is, the lower the feed conversion rates will be. In the present study, CTTAD of most FA present in each fat type differed from each other. Smits et al. (2000) reported that C16:0 FA from soybean oil is absorbed more efficiently than the C16:0 FA originated from tallow, because the absorption of individual FA is related to the physicochemical properties of each type of fat/oil. According to Friedman and Nylund (1980), the absorption of long chain SFA is limited by their incorporation rate into micelles. Saturated FA are less rapidly incorporated into micelles than polyunsaturated FA because of their non- polarity, which makes them rely on an adequate presence of bile salts for efficient emulsification (Polin et al., 1980; Dänicke, 2001). The C18:2 FA present in soybean oil may help improve the absorption of C16:0 through the formation of micelles, increasing their capacity to take up SFA in the core (Freeman, 1976). In the current study, soybean oil diets had the highest concentration of C18:2 FA, followed by poultry fat diets and then tallow diets (about 22, 15, and 13 g/kg in the starter period, respectively; data not shown). This could explain the results obtained for the CTTAD for the individual FA in the three different fat sources, where tallow had the highest concentration of long-chain saturated FA (68%). These FA were mainly comprised by C16:0 and C18:0. The concentration of C16:0 and C18:0 in poultry fat was lower than tallow but still higher than soybean oil. The results from SFA:UFA proportions between tallow (66:34) poultry fat (31:68) and soybean oil (19:81) confirm that the FA are less digestible in animal fats when compared to FA from vegetable oils. Published research has reported that birds fed diets formulated with tallow had significantly lower AMEn and CP and DM CTTAD values than those chicks fed diets containing soybean oil (Dänicke et al., 1999a,b; Azman and Seven, 2005). Interestingly, in this study, CTTAD of CP and DM were not affected by fat source. Conversely, LPC supplementation did have an effect on AME during the grower period. Because the small intestine of a bird is fully mature and physiologically functional after 10–14 days of age, the effect of LPC might have a positive effect on the natural emulsifiers of the bird, as digestion of fat improves with increasing age (Krogdahl, 1985). Results showed that supplementation with LPC also enhanced CTTAD of fatty acids, BWG and FCR in young birds, may be due to its stimulating activity to form mixed micelles in the intestinal lumen (Sugawara et al., 2001). In vitro experiments have shown LPC to enhance oleic acid absorption (Rampone and Long, 1977). The improvement in performance did not seem to be related to CTTAD of CP and DM measurements. LPC increased CTTAD of most fatty acid. Jones et al. (1992) reported an increase in fat digestibility when lecithin or lysolecithin were added to diets containing soybean oil or tallow in weanling pigs. Thus, the improvement in performance may relate to CTTAD of FA. The mechanism of this action still needs further research. On the other hand, Schwarzer and Adams (1996) reported that LPC forms micelles that are smaller and more stable than those formed with other phospholipids or emulsifiers such as lecithin. Reynier et al. (1985) indicated that micelle size is one of the most important factors that determine the absorption of lipid and lipophilic substances. Formation of smaller micelles may also have an effect on other nutrients present in the digesta. While it is already established that the effect of LPC lies in its interaction with lipophilic components of the diet, further research should take place in the evaluation of LPC and its effects on enzyme–substrate interactions. 5. Conclusions Results from the current study indicate that LPC supplementation can be used as a feeding strategy in poultry starter diets in order to improve poultry production. Body weight gains may be associated with increasing CTTAD of most fatty acids due to LPC activity. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by Yangtz River Scholar and Innovation Research Team Development Program (Project No. IRT0945) and the National Modern Agri-Industry Technology Research System. The authors also thank to Kemin Industries (Zhuhai, China) for supplying the Lysoforte product and partially financial support. References AOAC, 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. Azman, M.A., Ciftci, M., 2004. Effects of replacing dietary fat with lecithin on broiler chicken zootechnical performance. Revue Med. Vet. 155, 445–448. Azman, M.A., Seven, P.T., 2005. Effects of different fat sources on nutrient and mineral retention in broiler chicken. Indian Vet. J. 82, 55–58. Baskaran, V., Sugawara, T., Nagao, A., 2003. Phospholipids affect the intestinal absorption of carotenoids in mice. Lipids 38, 705–711. Blanch, A., Barroeta, A.C., Baucells, M.D., Serrano, X., Puchal, F., 1996. Utilization of different fats and oils by adult chickens as a source of energy, lipid and fatty acids. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 61, 335–342. Chung, H.C., Guenter, W., Rotter, R.G., Crow, G.H., Stanger, N.E., 1993. Effects of dietary fat source on sudden death syndrome and cardiac sarcoplasmic reticular calcium transport in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 72, 310–316. Dänicke, S., 2001. Interaction between cereal identity and fat quality and content in response to feed enzymes in broilers. In: Bedford, M.R., Partridge, G.G. (Eds.), Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition. CABI Pub, Wallingford, UK, pp. 199–236. Dänicke, S., Franke, E., Strobel, E., Jeroch, H., Simon, O., 1999a. Effects of dietary fat type and xylanase supplementation in rye containing diets on energy metabolism in male broilers. J. Anim. Physiol. An. N. 81, 90–102.

