Accessibility / Report Error

Energy values of traditional ingredients and sugarcane yeast for laying hens

DAT da Silva Rabello CBV MJB dos Santos MB de Lima EP da Silva EMF de Arruda CC Lopes About the authors

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the chemical composition and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) and apparent metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen balance (AMEn) values of corn, soybean meal (SBM), soybean oil (SO) and sugarcane yeast (SY) (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). A metabolism trial was performed with 120 Dekalb White laying hens at 65 weeks of age, using the method of total excreta collection. Birds were housed in metabolism cages and distributed according to a completely randomized design into five treatments with, six replicates of four birds each. The experimental period consisted of four days of adaptation and four days of excreta collection. The experimental diets included: a reference diet based on corn and SBM and four test diets containing 40% corn, 30% SBM, 10% SO or 30 % SY. The chemical compositions of the tested ingredients, expressed on "as-is" basis were: 86.9, 87.29, 87.32 and 99.5% dry matter; and 3.51, 2.08, 99.31 and 0.03 ether extract for corn, SBM, SO and SY, respectively. Corn, SBM, and SO presented 7.33, 43.61 and 24.64% crude protein, and 0.58, 5.07 and 6.77% ash, respectively; and crude fiber contents of corn and SBM were, respectively, 2.24% and 3.56%. The following AME and AMEn (kcal/kg dry matter) values were obtained: 3,801 and 3,760 kcal/kg for corn, 2,640 and 2,557 kcal/kg for SBM, 8,952 and 8,866 kcal/kg for SO, and 1,023 and 925 kcal/kg for sugarcane yeast, respectively.

Corn; metabolizable energy; soybean meal; soybean oil


Energy values of traditional ingredients and sugarcane yeast for laying hens

Silva DAT daI; Rabello CBVI; Santos MJB dosI; Lima MB deII; Silva EP daII; Arruda EMF deI; Lopes CCI

IDepartment of Animal Science, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife-PE, Brazil

IIDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, University Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal-SP, Brazil

Correspondence

ABSTRACT

An experiment was conducted to determine the chemical composition and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) and apparent metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen balance (AMEn) values of corn, soybean meal (SBM), soybean oil (SO) and sugarcane yeast (SY) (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). A metabolism trial was performed with 120 Dekalb White laying hens at 65 weeks of age, using the method of total excreta collection. Birds were housed in metabolism cages and distributed according to a completely randomized design into five treatments with, six replicates of four birds each. The experimental period consisted of four days of adaptation and four days of excreta collection. The experimental diets included: a reference diet based on corn and SBM and four test diets containing 40% corn, 30% SBM, 10% SO or 30 % SY. The chemical compositions of the tested ingredients, expressed on "as-is" basis were: 86.9, 87.29, 87.32 and 99.5% dry matter; and 3.51, 2.08, 99.31 and 0.03 ether extract for corn, SBM, SO and SY, respectively. Corn, SBM, and SO presented 7.33, 43.61 and 24.64% crude protein, and 0.58, 5.07 and 6.77% ash, respectively; and crude fiber contents of corn and SBM were, respectively, 2.24% and 3.56%. The following AME and AMEn (kcal/kg dry matter) values were obtained: 3,801 and 3,760 kcal/kg for corn, 2,640 and 2,557 kcal/kg for SBM, 8,952 and 8,866 kcal/kg for SO, and 1,023 and 925 kcal/kg for sugarcane yeast, respectively.

Keywords: Corn, metabolizable energy, soybean meal, soybean oil.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the ongoing research on the use of unconventional feedstuffs poultry diets, feed formulations are still primarily based on corn and soybean meal, which are the main sources of protein and energy. However, in order to obtain better energy balance, it is necessary to include vegetable oils and/or fats in the diet (Pucci et al., 2003; Silva et al., 2009a,b). The nutrition of laying hens is an important tool to ensure the high levels of production achieved by modern commercial strains (Rabello et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2009b). Feed metabolizable energy is a very important factor to be considered.

