| Livestock Research for Rural Development 33 (1) 2021 | LRRD Search | LRRD Misssion | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
A study was conducted to evaluate the apparent total tract nutrient digestibility in normal and cecectomised ducks fed brewers’ grains (BG). One hundred forty four ducks was arranged in a factorial design. The first factor was breed (crossbred Super-Meat and Muscovy ducks); the second was cecectomised versus and intact digestive tract; and the third was diet (Control of lbroken rice and fish meal versus broken rice and brewers’grains). The Muscovy ducks exhibited higher apparent digestibility than crossbred Super Meat. There were no differences in digestibility between cecetomised or intact ducks. There was no difference in apparent excreta digestibility of any amino acid between breeds. There were inconsistent differences in digestibility of individual amino acids between cecectomised and intact birds, but in majority digestibility was found higher in intact birds. Digestibility of amino acids in ducks fed BG100 was equal or lower than in ducks fed the other diets. In conclusion the Muscovies digested DM superior to crossbred Super Meat ducks but there were no differences in digestibility of individual amino acids. For most individual amino acid digestibility was found higher in intact ducks. Dietary inclusion of about 50 % brewers’ grains seems to give good digestibility properties.
Key words: crossbred Super-meat duck, Muscovy ducks, digestibility, brewers’ grains, amino acids
Regional deficits of conventional protein sources for poultry in the tropics have stimulated a research for alternative industrial by-products. The potential of brewers’ grains from beer production was recognized in this context, due to its relatively high crude protein content and other nutrients. Feeding brewers’ grains to growing ducks gave good performance and high profit due to its high CP content and low price (Nguyen Thi Kim Dong and Brian 2003; Pham Tan Nha et al 2013). However, its availability of nutrients and especially essential amino acids has not been investigated. Nguyen Thuy Linh (2018) also reported that raising Muscovy ducks gave more profit than the common ones due to better nutrient utilization. Many methods have been developed to investigate the quality of various proteins, as well as to determine the digestibility of amino acids of poultry feeds by excreta analysis (Janssen et al. 1977; Adeola, 2005). Measurements based on collection of digesta from the terminal ileum of killed chickens should provide reliable data on amino acid digestibility because further intestinal hydrolysis and absorption of amino acids is unlikely to occur past this point (Huang et al 2005; Szczurek 2010; Bandegan et al 2011 and Kasprzak 2016). But this technique is laborious and expensive.
Austic (1983) has suggested that amino acid digestibility should be determined with cecectomised birds. Since the ceca comprise the major part of the hindgut area in poultry, the cecectomised bird provides a good model for measuring AA digestibility under conditions of reduced microbial influence (Johnson, 1992; Babinszky et al 2006; Adedokun et al 2009; Kinh 2013, Nguyen Dong Hai and Nguyen Thi Kim Dong 2016). Moreover, cecectomy has several advantages compared with ileal digesta collection. Cecectomy is a much simpler surgical procedure than the implantation of ileal cannular. Cecectomised birds can be maintained much more easily than ileal-cannular. Studies evaluating amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients using cecectomised chickens are numerous (Payne et al 1971; Parsons, 1985; Johns et al 1986; and Green et al 1987a,b). Ragland et al. (1999) performed cecectomies on ducks and compared the amino acid digestibility in the cecectomized ducks with that of intact ducks. Amino acid digestibility studies using intact ducks and excreta collection have been conducted by Hong et al. (2001) and Jamroz et al. (2001), but very few studies employing cecectomised ducks have been reported. The purpose of the present research was to compare total tract apparent nutrient and amino acid digestibility values of brewers’ grains by using intact and cecectomised crossbred Super-Meat and Muscovy ducks.
This study was conducted at the Can Tho University farm and laboratory from April to October in 2019. A total of 144 crossbred Super-Meat and crossbred Muscovy ducks, 12 weeks of age, with average live weights being 2.0 kg and 2.20 kg, respectively were used. Super-Meat ducks are also called common ducks, produced by male Super-Meat crossed with female crosses between Cherry Valley and Pekin ducks. Crossbred Muscovies originates from male French Muscovy crossed with female local Muscovy). Seventy two intact and 72 cecectomised birds were allotted in a factorial design with three factors; breed, method (cecectomised, intact) and three diets. There were 3 replicates of 4 ducks (sexual balanced) making up the experimental units.
The cecectomy procedure described by Payne et al. (1971), Rezvani et al. (2007) and Hai and Dong (2016) for chickens was adapted and utilized in the present study. Ducks selected to undergo the cecectomy procedure were deprived of feed for 24 h and water for approximately 12 h. General anesthesia was employed using ketamin. Prior to preparation of ducks for surgery, penicillin procaine was administered subcutaneously. After achieving a surgical plane of anesthesia, the surgical site was prepared by plucking a zone of feathers in the area corresponding to the left flank to expose the underlying skin. The exposed skin was then sanitized with betadine scrub. A horizontal skin incision into the abdomen until the ceca could be seen was made. Care was taken to avoid incising the abdominal air sacs. The body of each cecum was freed from its ligamentous attachment by blunt dissection of the ileocecal ligament. Vessels within the ileocecal ligament were ligated with 2-0 chromic gut absorbable suture to prevent hemorhage postsurgery. The ceca were ligated with 2-0 chromic gut absorbable suture most proximal to the ileal junction and removed. The ceca stumps and abdomen were lavaged with saline solution and the body wall closed in three layers: muscular, subcuticular, and skin. Immediately after completion of procedure, penicillin procaine was administered subcutaneously to maintain postoperative antibiotic blood levels. Ducks were allowed access to water upon recovery from anesthesia and allowed ad libitum access to feed 18 to 24 h post surgery. Nonabsorbable skin sutures were removed 14-day post surgery.
In the trial, 144 ducks were distributed at random to 36 wire metabolism cages (0.5x 0.8x 0.6m) with the same mean weight per cage. Each cage was provided with a drinker and feeder and a plastic tray was placed under the cage for total collection of excreta. The cages were placed in a ventilated room with controlled light (24 h light/day) to allow eating at night. The cages, drinkers, feeders and plastic trays were cleaned daily in the morning.
Broken rice (BR) and fish meal (FM) used in the different diets throughout the experiments originated from the same batches. Brewers’ grains (BG) was bought on an occasion at the local brewery in the city, and consisted of approximately 60% barley grains residues and 40% broken rice residues, with yeast. It was dried under sunlight, and then dried by oven at 55-60 0C, after that ground. A premix - mineral vitamin (0.3%) and chromic oxide (0.3 %) (Kim et al 2012; Foltyn et al. (2015) and Han et al. (2017) were carefully mixed with other feed ingredients for each diet before feeding occasion. The feed ingredient and chemical composition of the experimental diets is shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The three diets included the basal diet (CTRL) with 80% BR and 20% FM, the BG50 diet with 50% BR and 50% BG and the BG100 which consisted of only BG, except 0.3 vitamin and trace element mixture which was added to all diets.
The experimental time lasted 19 days divided in three periods. In a 7-day feed introduction period, birds were introduced to the experimental diets gradually before the trial started. This was followed by a 7-day adaptation and a 5-day excreta collection period. The birds were fed in groups of four and four times per day (8:00, 13:00, 17:00 and 21:00 h) to minimize spillage. In the 7-day adaptation period the ducks were fed ad libitum to measure the actual feed intake. However, during the collection period, the feeding level was set slightly below the feed intake (90%) in the adaptation period in order to limit feed refusals (Ho Le Huynh Chau 2014). Water was also available to birds at all times in plastic containers, but in small amounts in order to allow the birds to consume any feed left in the drinkers.
|
Table 1. Ingredient composition of the experimental diets (% air dry basis) |
|||
|
Item |
Diet1 |
||
|
CTRL |
BG50 |
BG100 |
|
|
Broken rice (BR) |
80 |
50 |
0 |
|
Fish meal (FM) |
20 |
0 |
0 |
|
Brewers’ grains (BG) |
0 |
50 |
100 |
|
Vitamin-mineral premix2 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
1 CTRL, BG50, BG100: 0, 50 and 100% BG. 2 Vitamin- mineral premix contained: vitamin A, 50,000 IU/100g;vitamin D3, 80,000 IU/100g, vitamin E, 50 IU/100g; vitamin K, 0.1%; vitamin B1, 0.03%, vitamin B2, 0.2%, B12, 0.0006%; Calcium carbonate, 0.5%; Phospho, 0.05%; Zn, 1.6%; Cu, 0.32%; Mn, 2.56%; I, 0.032%; Co, 0.016%, Se, 0.0064% |
|||
|
Table 2. Chemical composition of the feed ingredients (% DM) |
|||
|
Item |
Broken rice |
Fish meal |
Brewers’ grains |
|
DM |
86.0 |
86.4 |
87.3 |
|
OM |
99.7 |
65.2 |
97.5 |
|
CP |
9.65 |
44.0 |
31.9 |
|
EE |
1.77 |
11.4 |
10.6 |
|
NFE |
87.6 |
8.81 |
43.3 |
|
CF |
0.70 |
0.94 |
11.7 |
|
NDF |
6.39 |
1.61 |
39.2 |
|
ADF |
2.32 |
1.13 |
21.9 |
|
Ash |
0.27 |
34.8 |
2.54 |
|
Ca |
0.14 |
5.27 |
0.34 |
|
P |
0.22 |
2.02 |
0.52 |
|
ME, MJ/kg |
14.4 |
11.2 |
12.0 |
|
DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, CP: crude protein, EE: ether extract, NFE: nitrogen free extract, CF: crude fibre, NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber and ME: Metabolizable energy (calculated) |
|||
|
Table 3. Chemical composition of the experimental diets (% DM) |
|||
|
Item |
Diet |
||
|
CTRL |
BG50 |
BG100 |
|
|
DM |
86.1 |
86.6 |
87.3 |
|
OM |
92.8 |
98.5 |
97.5 |
|
CP |
16.5 |
20.8 |
31.9 |
|
EE |
3.70 |
6.20 |
10.6 |
|
NFE |
71.9 |
65.4 |
43.3 |
|
CF |
0.75 |
6.19 |
11.7 |
|
NDF |
5.4 |
22.8 |
39.2 |
|
ADF |
2.10 |
12.1 |
21.9 |
|
Ash |
7.20 |
1.40 |
2.50 |
|
Ca |
1.17 |
2.71 |
0.34 |
|
P |
0.58 |
1.12 |
0.52 |
|
ME, MJ/ kg DM |
13.8 |
13.2 |
12.0 |
|
Table 4. Amino acid composition of the feed ingredients and the experimental diets (g per 100g DM) |
||||||
|
Item |
Diet1 |
Feed ingredients |
||||
|
CTRL* |
BG50* |
BG100* |
BR |
FM |
||
|
Essential amino acids (EAA) |
||||||
|
Arginine |
1.34 |
1.80 |
2.80 |
0.80 |
3.47 |
|
|
Isoleucine |
0.92 |
1.15 |
1.87 |
0.43 |
2.89 |
|
|
Leucine |
1.28 |
2.08 |
3.37 |
0.78 |
3.28 |
|
|
Lysine |
1.08 |
0.80 |
1.32 |
0.27 |
4.29 |
|
|
Met + cystine |
0.59 |
0.56 |
0.83 |
0.28 |
1.81 |
|
|
Histidine |
0.48 |
0.29 |
0.37 |
0.22 |
1.52 |
|
|
Phenylalanine |
0.89 |
1.24 |
1.94 |
0.54 |
2.26 |
|
|
Threonine |
0.97 |
0.91 |
1.34 |
0.48 |
2.95 |
|
|
Tyrosine |
0.69 |
1.11 |
1.73 |
0.50 |
1.47 |
|
|
Valine |
0.87 |
1.24 |
2.01 |
0.47 |
2.51 |
|
|
Total EAA |
9.11 |
11.18 |
17.58 |
4.77 |
26.5 |
|
|
Non- essential amino acids (NEAA) |
||||||
|
Alanine |
1.20 |
1.39 |
2.19 |
0.59 |
3.64 |
|
|
Aspartic acid |
1.16 |
1.59 |
2.76 |
0.42 |
4.13 |
|
|
Glutamic acid |
1.83 |
2.98 |
5.06 |
0.91 |
5.51 |
|
|
Glycine |
0.78 |
0.82 |
1.15 |
0.49 |
1.95 |
|
|
Proline |
1.00 |
1.57 |
2.87 |
0.27 |
3.90 |
|
|
Serine |
0.79 |
1.04 |
1.66 |
0.42 |
2.27 |
|
|
Sum of amino acids (SAA) |
15.87 |
20.57 |
33.27 |
7.87 |
47.9 |
|
|
EAA : SAA |
0.57 |
0.54 |
0.53 |
0.61 |
0.55 |
|
|
1See Table 1, * Values were calculated based on amino acids of feed ingredients |
||||||
During the last 5-day collection period, dietary samples were taken, and total collection of excreta was carried out for the calculation of the actual feed and nutrient consumption and for chemical analyses. Excreta were quantitatively collected three times daily at 7:00 h, 13:00 h and 19:00 h, then frozen at - 200C (Kim et al 2012). Care was taken to avoid contamination from feathers, scales and debris. Before analysis, excreta were thawed, then pooled within pens, and dried for 24 h at 55-600C in an oven (Jorgensen et al 1984; Karn, 1991). The dried excreta were weighed, homogenized, and ground to pass through a 0.5 mm sieve and representative samples were taken and stored in airtight plastic containers at 40C for subsequent analyses (Ravindran et al 1999).
Samples of BR, FM, BG, diets, excreta were analyzed for dry matter (DM), Nitrogen (N), crude protein (CP) (N x 6.25), ether extract (EE), ash, calcium and phosphorus by standard AOAC methods (AOAC, 1990). Analyses of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were also done, following the procedure of Goering and Van Soest (1991). The feeds were also analyzed for GE, and ME contents were calculated from these (ME= GE, MJ/kg analyzed x coefficient ME/GE) according to the Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan (1995). Representative samples of BR, FM and BG and excreta were analyzed for amino acids by HPLC (AOAC 2000). Diets and excreta were also analyzed for Cr2O3 content (Masaaki Takemasa, 1992).
In trial, birds were weighed individually at the beginning of the experiment. Daily feed intakes were calculated according to the total feed consumption of four ducks per pen. Excreta were quantitatively collected.
Apparent excreta amino acid digestibilities were calculated using Cr2O3 as indigestible marker (Ravindran et al 1999 and Bryden et al 2009) as shown below:
|
Where (AA/ Cr2O3)d = ratio of amino acid to indigestible marker in diet
(AA/ Cr2O3)e = ratio of amino acid to indigestible marker in excreta.
