Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-qpj69 Total loading time: 0.837 Render date: 2021-03-05T11:52:44.026Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A comparison of effects of body weight and feed intake on digestion in broiler cockerels with effects of tannins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2007

Sultan Mahmood
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Husbandry, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Ron Smithard
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Nutritional Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NEl 7RU
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of body size and feed intake on N digestibility, pancreas and liver weight, and digestive enzyme activities in male broiler chicks were compared with those induced by dietary tannins. Four groups (SSM, ad lib., pair-fed and young) of sixteen birds each (2 weeks old) were used as experimental animals. They were fed on experimental diets for 4 weeks, except the young group which were fed from age 15 d to 24 d only. Two isonitrogenous and isoenergetic diets with (SSM) or without salseed (Shorea robusta) meal (CONTROL) were used. SSM diet was fed ad lib. to SSM group and control diet was fed ad lib. to ad lib. and young birds and to pair-fed birds at same intake level as SSM birds. Birds fed ad lib. utilized their diet more efficiently than the SSM and pair-fed birds. Digestibility of N, both apparent and ileal, was substantially lower with SSM diet than with the control diet. Each of the treatments induced enlargement of the pancreas (g pancreas/kg live weight) when compared with ad lib. birds. There was no difference between the relative liver weights of SSM and ad lib. birds; however, pair-fed and young birds had comparatively bigger livers. In pair-fed birds the trypsinogen activity of pancreatic tissue (U/g pancreatic tissue) was significantly depressed but there was a significant elevation in trypsinogen (U/kg live weight) activity in SSM birds; again pair-fed birds exhibited the lowest value for this variable. Compared with control birds all the other treatments resulted in significant depression of α-amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) activity in pancreatic tissue (U/g) and jejunal digesta (U/g), but because of pancreatic enlargement α-amylase activity per kg live weight was significantly lower only in SSM birds. The activity of trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4) in jejunal digesta was very low in SSM birds, but it was slightly higher in the young birds. Dipeptidase (EC 3.4.13.11) and disaccharidases in duodenal and jejunal mucosa were markedly depressed by the diet containing salseed meal, with the exception of maltase (EC 3.2.1.20) which was unaffected in jejunal mucosa. Enterokinase (EC 3.4.21.9) activity was not inhibited by the presence of tannins in the diet, rather it increased in the duodenal mucosa of SSM birds.

Type
Effects of Body Weight, Feed Intake and Tannins on Digestibility
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1993