Oils and fats are ingredients used as concentrated energy sources and allow the formulation of high energy diets for poultry (Rabello et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2009b). Fat is usually introduced in the feed formula because of its energy content. However, fats have several other advantages that have not been considered, although very important. From the economic point of view, it is necessary to take into account their caloric value (2.25 times greater than that of other feedstuffs); feed savings due to improvements of feed conversion; and the possibility of the effective use of fats in low-cost diets (Mazalli et al., 2004; Silva et al., 2009b). A comparison of vegetable oils and animal fats showed that the use of vegetable oils for poultry is metabolically important due to their high unsaturated fatty acid content, particularly oleic, linoleic and linolenic acids (Mazalli et al., 2004; Rabello et al., 2007).

Soybean meal is a highly available protein feedstuff in the domestic market because of the significant production of soybeans and its processing for oil extraction. Soybean meal it is the main protein source used for monogastric feeds. Among plant protein feedstuffs, the protein of soybean meal has an excellent amino acid profile (Café et al., 2000).

Nutritionist are constantly seeking to formulate economically viable and efficient feeds, increasing the need for research related to the chemical composition and digestibility of nutrients of feedstuffs (Nunes et al., 2005; Silva et al., 2010).

Considering that poultry regulate their feed intake according to their metabolizable energy intake, it is very important determine the metabolizable energy values of feedstuffs (Rostagno et al., 2005). Thus, this experiment was conducted to determine the chemical composition and metabolizable energy values of corn, soybean meal (SBM), soybean oil (SO) and sugarcane yeast (SY) for commercial laying hens.

Material and Methods

A metabolism trial was conducted at the experimental layer house of the Department of Animal Science of the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco. One hundred and twenty 65-week-old Dekalb White hens were housed in cages measuring 1.00×0.40×0.45 cm. Five treatments with six replicates of four birds each, distributed according to a completely randomized design were used. The birds were uniformly distributed in the experimental units, considering body weight and egg production.

Birds were fed a basal diet (BD) consisting of corn and SBM, formulated to meet their nutritional requirements, according to Rostagno et al. (2005), as shown in Table 1. The test diets (TD) were obtained by replacing BD with the test ingredient on "as fed" basis. The treatments consisted of one BD and four TD (TD1=40% corn+60% BD; TD2=30% SBM+70% BD; TD3= 30% SY+70% BD or TD4=10% SO+90% reference diet).

The method of total excreta collection was applied to determine apparent metabolizable energy (AME) and apparent metabolizable corrected for nitrogen (AMEn) values of each ingredient. Feed and water were provided ad libitum throughout the experimental period, which included four days of adaptation and four days of total excreta collection. Powdered ferric oxide was included in the feed as fecal marker of the beginning and end of the total excreta collection at 1.0% of the diet. At the end of the experiment, test diet intake was recorded per experimental unit.

During the period of excreta collection, trays lined with plastic were placed under the floor of each cage to prevent any losses. Excreta were collected twice daily (08:00 am and 4:00 pm), placed in duly identified plastic bags, and stored in a freezer at -20° C until the end of the collection period. Minimum and maximum temperatures were also recorded inside the house during the experiment.

At the end of the experiment, fecal samples were thawed, weighed, homogenized per experimental unit, and aliquots were removed for laboratory analyses. Samples taken from the pool of excreta were pre-dried in a forced-ventilation oven at ± 55° C for 72 h. The analyses of the ingredients were performed at the Animal Nutrition Laboratory of the Department of Animal Science of the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (dry matter, nitrogen, ether extract, ashes, and crude fiber) and Federal Rural University of do Semi-Arid (gross energy). The analyses were determined according to Silva & Queiroz (2006). Crude protein was calculated nitrogen content ×6.25.

Based on laboratory results, the coefficient of apparent metabolizability of dry matter (CDM), and feedstuff AME and AMEn were calculated according to the equations proposed by Matterson et al. (1965). Based on the GE and AMEn contents of the diets and the feedstuffs, the coefficients of gross energy metabolizability were calculated as CME= (AMEn/GE)×100.

Results were analyzed using SAS statistical package (User's Guide, 2008). Data were subjected to a descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA and subsequently to the test of Tukey for multiple comparisons in order to assess the statistical significance of differences between all possible pairs of means.