The data were analyzed variance using ANOVA General Linear Model procedure of Minitab Reference Manual Release 16.1.0 (2010). The model used was as follows:
Yijk = µ + Bi + Tj + Dk + (BT) ij + (BD)ik + (TD)jk + ε ijk where,
Yijk is a dependent variable, µ is the overall mean, B i breed effect, Tj type effect, Dk dietary treatment effect, (BT)ij, interaction effect between breed and type, (BD)ik, interraction effect between breed and treatment, (TD)jk, interaction effect between type and treatment, εijk is the residual error. When the F-test was significant at P<0.05, paired comparisons were performed using Tukey“s procedure (Minitab 2010). The overall mean values of amino acids of the experimental model were compared using the paired T-test.
The chemical composition of feed ingredients and diets is shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The contents of CP, CF, NDF and ADF of BG are in a range of brewer grains reported by DePeter et al. (2000); Nguyen Thi Kim Dong and Nguyen Van Thu (2013); Lynch et al. (2016). The CP content of BG is lower and NDF and ADF contents are higher than in the FM used. This resulted in the contents of CP and NDF, ADF were the highest on the BG100 diet, and the lowest on the basal diet (CTRL).
|
Table 5. Dry matter and nutrient intakes of ducks (g/bird) fed diets with different level of brewers’ grains |
|||||||||||
|
Breed (B) |
Type (T) |
Diet1 (D) |
SEM/p |
||||||||
|
SD |
MD |
CEC |
INT |
CTRL |
BG50 |
BG100 |
B |
T |
D |
||
|
DM |
122 |
97.8 |
109 |
110 |
82.9a |
120b |
127b |
7.66/0.04 |
7.66/ns |
9.39/0.001 |
|
|
OM |
118 |
94.0 |
106 |
106 |
75.8a |
119b |
123b |
7.15/0.03 |
7.15/ns |
8.76/0.01 |
|
|
CP |
28.4 |
22.5 |
25.1 |
25.8 |
14.6a |
23.3b |
38.5c |
1.59/0.021 |
1.59/ns |
1.94/0.001 |
|
|
EE |
7.28 |
5.78 |
6.43 |
6.64 |
2.56a |
6.09b |
10.9c |
0.37/0.013 |
0.37/ns |
0.46/0.001 |
|
|
NFE |
71.4 |
57.4 |
64.8 |
64.0 |
59.6ab |
78.5a |
55.2b |
5.09/ns |
5.09/ns |
6.23/0.043 |
|
|
CF |
8.53 |
6.77 |
7.51 |
7.79 |
0.62a |
7.43b |
14.9c |
0.43/0.012 |
0.43/ns |
0.52/0.001 |
|
|
NDF |
33.5 |
30.6 |
30.7 |
33.4 |
5.30a |
30.4b |
60.5c |
1.22/ns |
1.22/ns |
0.49/0.001 |
|
|
ADF |
14.9 |
11.8 |
13.1 |
13.6 |
1.49a |
12.6b |
26.0c |
0.71/0.009 |
0.71/ns |
0.87/0.001 |
|
|
ME, MJ/ d |
1.58 |
1.26 |
1.42 |
1.42 |
1.30 |
1.47 |
1.49 |
0.10/0.048 |
0.10/ns |
0.13/ns |
|
|
1 See Table 1. SD: Crossbred Super-Meat duck, MD: Muscovy duck; CEC: Caecectomized, INT: intact ns: no significant difference; a.b.c Means with different superscripts within rows are significantly different (P<0.05) |
|||||||||||
Intakes of most nutrients were higher in the crossbred Super-Meat ducks ( P<0.05) than in the Muscovies. However, there were no differences between cecectomized and intact birds. The higher intakes of DM and OM of birds given BG50 and BG100 diets (P<0.01), might be due to the high fiber and the lower ME contents in the BG, resulting in similar ME intakes. This is in accordance with previous duck studies of Nguyen Thi Kim Dong and Ogle (2003) and with results of Onifade et al. (1998) in experiments with broilers.
|
Table 6. Apparent total tract digestibility (%) of nutrients and N-retention of ducks fed diets with different levels of brewery waste |
|||||||||||
|
Breed (B) |
Type (T) |
Diet1 (D) |
P value |
||||||||
|
CD |
MD |
CEC |
INT |
CTRL |
BRW50 |
BRW100 |
B |
T |
D |
||
|
DM |
75.3 |
81.9 |
76.1 |
81.1 |
92.3a |
83.0a |
60.5b |
2.18/0.04 |
2.18/ns |
2.67/0.001 |
|
|
OM |
76.6 |
82.9 |
77.6 |
81.9 |
93.3a |
83.9a |
62.0b |
2.08/0.05 |
2.08/ns |
2.55/0.001 |
|
|
EE |
76.8 |
85.3 |
83.1 |
79.1 |
85.7 |
81.2 |
76.3 |
2.05/0.01 |
2.05/ns |
2.51/0.056 |
|
|
NFE |
73.9 |
78.2 |
75.2 |
76.9 |
86.6a |
78.2a |
63.3b |
2.05/ns |
2.05/ns |
2.52/0.001 |
|
|
NDF |
51.6 |
65.1 |
54.6 |
61.6 |
61.7 |
62.7 |
49.9 |
4.51/0.048 |
4.51/ns |
5.53/ns |
|
|
ADF |
36.8 |
46.4 |
40.6 |
42.6 |
44.8 |
48.4 |
41.5 |
5.67/ns |
5.67/ns |
6.95/ns |
|
|
Nret, (g/b/d) |
2.01 |
2.10 |
1.90 |
2.21 |
1.63 |
2.03 |
2.50 |
0.25/ns |
0.25/ns |
0.31/ns |
|
|
Nret /Nint, (%) |
49.3 |
60.4 |
52.7 |
57.0 |
69.3a |
54.2ab |
41.1b |
4.07/0.07 |
4.07/ns |
4.99/0.005 |
|
The result of DM intake in a current study is within a range (89.4 – 96.2 g/day/bird) of amino acid digestibility experiment on Muscovy ducks presented by Nguyen Thuy Linh (2018). Due to high concentrations of CP, EE, CF, NDF and ADF in BRW, the intakes of these components considerably increased, and the highest values on the BRW100 diet (P<0.001) (Table 5). There were no interaction effects on nutrient intakes between breed, measurement technique and diet in the present study (P<0.05)./p>
The Muscovy ducks showed higher digestibility coefficients of DM and OM than the crossbred Super-Meat birds (P<0.05). The digestibility of all nutrients were not significantly different between intact and cecectomised birds (P>0.05). By including BG in the diets, the DM and OM digestibility reduced compared with the basal diet (CTRL) and the lowest values (P<0.05) were found for ducks fed BG only (BG100 diet) (Table 6). This could be explained that the high fibre content in BG. These results are consistent with the findings of El Beeli et al. (2002), who described a negative linear relationship between crude fibre content and DM digestibility in duck diets. Also, the mass of the dietary fibre might be expected to influence negatively the peristaltic activity (Jamoz et al 2001). The NFE, EE and NDF digestibilities of the Muscovy ducks were significantly higher (P<0.05) than the crossbred Super-Meat ducks. This could be explained that the crossbred Muscovy ducks traditionally raised at the backyards have consumed more roughages in diets with higher adapted digestion to fiber sources and poor quality diets as compared to the concentrate-fed crossbred super meat ducks.
The digestibility of EE and NFE gradually depressed from the basal (CTRL) to BG diets and being least on the BG100 diet (P<0.056), probably due to fibre effects. This is in agreement with Jorgensen et al. (1996) who reported that the digestibility of all nutrients decreased with increasing fibre level in the diet. The results of DM, OM, EE and ADF digestibility coefficients in this study are within ranges of those on local Muscovy ducks reported by Nguyen Thuy Linh (2018).
The results showed that the nitrogen retention (Nret) was not influenced by any of the treatment factors. However, the values had tendency to increase with including the BG in diets (BG50 and BG100 diets). Increasing BG feeding implied increased protein feeding, which markedly reduced the N efficiency. The Nret/Nint ratio was significantly reduced (P< 0.05) among the treatments with the lowest value for the BG100 treatment. The interaction effects on nutrient digestibilities between breed, measurement technique and diet were not found in the current study.
|
Table 7. Apparent excreta digestibility of amino acids of ducks fed diets with different levels of brewers’ grains |
|||||||||||
|
Breed (B) |
Type (T) |
Diet1 (D) |
P value |
||||||||
|
SD |
MD |
CEC |
INT |
CTRL |
BG50 |
BG100 |
B |
T |
D |
||
|
Essential amino acids (EAA) |
|||||||||||
|
Arginine |
0.81 |
0.84 |
0.81 |
0.85 |
0.86a |
0.83ab |
0.79b |
ns |
* |
** |
|
|
Isoleucine |
0.65 |
0.67 |
0.64 |
0.69 |
0.70a |
0.68a |
0.60b |
ns |
** |
*** |
|
|
Leucine |
0.84 |
0.83 |
0.85 |
0.82 |
0.85 |
0.84 |
0.81 |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
|
Lysine |
0.79 |
0.81 |
0.78 |
0.83 |
0.85a |
0.78b |
0.77b |
ns |
** |
*** |
|
|
Met + cys |
0.84 |
0.83 |
0.85 |
0.81 |
0.86a |
0.84ab |
0.80b |
ns |
* |
* |
|
|
Histidine |
0.68 |
0.71 |
0.67 |
0.71 |
0.71 |
0.69 |
0.68 |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
|
Phenylalanine |
0.81 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
0.80 |
0.85a |
0.82ab |
0.79b |
ns |
ns |
* |
|
|
Threonine |
0.67 |
0.66 |
0.64 |
0.69 |
0.71a |
0.65ab |
0.63b |
ns |
* |
* |
|
|
Tyrosine |
0.79 |
0.78 |
0.80 |
0.77 |
0.81a |
0.78ab |
0.76b |
ns |
* |
* |
|
|
Valine |
0.79 |
0.80 |
0.81 |
0.78 |
0.81 |
0.80 |
0.78 |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
|
Non-essential amino acids (NEAA) |
|||||||||||
|
Alanine |
0.81 |
0.79 |
0.78 |
0.82 |
0.82 |