References

Abbey, B. W., Norton, G. & Neale, R. J. (1979). Effect of dietary proteinase inhibitors from field bean (Vicia faba L.) and field bean meal on pancreatic function in rats. British Journal of Nutrition 41, 3945.Google Scholar
Ahmed, A. E. (1991). Anti-nutritional role of dietary tannins in the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Ahmed, A. E., Smithard, R. & Ellis, M. (1991). Activities of enzymes of the pancreas, and the lumen and rnucosa of the small intestine in growing broiler cockerels fed on tannin-containing diets. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 189197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, W. D., Featherston, W. R. & Rogler, J. C. (1974). Effects of bird resistant sorghum grain and various commercial tannins on chick performance. Poultry Science 53, 21372142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asquith, T. N. & Butler, L. G. (1985). Use of dye-labelled protein as a spectrophotometric assay for protein precipitants such as tannin. Journal of Chemical Ecology 11, 15351544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, M. M. (1976). A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72, 248254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chibber, B. A. K., Mertz, E. T. & Axtell, J. D. (1980). In vitro digestibility of high-tannin sorghum at different stages of dehulling. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 28, 160161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collington, G. K. (1990). Effects of probiotics preparation on porcine small intestinal function. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. W., Tanksley, T. D., Knabe, D. A. & Zebrowska, T. (1981). Nutrient digestibility and performance of pigs fed sorghums varying in tannin concentration. Journal of Animal Science 53, 15241537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlqvist, A. (1968). Assay of intestinal disaccharidase. Analytical Biochemistry 22, 99107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lange, C. F. M., Sauer, W. C., Mosenthin, R. & Souffrant, W. B. (1989). The effect of feeding different protein- free diets on the recovery and amino acid composition of endogenous protein collected from the distal ileum and faeces in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 61, 746754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lange, C. F. M., Souffrant, W. B. & Sauer, W. C. (1990). Real ileal protein and amino acid digestibilities in feedstuff for growing pigs as determined with the 15N-isotope dilution technique. Journal of Animal Science 68, 409418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkin, R. G., Rogler, J. C. & Sullivan, T. W. (1990). Comparative effects of dietary tannins in ducks, chicks and rats. Poultry Science 69, 16851693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Featherston, W. R. & Rogler, J. C. (1975). Influence of tannins on the utilization of sorghum grains in rats and chicks. Nutrition Reports International 11, 491497.Google Scholar
Garrido, A., Cabrera, A., Comez, A. & Guerrero, J. E. (1989). Relationship between tannin content and ‘in vitro’ nutritive value in seeds of 24 strains of Vicia faba L. Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Antinutritional Factors (ANF) in Legume Seeds, pp. 160163 [Huisman, J., van der Poel, T. F. B., and Liener, I. E., editors]. Wageningen, Netherlands: Pudoc Wageningen.Google Scholar
Gertler, A. & Nitsan, Z. (1970). The effect of trypsin inhibitors on pancreatopeptidase E, trypsin, chymotrypsin and amylase in the pancreas and intestinal tract of chicks receiving raw and heated soya beans diets. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 893904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, G., Wat, W. B., Stewart, J. C. S. & Pusztai, A. (1987). Effect of dietary soya bean (Glycine max)lectin and trypsin inhibitors upon the pancreas of the rat. Medical Science Research 15, 11971198.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. W. (1979). The inhibition of digestive enzymes by extracts of field beans (Viciafaba). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 30, 458462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. W. (1981). The polyphenolic contents and enzyme inhibiting activity of testas from beans (Vicia faba) and pea (Pisum spp.) varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 797804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. W. & Moseley, G. (1980). The effect of diets containing field beans of high and low polyphenolic content on the activity of digestive enzymes in the intestines of rats. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 255259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagennan, A. E. & Klucher, K. M. (1986). Tannin protein interaction. In Flavonoids in Biology and Medicine. Biochemical, Pharmacological and Structure-Activity Relationships, pp. 6776 [Harborne, J. and Middleton, E., editors]. New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
Horigome, T., Kumar, R. & Okamoto, K. (1988). Effects of condensed tannins prepared from leaves of fodder plants on digestive enzymes in vitro and in the intestine of rats. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 275285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotb, A. R. & Luckly, T. D. (1972). Markers in nutrition. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 42, 813845.Google ScholarPubMed
Levison, D. A., Morgan, R. G. H., Brimacombe, J. S., Hopwood, D., Coghill, G. & Wormsley, K. G. (1979). Carcinogenic effects of di-(2-hydroxypropyl)-nitrosamine (DHPN) in male Wistar rats: promotion of pancreatic cancer by a raw soya flour diet. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 14, 217224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, K. & Markakis, P. (1989). An improved colorimetric method for determining antitryptic activity in soybean products. Cereal Chemistry 66, 415422.Google Scholar
Longstaff, M. & McNab, J. M. (1991). The inhibitory effects of hull polysaccharides and tannins of field beans (Vicia faba L.) on the digestion of amino acids, starch and lipid and on digestive enzyme activities in young chicks. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 199216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquardt, R. R. (1989). Dietary effects of tannins vicine and covicine. Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Antinutritional factors (ANF) in Legume Seeds, pp. 141155 [Huisman, J., van der Poel, T. F. B. and Liener, I. E., editors]. Wageningen, Netherlands: Pudoc Wageningen.Google Scholar
Mitaru, B. N., Reichert, R. D. & Blair, R. (1984). The binding of dietary protein by sorghum tannins in the digestive tract of pigs. Journal of Nutrition 114, 17871796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mole, S., Rogler, J. C., Morell, C.J. & Butler, L. G. (1990). Herbivore growth reduction by tannins: use of waldbauer ratio techniques and manipulation of salivary protein production to elucidate mechanism of action. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 18, 183197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, J. A. & Kim, Y. S. (1975). A one step L-amino acid oxidase assay for intestinal peptide hydrolysis activity. Analytical Biochemistry 63, 100117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, H. I., Hoff, J. E., Armstrong, G. S. & Haff, L. A. (1980). Hydrophobic interaction in tannin-protein complexes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 28, 394398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pathak, N. N. & Ranjahan, S. K. (1973). Nutritional studies with salseed-meal as a component of finisher rations in the Large White Yorkshire pigs. Indian Journal of Animal Science 43, 424427.Google Scholar
Price, M. L., Van Scoyoc, S. & Butler, L. G. (1978). A critical evaluation of the Vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum grain. Journal of Agricuhral and Food Chemistry 26, 12141218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandra, G., Virupaksha, T. K. & Swamy, S. K. (1977). Relationship between tannin levels and in vitro protein digestibility in finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn). Journal of Agricuhral and Food Chemistry 25, 11011104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, L. A., Brenes, A. & Castafio, M. (1989). Histological alterations to the pancreas and the intestinal tract produced by raw faba bean (Vicia faba L. minor) diets in growing chicks. British Poultry Science 30, 101114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffert, R. E., Lechtenberg, V. L., Oswalt, D. L., Axtell, J. D., Picket, R. C. & Rhykerd, C. L. (1974). Effect of tannin on in vitro dry matter and protein disappearance in sorghum grains. Crop Science 14, 640643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, U. (1984). The inhibition of digestive enzymes by polyphenols of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L) millsp.). Nutrition Reports International 29, 745753.Google Scholar
Tamir, M. & Alumot, E. (1969). Inhibition of digestive enzymes by condensed tannins from green and ripe carobs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 199202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terpstra, K. & De Hart, N. (1974). The estimation of urinary nitrogen and faecal nitrogen in poultry excreta. Zeitschrft für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 32, 306320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 179 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A comparison of effects of body weight and feed intake on digestion in broiler cockerels with effects of tannins
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A comparison of effects of body weight and feed intake on digestion in broiler cockerels with effects of tannins
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A comparison of effects of body weight and feed intake on digestion in broiler cockerels with effects of tannins
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *