Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:02:22.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of soybean bioactive peptides on growth performance, nutrient utilisation, digestive tract development and intestinal histology in broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

M. R. Abdollahi*
Affiliation:
Monogastric Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
F. Zaefarian
Affiliation:
Monogastric Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
Y. Gu
Affiliation:
Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co. Ltd., Industrial park, Jitian Town, Shuangliu County, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China
W. Xiao
Affiliation:
Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co. Ltd., Industrial park, Jitian Town, Shuangliu County, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China
J. Jia
Affiliation:
Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co. Ltd., Industrial park, Jitian Town, Shuangliu County, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China
V. Ravindran
Affiliation:
Monogastric Research Centre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author:[email protected]

Summary

A biologically active peptide derived from soybeans by enzymatic hydrolysis was evaluated for its potential benefits on chicken growth performance, apparent ileal nutrient digestibility and intestinal histology in young broilers. Seven broiler starter diets, based on maize and soybean meal, were formulated to contain 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 g/kg of a commercial soybean bioactive peptide (SBP) product (Fortide, Chengdu Mytech Biotech Co. Ltd., Chengdu, Sichuan, China). All diets were equivalent in respect of energy density, and digestible protein, amino acids, and other nutrients. A total of 336, one-day-old male broilers (Ross 308) were allocated to 42 cages (eight birds/cage), which were randomly assigned to the six dietary treatments. There was no significant effect of SBP on weight gain and feed intake of the birds. A significant (P < 0.01) effect of SBP was observed for FCR. Inclusion of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 g SBP/kg of feed resulted in similar FCR values to the diet with no SBP, addition of SBP to the diets at 5.0 and 6.0 g/kg of feed resulted in lower (P < 0.05) FCR compared to the diet with no SBP. Inclusion of SBP had no effect (P > 0.05) on apparent ileal digestibility of nutrients and energy utilisation. Though not statistically significant, SBP inclusion, regardless of level, resulted in 5.7% and 6.3% increases in digestibility of dry matter and nitrogen, respectively. Birds receiving no SBP had the shortest villi and those fed SBP at 3.0 and 6.0 g/kg of feed tended (P = 0.075) to have the greatest villus height. The current findings suggested that including SBP in broiler diets may benefit production through improving feed efficiency, and, to some extent, nutrient digestion and intestinal histology parameters.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 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

Aachary, A.A. and Thiyam, U. (2012) A pursuit of the functional nutritional and bioactive properties of canola proteins and peptides. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 52: 965979.Google Scholar
Alashi, A.M., Blanchard, C.L., Mailer, R.J. and Agboola, S.O. (2013) Technological and bioactive functionalities of canola meal proteins and hydrolysates. Food Reviews International, 29: 231260.Google Scholar
AOAC. (2005) Official Methods of Analysis, 18th edition. AOAC International, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Bao, H., She, R., Liu, T., Zhang, Y., Peng, K.S., Luo, D., Yue, Z., Ding, Y., Hu, Y., Liu, W. and Zhai, L. (2009) Effects of pig antibacterial peptides on growth performance and intestine mucosal immune of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 88: 291297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryden, W.L., Li, X., Ravindran, G., Hew, L.I. and Ravindran, V. (2009) Ileal Digestible Amino Acid Values in Feedstuffs for Poultry. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Dust, J.M., Grieshop, C.M., Parsons, C.M., Karr-Lilienthal, L.K., Schasteen, C.S., Quigley, J.D., Merchen, N.R. and Fahey, G.C. (2005) Chemical composition, protein quality, palatability, and digestibility of alternative protein sources for dogs. Journal of Animal Science, 83: 24142422.Google Scholar
Dziuba, J., Minkiewicz, P. and Nalecz, D. (1999) Biologically active peptides from plant and animal proteins. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 8: 316.Google Scholar
Feng, J., Liu, X., Xu, Z.R., Wang, Y.Z. and Liu, J.X. (2007) Effects of fermented soybean meal on digestive enzyme activities and intestinal morphology in broilers. Poultry Science, 86: 11491154.Google Scholar
Hancock, R.E. and Sahl, H.G. (2006) Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nature Biotechnology, 24: 15511557 Google Scholar
He, R., Girgih, A.T., Malomo, S.A., Ju, X. and Aluko, R.E. (2013) Antioxidant activities of enzymatic rapeseed protein hydrolysates and the membrane ultrafiltration fractions. Journal of Functional Foods, 5: 219227.Google Scholar
Hill, F.W. and Anderson, D.L. (1958) Comparison of metabolisable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. Journal of Nutrition, 64: 587603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Z., Yang, Y.X., Choi, J.Y., Shinde, P.L., Yoon, S.Y., Hahn, T.W., Lim, H.T., Park, Y., Hahm, K.S., Joo, J.W. and Chae, B.J. (2008) Potato (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. Golden valley) protein as a novel antimicrobial agent in weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 86: 15621572.Google Scholar
Kamnerdpetch, C., Weiss, M., Kasper, C. and Scheper, T. (2007) An improvement of potato pulp protein hydrolyzation process by the combination of protease enzyme systems. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 40: 508514.Google Scholar
Karimzadeh, S., Rezaei, M. and Teimouri Yansari, A. (2016) Effects of canola bioactive peptides on performance, digestive enzyme activities, nutrient digestibility, intestinal morphology and gut microflora in broiler chickens. Poultry Science Journal, 4: 2736.Google Scholar
Kiers, J.L., Meijer, J.C., Nout, M.J.R., Rombouts, F.M., Nabuurs, M.J.A. and Van der Meulen, J. (2003) Effect of fermented soya beans on diarrhoea and feed efficiency in weaned piglets. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 95: 545552.Google Scholar
Kitts, D.D. and Weiler, K. (2003) Bioactive proteins and peptides from food sources. Applications of bioprocesses used in isolation and recovery. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 9: 13091323.Google Scholar
Lahl, W.J. and Braun, S.D. (1994) Enzymatic production of protein hydrolysates for food use. Food Technology, 48: 6871.Google Scholar
Li, C.H., Matsui, T., Matsumoto, K., Yamasaki, R. and Kawasaki, T. (2002) Latent production of angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitors from buckwheat protein. Journal of Peptide Science, 8: 267–74.Google Scholar
Liu, T., She, R., Wang, K., Bao, H., Zang, Y., Luo, D., Hu, Y., Ding, Y., Wang, D. and Peng, K. (2008) Effect of rabbit sacculus rotundus antimicrobial peptides on the intestinal mucosal immunity in chicken. Poultry Science, 87: 250254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J., Zeng, Y., Hou, W., Zhang, S., Li, L., Luo, X., Xi, W., Chen, Z. and Xiang, M. (2012) The soybean peptide aglycin regulates glucose homeostasis in type 2 diabetic mice via IR/IRS1 pathway. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 23: 1449–57.Google Scholar
Mateos, G.G., Mohiti-Asli, M., Borda, E., Mirzaie, S. and Frikha, M. (2014) Effect of inclusion of porcine mucosa hydrolysate in diets varying in lysine content on growth performance and ileal histomorphology of broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 187: 5360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, T., Matsufuji, H., Seki, E., Osajima, K., Nakashima, M. and Osajima, Y. (1993) Inhibition of angiotensin I-converting enzyme by Bacillus licheniformis alkaline pro-tease hydrolyzates derived from sardine muscle. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 57: 922925.Google Scholar
McCalla, J., Waugh, T. and Lohry, E. (2010) Protein hydrolysates/peptides in animal nutrition. In: Pasupuleti, V.K. and Demain, A. L. (Eds.,), Protein Hydrolysates in Biotechnology, pp. 179190.Google Scholar
Meisel, H. (2007) Food-derived bioactive proteins and peptides as potential components of nutraceuticals. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 13: 771772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, W.I., Lynch, G.W., Williamson, P. and Cowieson, A.J. (2013) The oral administration of meat and bone meal-derived protein fractions improved the performance of young broiler chicks. Animal Production Science, 53: 369377.Google Scholar
NRC. (1994) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pan, M., Jiang, T.S. and Pan, J.L. (2011) Antioxidant activities of rapeseed protein hydrolysates. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4: 11441152.Google Scholar
Pihlanto-Leppälä, A. (2001) Bioactive peptides derived from bovine proteins: opioid and ace-inhibitory peptides. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11: 347356.Google Scholar
Ravindran, V., Hew, L.I., Ravindran, G. and Bryden, W.L. (2005) Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in feed ingredients for broiler chickens. Animal Science, 81: 8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolle, R.S. (1998) Review: Enzyme applications for agro-processing in developing countries: An inventory of current and potential applications. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 14: 611619.Google Scholar
Ross, (2014) Ross 308 Broiler: Nutrition Specification, Ross Breeders Limited, Newbridge, Midlothian, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
SAS. (2004) SAS® Qualification Tools User's Guide. Version 9.1.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sathe, S.K., Teuber, S.S. and Roux, K.H. (2005) Effects of food processing on the stability of food allergens. Biotechnology Advances, 23: 423429.Google Scholar
Short, F.J.P., Gorton, J., Wiseman, J. and Boorman, K.N. (1996) Determination of titanium oxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 59: 215221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B.P., Vij, S. and Hati, S. (2014) Functional significance of bioactive peptides derived from soybean. Peptides, 54: 171179.Google Scholar
Tang, Z., Yin, Y., Zhang, Y., Huang, R., Sun, Z., Li, T., Chu, W., Kong, X., Li, L., Geng, M. and Tu, Q. (2009) Effects of dietary supplementation with an expressed fusion peptide bovine lactoferricin-lactoferrampin on performance, immune function and intestinal mucosal morphology in piglets weaned at age 21 d. British Journal of Nutrition, 101: 9981005.Google Scholar
Wang, F.Q. (2005) Effects of bioactive peptide as feed additive on the performance, immune function and protein metabolism rate in broiler chicken. Master's Thesis, China Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Wang, J.P., Liua, N., Songa, M.Y., Qin, C.L. and Ma, C.S. (2011) Effect of enzymolytic soybean meal on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and immune function of growing broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 169: 224229.Google Scholar
Wen, L.F. and He, J.G. (2012) Dose–response effects of an antimicrobial peptide, a cecropin hybrid, on growth performance, nutrient utilisation, bacterial counts in the digesta and intestinal morphology in broilers. British Journal of Nutrition, 108: 17561763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynstra, R.J. (1986) Expanding the use of soybeans. Champaign: College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at Urbana. pp. 20.Google Scholar
Yang, Z., Gu, H., Zhang, Y., Wang, L. and Xu, B. (2009) Small molecule hydrogels based on a class of anti-inflammatory agents. Chemical Communications, 2: 208209.Google Scholar