0.79 |
0.79 |
ns |
* |
ns |
|
|
Aspartic acid |
0.70 |
0.73 |
0.68 |
0.75 |
0.75 a |
0.73a |
0.67b |
ns |
** |
** |
|
|
Glutamic acid |
0.86 |
0.88 |
0.84 |
0.90 |
0.91a |
0.87ab |
0.83b |
ns |
*** |
*** |
|
|
Glycine |
0.66 |
0.70 |
0.63 |
0.73 |
0.72a |
0.68ab |
0.64b |
ns |
*** |
** |
|
|
Proline |
0.67 |
0.63 |
0.60 |
0.70 |
0.70a |
0.67a |
0.58b |
ns |
*** |
** |
|
|
Serine |
0.75 |
0.80 |
0.76 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
0.78 |
0.75 |
ns |
ns |
ns |
|
|
Overall mean |
0.75 |
0.76 |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.79a |
0.76b |
0.73c |
ns |
* |
*** |
|
|
ns: no significant difference, * significant difference
(P<0.05), ** significant difference (P<0.01), ***
significant difference (P<0.001). |
|||||||||||
In the apparent excreta digestibility was found no significant difference between crossbred Super-Meat and Muscovy ducks for any amino acids (Table 7). Significant differences between intact and cecectomised birds were noted for 11 out of the total of 16 amino acids determined, in which nine digestibilities were higher in intact birds and two higher in cecectomized birds. Thus, cecectomised ducks had lower digestibility coefficients of arginine, isoleucine, lysine, threonine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine and proline (P<0.05) than those of the intact birds. The results are in agreement with those reported by others (Payne et al 1968; Johns et al 1986; Hai and Dong 2016) that cecectomy was associated with a substantial reduction in the digestibility of several AA. The results of our work with ducks support the opinion of Johnson (1992), Ragland et al. (1999) and Leme et al. (2019) that cecectomized poultry should be used in amino acid digestibility studies to prevent overestimation of digestibility of amino acids in feedstuffs. Also, Green (1988) found a consistent increase in the quantity of endogenous AA voided each day by cecectomised adult cockerels compared with intact birds. This would tend to depress the apparent digestibility of dietary protein and amino acids.
The digestibility values of most amino acids were significantly ( P<0.05) lower for the BG100 diet (Table 7), probably due to higher intake of CF, NDF and ADF. This is consistent with findings that increasing concentration of dietary fiber resulted in decreased AA digestibilities in birds and geese (Sarmiento-Franco et al 2003) and Yang et al. (2016), due to rate of passage of digesta faster (Onifade et al 1998).
Our results indicated that the apparent excreta digestibilities of leucine, histidine, phenylalanine, valine, alanine, and serine were closely resembled between the bird type and among treatment groups. The interaction effects among the treatments of the experiment were not found (P>0.05). Within individual AA, the order of glutamic acid, arginine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, lysine and valine appeared digested to a considerably greater extent than that of the remainders for birds type as well as dietary treatments, whereas proline, isoleucine, threonine, glycine, histidine and aspartic acid exhibited rather poorly digested. Similar findings reported by Parsons (1985) that AA digestibility of distillers“dried grains with solubles measured by cecectomised and intact roosters indicated some AA had the higher digestibility such as leucine, methionine, glutamic acid, tyrosine and phenylalanine, but several AA had the lower values (lysine, aspartic acid and threonine). The highest values of glutamic acid, arginine, leucine and methionine and the lowest values of proline, isoleucine, threonine, glycine, histidine and aspartic acid were observed in breed, type and diet. The low digestibility of threonine, proline and isoleucine was also found in cecectomised birds by Ragland et al. (1999) and Hong et al. (2001). The AA digestibility coefficients in present study are closed or slightly lower to those of a study on Muscovy ducks fed concentrates reported by Nguyen Thuy Linh (2018) being 85.3-89.9%; 74.3-84.5% and 84.3-89.1% for lysine, methionine and glutamic, respectively. In general the results show that the overall mean apparent excreta digestibility values of all AA were closed between Muscovy and crossbred Super-Meat ducks. Intact birds had higher digestibility values of most AA than cecectomy (P<0.05), except for methionine and tyrosine. There was a markable difference of overall AA digestibilities among diets, and the lower value on the BG100 diet ( P<0.001).
In conclusion the crossbred Muscovies had higher digestibilities of DM, OM, EE and NDF than those of the crossbred Super-Meat ducks. The total tract apparent digestibility of most nutrients was not influenced by cecetomised birds. However, cecectomised birds had the lower excreta digestibility of most AA than the intact ducks. BG seems relatively to high digestibility values of most nutrients and AA with inclusion by 50% in the diets. This observation could warrant further investigation into the effects of cecectomised ducks on AA digestibility of other feedstuffs and by-products.
This research is funded in part by the Can Tho University Improvement Project VN14-P6, supported by a Japanese ODA loan. The Authors thank to the Dept. of Animal Sciences of College of Agriculrure, Can Tho University for facilitating the laboratory works of the experiment.
Adedokun S A, Utterback P, Parsons C M, Adeola O, Lilburn M S and Applegate T J 2009 Comparison of amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients in broilers, laying hens and cecectomized roosters. British Poultry Science, 50:350-358.
Adeola O 2005 Metabolisable energy and amino acid digestibility of high-oil maize, low-phytate maize and low-phytase soybean meal for White Pekin ducks. British Poultry Science. 46:607-614.
AOAC 2000 Official methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 17th edition. AOAC International. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. Vol 1, Chapter 5, pp. 5-15.
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) 1990 Official Methods of Analysis. 15thedn. Washington, DC. Volume 1: 69-90.
Austic R E 1983 The availability of amino acids as an attitude of feeds. Feed information and Animal Production. Pp. 175-185. (G. E. Robards and R. G. Packham.) (Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: Slough.).
Babinszky L, Tossenberger J, Németh K, and Halas V 2006 Determination of amino acid digestibility with different methods in birds. A Comperative Study. Slovak Journal of Animal Science. 39(1-2):74-79.
Bandegan A, Golian A, Kiarie E, Payne R L, Crow G H, Guenter W and Nyachoti C M 2011 Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in wheat, barley, pea and flaxseed for broiler chickens. Canadian Journal of Animal. 91:103-111.
Bryden W L, Ravindran X Li G, Hew L I and Ravindran V 2009 Ileal Digestible Amino Acid Values in Feedstuffs for Poultry. RIRDC Publication. Canberra, Australia. 76 pp.
DePeters E J J G, Faedl M J, Arana N, Ohanesian M A and Hamilton C A 2000 Variability in the chemical composition of seventeen selected byproduct feedstuffs used by the Califonia dairy industry. Prof Anim. Sci. 16: 69-99.
El Beeli M Y, Musharaf V H, Abdalla O and Bessei W 2002 Crude fibre digestibility in scavenger ducks. Arch. Geflugelk. 66: 169-172.
Foltyn M, Lichovnķkovį M, Rada V and Musilovį A 2015 Apparent ileal digestibility of protein and amino acids in protein feedstuffs and trypsin activity in the small intestine in broiler chickens. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 60, 2015 (8): 375–382. doi: 10.17221/8407-CJAS.
Goering H K and Van Soest P J 1991 Forage fibre analysis (apparatus, reagents and some applications). USDA Agri. Handbook. No. 379, National Academic, Washington DC. pp. 1–19.
Green S 1988 Effect of dietary fibre and cecectomy on the excretion of endogenous amino acids from adults cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 29: 419-429.
Green S, Bertrand S L, Duron M J C and Maillard R 1987a Digestibilities of amino acids in maize, wheat and barley meals, determined with intact and caecectomised cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 28: 631-641.
Green S, Bertrant S L, Duron M J C and Maillard R 1987b Digestibilities of amino acids in soyabean, sunflower and groundnut meals, determined with intact and caecectomised cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 28. 643-652.
Han H Y, Zhang K Y, Ding X M, Bai S P, Luo Y H, Wang J P and Zeng Q F 2017 Effect of dietary fiber levels on performance, gizzard development, intestinal morphology, and nutrient utilization in meat ducks from 1 to 21 days of age. Poultry Science 0:1–9
Ho Le Quynh Chau 2014 Determining metabolizable energy adjusted N (MEN) values, ileal nutrient digestibility of feed stuffs and applied in dietary formulation for feeding growing chicken. PhD Thesis. Hue University, Vietnam.
Hong D, Ragland D and Adeola O 2001 Additivity and associative effects of metabolisable energy and amino acid digestibility in barley and canola meal for White Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 80: 1600-1606.
Huang K H, Ravindran V, Li X and Bryden W L 2005 Influence of age on the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients for broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 46:236-245.
Jamroz D, Jakobsen K, Orda J, Skorupinska J and Wiliczkiewicz A 2001 Development of the gastrointestinal tract and digestibility of dietary fibre and amino acids in young chicken, ducks and geese fed diets with high amounts of barley. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 130: 643-652.
Janssen W M M A, Beeking F E E and Terpstra K 1977 The estimation of the digestibility of amino acids in poultry feeds. Spelderholt Mededeling 275.
Johns D C, Low C K, Sedcole J R and James K A C 1986 Determination of amino acid digestibility using caecectolmised and intact adult cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 27: 451-461.
Johnson R J 1992 Principles, problems and application of amino acid digestibility in poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 48, pp. 132-246.
Jorgensen H, Sauer W C and Thacker P A 1984 Amino acid availabilities in soybean meal, sunflower meal, fish meal and meat and bone meal fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 926- 934.
Jorgensen H, Zhao X Q, Bach Knudsen K E and Eggum B O 1996 The influence of dietary fibre source and level on the development of the gastrointestinal tract, digestibility and energy metabolism in broiler chickens. Br. J. Nutr. 75: 379-395.
Karn J F 1991 Chemical composition of forage and feces as affected by microwave onen drying. J. Range Management. 44: 512-515.
Kasprzak M M, Houdijk J G M, Kightley S, Olukosi O A, White G A, Carre P and Wiseman J 2016 Effects of rapeseed variety and oil extraction method on the content and ileal digestibility of crude protein and amino acids in rapeseed cake and softly processed rapeseed meal fed to broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 213, 90–98.
Kim E J, Utterback P L and Parsons C M 2012 Comparison of amino acid digestibility coefficients for soybean meal, canola meal, fish meal, and meat and bone meal among 3 different bioassays. Poultry Science 91 :1350–1355 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3382/ps.2011-01861
Kinh L V, Sy P V, Trung V N and Viet T Q 2013 Nutrient digestibility and metabolizable energy of paddy rice and Luc rice. NIAS Proceedings. www.iasvn.vn/Images_upload/files/BC%2012.PDF .
Leme B B, Sakomura N, Viana G S, Soares L, Melaré M C, Oliveira M J K and Mansano C F M 2019 Amino Acid Digestibility of Feed Ingredients in Cecectomized Adult Roosters. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. [online]. 2019. vol.21, n.2, eRBCA-2018-0924. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0924
Lynch K M, Steffen Eric J. and Arend, Elke K 2016 Brewers’ spent grain: a review with an emphasis on food and health. Published online in Wiley Online Library: 28 October 2016. (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jib.363.
Masaaki Takemasa 1992 Improvement of the method for chromic oxide determination with potassium phosphate reagent. Annual Research Report of N. I. A. I. 52: 7-13.
Minitab 2010 Minitab reference manual release 16. 1.0.Minitab Inc. USA.
Nguyen Dong Hai and Nguyen Thi Kim Dong 2016 Evaluation of methods to determine amino acid digestibility for growing Guinea fowls. J. Anim. Sci. and Technol. No 66: 52-63.
Nguyen Thi Kim Dong and Nguyen Van Thu 2013 Effects of supplementation of brewers’ grains in diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and economic returns of Crossbred rabbits. J. Anim. Sci. and Technol.. No 42: 61- 68.
Nguyen Thi Kim Dong and Ogle R B 2003 Effect of brewers’ grains replacement of concentrate on the performance of Local and Crossbred growing Muscovy ducks. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 16: 1510-1517.
Nguyen Thuy Linh 2018 Studying dietary levels of metabolizable energy and amino acids on growth performances of growing local Muscovy ducks. PhD Thesis (Vietnamese). Cantho University, Vietnam
Onifade A A and Babatunde G M 1998 Comparison of the utilisation of palm kernel meal, brewers“dried grains and maize offal by broiler chicks. Br. Poult. Sci. 39: 245-250.
Parsons C M 1985 Influence of caecectomy on digestibility of amino acids by roosters fed distillers“dried grains with solubles. J. Agric. Sci. 104: 469-472.
Payne W L, Combs G F, Kifer R R and Snyder D G 1968 Investigation of protein quality-ileal recovery of amino acids. Fed. Proc. 27: 1199-1203.
Payne W L, Kifer R R, Snyder D G and Combs G F 1971 Studies of protein digestion in the chickens. 1. Investigation of apparent amino acid digestibility of fish meal protein using cecectomized, adult male chickens. Poult. Sci. 50: 143-150.
Pham Tan Nha, Ho Trung Thong and Nguyen Thi Kim Dong 2013 Effect of replacing brewers’ grains for concentrate in diets on nutrient intake, growth rate and economic returnes of growing Sao chicken. Journal of Animal Science Cantho Univbersity, Vo 10 (2013) , pp. 40-47.
Ragland D, Thomas C R, Elkin R G, Shafer D J and Adeola O 1999 The influence of cecectomy on metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility of select feedstuffs for White Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 78: 707-713.
Ravindran V, Hew L I, Ravindran G and Bryden W L 1999 A comparison of ileal digesta and excreta analysis for the determination of amino acid digestibility in food ingredients for poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 40: 266-274.
Rezvani M, Kluth H, Woitow G and Rodehutscord M 2007 Studies on the effect of age and caecectomy on amino acid excretion and digestibility in laying hens. Archiv fürGeflügelkunde 71(6) ), pp. 241-246.
Sarmiento-Franco J M, McNab J M, Pearson A and Belmar-Casso R 2003 The effect of chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius) leaf meal and of exogenous enzymes on amino acid digestibility in broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 44: 458-463.
Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan 1995 Published by Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat, MAFF.
Szczurek W 2010 Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in some cereals, rapeseed products and maize DDGS for broiler chickens at the age of 14 days. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 2010. 19(1): p. 72-80.
Yang J Z, Hai S S, Wang Y C, Wang S S, Yang Z P, Yang L and Wang W C 2016 Effects of graded fiber level and caecectomy on metabolizable energy value and amino acid digestibility in geese. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 15(3): 629–635. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com