Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:21:32.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of fermentation and enzymatic treatment of pea on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

F. Goodarzi Boroojeni ,
M. Senz ,
K. Kozłowski ,
D. Boros ,
M. Wisniewska ,
D. Rose ,
K. Männer  and
J. Zentek
F. Goodarzi Boroojeni*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 49, 14195 Berlin, Germany
M. Senz
Affiliation:
Department Bioprocess Engineering and Applied Microbiology, Research and Teaching Institute for Brewing in Berlin, Institute of Biotechnology and Water, Seestrasse 13, 13353 Berlin, Germany
K. Kozłowski
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 5, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
D. Boros
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Quality Evaluation of Plant Materials, Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization – National Research Institute, 05-870 Radzikow, Blonie, Poland
M. Wisniewska
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Quality Evaluation of Plant Materials, Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization – National Research Institute, 05-870 Radzikow, Blonie, Poland
D. Rose
Affiliation:
Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Berlin University of Technology, Seestrasse 13, 13353 Berlin, Germany
K. Männer
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 49, 14195 Berlin, Germany
J. Zentek
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 49, 14195 Berlin, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The present study examined the impacts of native, fermented or enzymatically treated peas (Pisum sativum L.) inclusion in broiler diets, on growth performance and nutrient digestibility. For the fermentation process, Madonna pea was mixed with water (1/1) containing 2.57×108Bacillus subtilis (GalliPro®) spores/kg pea and then, incubated for 48 h at 30 °C. For the enzymatic treatment process, the used water for dough production contained three enzymes, AlphaGalTM (α-galactosidase), RONOZYME® ProAct and VP (protease and pectinases respectively – DSM, Switzerland) and the pea dough incubated for 24 h at 30°C. Nine corn-wheat-soybean diets were formulated by supplying 10%, 20% and 30% of the required CP with either native, fermented or enzymatically treated peas. Performance was recorded weekly and at the end of the experiment (day 35), apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of CP, amino acids (AA), crude fat, starch, Ca, P and K were determined. Data were subjected to ANOVA using GLM procedure with a 3×3 factorial arrangement of treatments. Both processes reduced α-galactosides, phytate, trypsin inhibitor activity and resistant starch in peas. Increasing levels of pea products up to 300 g/kg diet, reduced BW gain and feed intake (P⩽0.05). Broilers fed diets containing enzymatically treated pea had the best feed conversion ratio at day 35. Different types of pea product and their inclusion levels had no effect on AID of all nutrients. The interaction between type of the pea products and inclusion levels was significant for AID of starch. For native pea diets, 10% group showed similar AID of starch to 20% native pea but it had higher AID than 30% native pea. For fermented and enzymatically treated groups, all three levels displayed similar AID of starch. In conclusion, enzymatic treatment and fermentation could improve the nutritional quality of pea. Inclusion of enzymatically treated pea in broiler diets could improve broiler performance compared with other pea products while, it displayed neither positive nor negative impact on nutrient digestibility. The present findings indicate the feasibility of these processes, particularly enzymatic treatment, for improving the nutritional quality of pea as a protein source for broiler nutrition.

Keywords

anti-nutritional factorsenzymatic treatmentlegumessolid state fermentationα-galactosides
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1698 - 1707
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Abdollahi, MR, Ravindran, V and Svihus, B 2013. Pelleting of broiler diets: an overview with emphasis on pellet quality and nutritional value. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179, 1–23.Google Scholar
Adeola, O and Cowieson, A 2011. Board-invited review: opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzymes to improve nonruminant animal production. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3189–3218.Google Scholar
American Association of Cereal Chemists 2003. Methods: 32–25 (dietary fibre), 32-40.01 (resistant starch). American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
Bedford, M and Cowieson, A 2012. Exogenous enzymes and their effects on intestinal microbiology. Animal Feed Science and Technology 173, 76–85.Google Scholar
Bedford, MR 2000. Exogenous enzymes in monogastric nutrition – their current value and future benefits. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86, 1–13.Google Scholar
Berrocoso, J, Serrano, M, Cámara, L, López, A and Mateos, G 2013. Influence of source and micronization of soybean meal on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 91, 309–317.Google Scholar
Brenes, A, Rotter, B, Marquardt, R and Guenter, W 1993. The nutritional value of raw, autoclaved and dehulled peas (Pisum sativum L.) in chicken diets as affected by enzyme supplementation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73, 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castell, A, Guenter, W and Igbasan, F 1996. Nutritive value of peas for nonruminant diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 60, 209–227.Google Scholar
Chen, K-L, Kho, W-L, You, S-H, Yeh, R-H, Tang, S-W and Hsieh, C-W 2009. Effects of Bacillus subtilis var. natto and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed fermented feed on the enhanced growth performance of broilers. Poultry Science 88, 309–315.Google Scholar
Chiang, G, Lu, W, Piao, X, Hu, J, Gong, L and Thacker, P 2010. Effects of feeding solid-state fermented rapeseed meal on performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal ecology and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 23, 263–271.Google Scholar
Denstadli, V, Westereng, B, Biniyam, HG, Ballance, S, Knutsen, SH and Svihus, B 2010. Effects of structure and xylanase treatment of brewers’ spent grain on performance and nutrient availability in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 51, 419–426.Google Scholar
Englyst, HN and Cummings, JH 1984. Simplified method for the measurement of total non-starch polysaccharides by gas-liquid chromatography of constituent sugars as alditol acetates. Analyst 109, 937–942.Google Scholar
Farrell, DJ, Perez-Maldonado, RA and Mannion, PF 1999. Optimum inclusion of field peas, faba beans, chick peas and sweet lupins in poultry diets. II. Broiler experiments. British Poultry Science 40, 674–680.Google Scholar
Fasina, Y and Campbell, G 1997. Whole canola/pea and whole canola/canola meal blends in diets for broiler chickens. 2. Determination of optimal inclusion levels. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 77, 191–195.Google Scholar
Feng, J, Liu, X, Xu, Z, Wang, Y and Liu, J 2007. Effects of fermented soybean meal on digestive enzyme activities and intestinal morphology in broilers. Poultry Science 86, 1149–1154.Google Scholar
Frikha, M, Valencia, D, de Coca-Sinova, A, Lázaro, R and Mateos, G 2013. Ileal digestibility of amino acids of unheated and autoclaved pea protein concentrate in broilers. Poultry Science 92, 1848–1857.Google Scholar
Gefrom, A, Ott, E, Hoedtke, S and Zeyner, A 2013. Effect of ensiling moist field bean (Vicia faba), pea (Pisum sativum) and lupine (Lupinus spp.) grains on the contents of alkaloids, oligosaccharides and tannins. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 97, 1152–1160.Google Scholar
Gericke, S and Kurmies, B 1952. Die kolorimetrische Phosphorsäurebestimmung mit Ammonium-Vanadat-Molybdat und ihre Anwendung in der Pflanzenanalyse. Z Pflanzenernaehr Dueng Bodenkd 59, 235–247.Google Scholar
GfE 1999. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Legehennen und Masthühner Broiler. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt (Main), Germany.Google Scholar
Goodarzi Boroojeni, F, Svihus, B, von Reichenbach, HG and Zentek, J 2016. The effects of hydrothermal processing on feed hygiene, nutrient availability, intestinal microbiota and morphology in poultry – a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 220, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igbasan, F and Guenter, W 1996. The evaluation and enhancement of the nutritive value of yellow-, green-and brown-seeded pea cultivars for unpelleted diets given to broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology 63, 9–24.Google Scholar