Results and Discussion

The chemical composition of the feedstuffs is shown in Table 2. The obtained corn and SBM DM contents are consistent with the values reported by Maia et al. (2002), of 87.04% for corn and 87.44% for SBM. The obtained SO DM value is in agreement with the 99.30% reported by Pucci et al. (2003) . Sugarcane yeast DM value were higher than those reported in literature, of 92.23% (Faria et al., 2000), 95.75% (Furlan et al., 2003) and 90.85% (Rostagno et al., 2011).

Corn crude protein (CP) was close to the finding of 7.51% (Pucci et al., 2003), but lower than 8.40% (Maia et al., 2002), 8.5% (Furlan et al., 2003), 9.77% (Silva et al., 2009a). The determined SBM CP values are in agreement with the values of 49.4 and 44.5% reported by Marques et al. (2000) and Silva et al. (2009a), respectively.

The obtained corn´s ether extract (EE) contents are consistent with those reported in literature, between 3.80% (Maia et al., 2002) and 5.08% (Silva et al., 2009a), which latter value was obtained with low-density corn. The obtained EE results agree with the findings of Rostagno et al. (2011), of 99.60% EE, and of Silva et al. (2009a), of 99.24%. The determined sugar cane yeast´s EE content was lower than that obtained by other authors, of 0.48% (Rostagno et al. (2011) and 0.74% (Maia et al., 2002).

Crude fiber (CF) content of corn was close to the value of 2.48%, whereas SBM was lower than the 4.23% obtained by Maia et al. (2002). Literature values of corn´s ash content range from 1.05% for high-density corn to 1.60% for low-density corn (Silva et al., 2008). Also, SBM´s ash content was reported between 5.90% (Rostagno et al., 2011) and 6.3%, (Pozza et al., 2006). SY´s ash content reported by Silva et al. (2008) was 11.14%, whereas Rostagno et al. (2011) found 3.36%.

The contents of the GE of Corn, SBM and SO obtained in the present study were consistent with those found by Rostagno et al. (2011) of 3,925, 4,079 and 9,333 kcal/kg, respectively, and also with Silva et al. (2009a) ,of 3,875 and 4,172 kcal/kg for corn and SBM, respectively. Faria et al. (2000) found 4,157 kcal/kg GE for SY, which was higher than that obtained in the present study.

One of the explanations for the differences in yeast´s chemical composition, according to Salgado (1976), is that the number of times sugarcane is washed with water to remove impurities from yeast milk or vat bottom during alcohol distillation may significantly change its composition. The production method, which in turn varies with substrate, microorganism, and drying method, also contributes to changes in yeast chemical composition (Freitas et al., 2013). Relative to corn and SBM, cultivar and processing method may also affect their chemical composition.

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of feed intake (FI), coefficient of apparent metabolizability of DM (CDM) and AME and AMEn values of the experimental diets, on DM basis.

The test diets containing 40% corn grains and 30% SBM promoted statistically lower feed intake compared with the BD. The TD with of the 10% SO diet was close to those two diets (corn and SBM).

The high energy and protein levels of the test diets limited feed intake. However, the feed intake of the 10% SO diet was not different from the other diets, except for the SY diet, which feed intake was significantly different from the other test diets. However, the higher intake of the feed with SY inclusion may be explained by the fact that this feed was nutritionally imbalanced, and therefore, birds ate more to meet nutritional needs compared with those fed the BD.

The highest CDM values were obtained with 40% corn inclusion and 10% SO inclusion in the diets, but the latter was the only one not statistically different from the BD. The diet with 30% SY inclusion presented the lowest CDM, and was statistically different from the other treatments.

Under ad libitum intake, AME values are higher than AMEn values when nitrogen retention is positive (Wolynetz & Sibbald, 1984); therefore, the amount of N retained in this study was greater than zero, and consequently, AME exceeded AMEn, with means of 3,342 kcal/kg and 3,231 kcal/kg, respectively. AME values were different among the tested diets, except for the diet with 40% corn and 30% SBM, which was not different from the BD. However, the diet with 10% SO presented the highest AME value (4,127 kcal/kg), whereas the SY diet had the lowest AME value (2,584 kcal/kg).

Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations of CDM, AME, AMEn and CME of corn, SBM, SO and SY submitted to the different substitutions. Data are expressed on DM basis.