184

B. Zhang et al. / Animal Feed Science and Technology 163 (2011) 177–184

Dänicke, S., Jeroch, H., Böttcher, W., Simon, O., 2000. Interactions between dietary fat type and enzyme supplementation in broiler diets with high pentosan contents: effects on precaecal and total tract digestibility of fatty acids, metabolizability of gross energy, digesta viscosity and weights of small intestine. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 84, 279–294. Dänicke, S., Simon, O., Jeroch, H., Bedford, M., 1997. Interactions between dietary fat type and xylanase supplementation when rye-based diets are fed to broiler chickens 2. Performance, nutrient digestibility and the fat-soluble vitamin status of livers. Br. Poult. Sci. 38, 546–556. Dänicke, S., Simon, O., Jeroch, H., Keller, K., Gläser, K., Kluge, H., Bedford, M.R., 1999b. Effects of dietary fat type, pentosan level and xylanase supplementation on digestibility of nutrients and metabolizability of energy in male broilers. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 52, 245–261. Emmert, J.L., Garrow, T.A., Baker, D.H., 1996. Development of an experimental diet for determining bioavailable choline concentration and its application in studies with soybean lecithin. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 2738–2744. Freeman, C.P., 1976. Digestion and absorption of fat. In: Boorman, K.N., Freeman, B.M. (Eds.), Digestion in the Fowl. British Poultry Science Association, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 117–142. Friedman, H.I., Nylund, B., 1980. Intestinal fat digestion, absorption, and transport. A review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 33, 1108–1139. Huang, J., Yang, D., Wang, T., 2007. Effects of replacing soy-oil with soy-lecithin on growth performance, nutrient utilization and serum parameters of broilers fed corn-based diets. Asian Aust. J. Anim. 20, 1880–1886. Jones, D.B., Hancock, J.D., Harmom, D.L., Walker, C.E., 1992. Effects of exogenous emulsifiers and fat sources on nutrient digestibility, serum lipids, and growth performance in weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 70, 3473–3482. Ketels, E., De Groote, G., 1989. Effect of ratio of unsaturated to saturated fatty acids of the dietary lipid fraction on utilization and metabolizable energy of added fats in young chicks. Poult. Sci. 68, 1506–1512. Koo, S.I., Noh, S.K., 2001. Phosphatidylcholine inhibits and lysophosphatidylcholine enhances the lymphatic absorption of a-tocopherol in adult rats. J. Nutr. 131, 717–722. Krogdahl, A., 1985. Digestion and absorption of lipids in poultry. J. Nutr. 115, 675–685. Kussaibati, R., Guillaume, J., Leclercq, B., 1982. The effects of age, dietary fat and bile salts, and feeding rate on apparent and true metabolisable energy values in chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 23, 393–403. Lakshminarayana, R., Raju, M., Krishnakantha, T.P., Baskaran, V., 2006. Enhanced lutein bioavailability by lyso-phosphatidylcholine in rats. Mol. Cell Biochem. 281, 103–110. Langmuir, L.T., 2002. Lecithin. In: Arthur, T. Hubbard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA, (3), pp. 2997–3006. Leeson, S., Atteh, J.O., 1995. Utilization of fats and fatty acids by turkey poults. Poult. Sci. 74, 2003–2010. Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China, 2004. Feeding Standard of Chiken. Noy, Y., Sklan, D., 1998. Metabolic responses to early nutrition. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7, 437–451. Polin, D., Wing, T., Ki, P., Pell, K.E., 1980. The effect of bile acids and lipase on absorption of tallow in young chicks. Poult. Sci. 59, 2738–2743. Rampone, A.J., Long, L.R., 1977. The effect of phosphatidylcholine and lysophosphatidylcholine on the absorption and mucosal metabolism of oleic acid and cholesterol in vitro. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 486, 500–510. Reynier, M.O., Lafont, H., Crotte, C., Sauve, P., Gerolami, A., 1985. Intestinal cholesterol uptake: comparison between mixed micelles containing lecithin or lysolecithin. Lipids 20, 145–150. Schwarzer, K., Adams, C.A., 1996. The influence of specific phospholipids as absorption enhancer in animal nutrition. Fett. Lipid 98, 304–308. Smits, C.H.M., Moughan, P.J., Beynen, A.C., 2000. The inhibitory effect of a highly viscous carboxymethylcellulose on dietary fat digestibility in the growing chicken is dependent on the type of fat. J. Anim. Physiol. An. N. 83, 231–238. SPSS, 1995. SPSS Version 10. 0 for Windows. SPSS Inc, USA. Sugawara, T., Kushiro, M., Zhang, H., Nara, E., Ono, H., Nagao, A., 2001. Lysophosphatidylcholine enhances carotenoid uptake from mixed micelles by Caco-2 human intestinal cells. J. Nutr. 131, 2921–2927. Sukhija, P.S., Palmquist, D.L., 1988. Rapid method for determination of total fatty acid content and composition of the feedstuffs and feces. J. Agric. Food chem. 36, 1202–1206. Wang, H., Guo, Y., Shih, J.C.H., 2008. Effects of dietary supplementation of keratinase on growth performance, nitrogen retention and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens fed diets with soybean and cottonseed meals. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 140, 376–384. Wiseman, J., 1984. Assessment of the digestible and metabolizable energy of fats for non-ruminants. In: Wiseman, J. (Ed.), Fats in Animal Nutrition. Butterworths, London, pp. 277–297. Wiseman, J., Salvador, F., Craigon, J., 1991. Prediction of the apparent metabolizable energy content of fats fed to broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 70, 1527–1533. Wongsuthavas, S., Terapuntuwat, S., Wongsrikeaw, W., Katawatin, S., Yuangklang, C., Beynen, A.C., 2008. Influence of amount and type of dietary fat on deposition, adipocyte count and iodine number of abdominal fat in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Physiol. An. N. 92, 92–98. Yang, X., Zhang, B., Guo, Y., Jiao, P., Long, F., 2010. Effects of dietary lipids and Clostridium butyricum on fat deposition and meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 89, 254–260. Zollitsch, W., Knaus, W., Aichinger, F., Lettner, F., 1997. Effects of different dietary fat sources on performance and carcass characteristics of broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 66, 63–73. Zubay, G., 1983. Biochemistry. Reading, Massachusetts.