Kakade, M, Rackis, J, McGhee, J and Puski, G 1974. Determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soy products: a collaborative analysis of an improved procedure. Cereal Chemistry 51, 376–382.Google Scholar
Laudadio, V, Nahashon, S and Tufarelli, V 2012. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowl broilers fed micronized-dehulled pea (Pisum sativum L.) as a substitute for soybean meal. Poultry Science 91, 2988–2996.Google Scholar
Meng, X, Slominski, B, Nyachoti, C, Campbell, L and Guenter, W 2005. Degradation of cell wall polysaccharides by combinations of carbohydrase enzymes and their effect on nutrient utilization and broiler chicken performance. Poultry Science 84, 37–47.Google Scholar
Nair, V and Duvnjak, Z 1990. Reduction of phytic acid content in canola meal by Aspergillus ficuum in solid state fermentation process. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 34, 183–188.Google Scholar
Nalle, C, Ravindran, V and Ravindran, G 2011. Nutritional value of peas (Pisum sativum L.) for broilers: apparent metabolisable energy, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and production performance. Animal Production Science 51, 150–155.Google Scholar
Naumann, K and Bassler, R 2004. Methodenbuch Band III: Die chemischeUntersuchung von Futtermitteln. Neumann-Neudamm, Melsungen, Germany.Google Scholar
Ouoba, L, Cantor, M, Diawara, B, Traore, A and Jakobsen, M 2003. Degradation of African locust bean oil by Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilus isolated from soumbala, a fermented African locust bean condiment. Journal of Applied Microbiology 95, 868–873.Google Scholar
Ouoba, LII, Diawara, B, Christensen, T, Mikkelsen, JD and Jakobsen, M 2007. Degradation of polysaccharides and non-digestible oligosaccharides by Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilus isolated from Soumbala, a fermented African locust bean (Parkia biglobosa) food Condiment. European Food Research and Technology 224, 689–694.Google Scholar
Ravindran, V 2013. Feed enzymes: the science, practice, and metabolic realities. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 22, 628–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Teran, F and Owens, DJ 1996. Chemical and enzymic changes during the fermentation of bacteria‐free soya bean tempe. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 71, 523–530.Google Scholar
Schäfer, K 1995. Analysis of short chain fatty acids from different intestinal samples by capillary gas chromatography. Chromatographia 40, 550–556.Google Scholar
Selle, P, Ravindran, V, Caldwell, A and Bryden, W 2000. Phytate and phytase: consequences for protein utilisation. Nutrition Research Reviews 13, 255–278.Google Scholar
Short, F, Gorton, P, Wiseman, J and Boorman, K 1996. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59, 215–221.Google Scholar
Svihus, B 2011. The gizzard: function, influence of diet structure and effects on nutrient. World’s Poultry Science Journal 67, 207–224.Google Scholar
Svihus, B, Newman, RK and Newman, CW 1997. Effect of soaking, germination, and enzyme treatment of whole barley on nutritional value and digestive tract parameters of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 38, 390–396.Google Scholar
Svihus, B, Hetland, H, Choct, M and Sundby, F 2002. Passage rate through the anterior digestive tract of broiler chickens fed on diets with ground and whole wheat. British Poultry Science 43, 662–668.Google Scholar
Svihus, B, Uhlen, AK and Harstad, OM 2005. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 303–320.Google Scholar
Teng, D, Gao, M, Yang, Y, Liu, B, Tian, Z and Wang, J 2012. Bio-modification of soybean meal with Bacillus subtilis or Aspergillus oryzae . Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 1, 32–38.Google Scholar
VDLUFA 2003. Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs-und Untersuchungsmethodik, Methodenbuch Band VI-Chemische, physikalische und mikrobiologische Untersuchungsverfahren für Milch Milchprodukte und Molkereihilfsstoffe. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Xu, F, Zeng, X and Ding, X 2012. Effects of replacing soybean meal with fermented rapeseed meal on performance, serum biochemical variables and intestinal morphology of broilers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25, 1734.Google Scholar
Ying, W, Zhu, R, Lu, W and Gong, L 2009. A new strategy to apply Bacillus subtilis MA139 for the production of solid‐state fermentation feed. Letters in Applied Microbiology 49, 229–234.Google Scholar