The CDM was not different among the feed ingredients, with corn presenting the highest and SY the lowest values, with 87.86% and 28.94%, respectively. The obtained AMEn values accounted for about 98.1 and 96.8% of the AME value obtained for corn and SBM. The AMEn of SY represented approximately 96.1% of the value obtained for the AME. These ratios were similar to the values obtained by Franqueira et al. (1979) and Albino et al. (1981).

The coefficient of apparent metabolizability of gross energy of corn are close to the values found by Vieira et al. (2007), who reported a range of 75 to 88%, which variation, according to the authors, is related to corn grain texture. As for SBM, the obtained value was higher than the 43.5% reported by Pozza et al. (2006) in layers. The CME of SY was lower than that obtained with corn and SBM. The low AME and AMEn values of SY may be related with SY indigestible cell wall, which reduces the bioavailability of proteins. The presence of physiologically-active substances and allergens, such as high nucleic acid concentration in disrupted cells are problematic. The association of protein with nucleic acid is not desirable as it may induce the elevation of blood uric acid (Knorr et al., 1979).

There is a wide variation in the utilization of ingredients with high fiber and fat in levels ingredients can provide larger variation in use of its energy (Silva et al., 2009a). In present study, the largest difference was found in SO energy value. The information provided in feedstuff tables should only be used as guidelines, because the anti-nutritive compounds in ingredients may affect nutrient utilization, depending on bird class and age (Silva et al., 2009a). The results demonstrated that laying hens can best utilized the use best energy of traditional ingredients studied.

Conclusions

The chemical composition and gross energy content of the ingredients tested showed little variation compared with literature data. The apparent metabolizable energy corrected for nitrogen values determined for corn, soybean meal, crude soybean oil and yeast sugar cane were 3,267, 2,232, 8,822, and 808 kcal/kg on "as fed" basis, respectively.

  • Corresponding author e-mail address:

    Carlos Bôa-Viagem Rabello, Department of Animal Science, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, 52171-900, E-mail:
  • Submitted: June/2013

    Approved: September/2013

    • Albino LFT, Rostagno HS, Fonseca JB, Costa PMA, Silva DJ, Silva MA. Tabela de composição de alimentos concentrados. V. Valores de composição química e de energia determinados com aves em diferentes idades. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 1981;10(1):133-146.
    • Café MB, Sakomura NK Junqueira OM, Malheiros EB, Bianchi MD. Composição e digestibilidade dos aminoácidos das sojas integrais processadas para aves. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 2000;2(1):59-66.
    • Faria HGD, Scapinello C, Furlan AC, Moreira I, Martins EN. Valor nutritivo das leveduras de recuperação (saccharomyces sp), seca por rolo rotativo ou por "spray-dry", para coelhos em crescimento. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2000;29(6):1750-1753.
    • Franqueira JM, Rostagno HS, Silva DJ, Fonseca JB, Soares PR. Tabela brasileira de composição de alimentos concentrados. Iii. Valores de composição química e de energia metabolizável determinados com poedeiras. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 1979;8(4):697-708.
    • Freitas ER, Lima RC, Silva RB, Sucupira FS, Bezerra RM. Substituição do farelo de soja por levedura de cana-de-açúcar em rações para frangos de corte. Revista Ciência Agronômica 2013;44 (1):174-183.
    • Furlan AC, Monteiro RT, Scapinello C, Moreira I, Murakami AE, Otutumi LK, Santolin MLR. Valor nutritivo e desempenho de coelhos em crescimento alimentados com rações contendo milho extrusado. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2003;32(X):1157-1165.
    • Knorr D, Shetty KJ, Hood LF, Kinsella JE. An enzymatic method fob yeast autolysis. Journal of Food Science 1979;44(5):1362-1365.
    • Maia GAR JB. Fonseca JB, Soares RTRN,Silva MA, Souza CLM. Qualidade dos ovos de poedeiras comerciais alimentadas com levedura seca de cana-de-açúcar. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 2002;37(9):1295-1300.
    • Marques JA, Prado IN, Zeoula LM, Alcalde CR, Nascimento WG. Avaliação da mandioca e seus resíduos industriais em substituição ao milho no desempenho de novilhas confinadas. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2000;29(5):1528-1536.
    • Matterson LD, Potter LM, Stutz MW. The metabolizable energy of feed ingredients for chickens. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Connecticut; 1965. p. 11.
    • Mazalli MR,Faria DE, Salvador D, Ito DT. A comparison of the feeding value of different sources of fats for laying hens: 1. performance characteristics. Journal Applied Poultry Research 2004;13(2):274-279.
    • Nunes RV, Pozza PC, Nunes CGV, Campestrini E, Kühl R, Rocha LD, Costa FGP. Valores Energéticos de Subprodutos de Origem Animal para Aves. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2005;34(4):1217-1224.
    • Pozza PC, Rocha LD, Nunes CGV, Debastiani M, Scherer C, Oelke CA Oliveira AAMA. Determination of corn and soybean meal energetic values with laying hens in production. Archives of Veterinary Science 2006;11(2):34-39.
    • Pucci LEA, Rodrigues PB, Freitas RTF, Bertechini AG, Carvalho EM. Níveis de óleo e adição de complexo enzimático na ração de frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2003;32(4):909-917.
    • Rabello CBV, Pinto A, Silva EP, Lima SBP. Níveis de óleo de soja na dieta de poedeiras comerciais criadas em região de alta temperatura. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias 2007;2(2):174-182.
    • Rostagno HS, ALBINO LFT, Donzele J, Lopes PC, Gomes PC, Oliveira RF, Lopes DC, Ferreira AS Barreto LST. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: Composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. Viçosa: UFV/DZO; 2005. p.186.
    • Rostagno, HS, ALBINO LFT, Donzele J, Gomes PC, Oliveira RF, Lopes DC, Ferreira AS, Barreto LST, Frederico RE. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: Composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. UFV/DZO;2011.p.252.
    • Salgado JM. Alguns fatores que afetam a qualidade do concentrado protéico obtido em destilarias de álcool. Piracicaba: ESALQ/USP; 1976. p.80.
    • SAS Institute. SAS/STAT® 9.2 user's guide. Cary, NC, 2008.
    • Silva DJ, Queiroz AC. Análise de alimentos: métodos químicos e biológicos. Viçosa: Universidade Federal de Viçosa; 2006. p.235.
    • Silva EP, Rabello CBV, Albino LFT, Ludke JV, Lima MB, Dutra Junior WM. Prediction of metabolizable energy values in poultry offal meal for broiler chickens. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2010;39(10):2237-2245.
    • Silva EP, Rabello CBV, Dutra Júnior WM, Loureiro RRS, Guimarães AAS, Lima MB, Arruda EMF, Lima RB. Análise econômica da inclusão dos resíduos de goiaba e tomate na ração de poedeiras comerciais. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal 2009;10(4):774-785b.
    • Silva EP, Rabello CBV, Lima MB, Loureiro RRS, Guimarães AA de S, Dutra Júnior WM. Valores energéticos de ingredientes convencionais para aves de postura comercial. Ciência Animal Brasileira 2009;10(1):91-100a.
    • Silva RB, Freitas ER, Fuentes MFF, Lopes IRV, Lima RC, Rosa CO, Bezerra RM, Carneiro KB. Chemical composition and values of metabolizable energy of alternative feedstuffs determined with different birds. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences 2008;30(3):269-275.
    • Vieira RO, Rodrigues PB, Freitas RTF, Nascimento GAJ, Silva EL,Hespanhol R. Composição química e energia metabolizável de híbridos de milho para frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 2007;36(4):832-838.
    • Wolynetz MS, Sibbald IR. Relationships between apparent and true metabolizable energy and the effects of a nitrogen correction. Poultry science 1984;63(7):1386-1399.

    Corresponding author e-mail address: Carlos Bôa-Viagem Rabello, Department of Animal Science, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, 52171-900, E-mail: cbviagem@dz.ufrpe.br

    Publication Dates

    • Publication in this collection
      01 Oct 2014
    • Date of issue
      Sept 2014

    History

    • Received
      June 2013
    • Accepted
      Sept 2013
    Fundacao de Apoio a Ciência e Tecnologia Avicolas Rua Barão de Paranapanema, 146 - Sala 72, Bloco A, Bosque, Campinas, SP - 13026-010. Tel.: 19 3255-8500 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
    E-mail: revista@facta.org.br