Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-t46fd Total loading time: 0.259 Render date: 2021-10-25T19:29:51.544Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Effect of different phytases derived from E. coli AppA gene on the performance, bone mineralisation and nutrient digestibility of broiler chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2019

K. Kozlowski
Affiliation:
University of Warmia and Mazury, Department of Poultry Science, Olsztyn, Poland
L. Nollet*
Affiliation:
Huvepharma NV, Antwerp, Belgium
A. Lanckriet
Affiliation:
Huvepharma NV, Antwerp, Belgium
E. Vanderbeke
Affiliation:
University of Warmia and Mazury, Department of Poultry Science, Olsztyn, Poland
P. Mielnik
Affiliation:
University of Warmia and Mazury, Department of Poultry Science, Olsztyn, Poland
N. Outchkourov
Affiliation:
Huvepharma EOOD, Sofia, Bulgaria
S. Petkov
Affiliation:
Huvepharma EOOD, Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Corresponding author: lode.nollet@huvepharma.com

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of three different thermostable phytase variants, based on the AppA gene from E. coli (AppAT1, AppAT2 and AppAT3) on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and bone mineralisation in broiler chickens at inclusion levels of 250 and 500 FTU/kg. The eight treatment groups included a positive control (PC) which was sufficient in Ca and P, a negative control (NC, the same basal formulation as the PC, but reduced in Ca and P), and NC supplemented with AppAT1 at 250 and 500 FTU/kg (AppAT1-250 and AppAT1-500), AppAT2 at 250 and 500 FTU/kg (AppAT2-250 and AppAT2-500) and with AppAT3 at 250 and 500 FTU/kg (AppAT3-250 and AppAT3-500). Over the entire feeding period, body weight (BW) and average daily gain (ADG) were significantly higher in the PC group, with all phytase supplemented groups being statistically the same, compared to the NC group. Feed conversion (FCR) for the PC-fed birds (1.479) was significantly (P<0.05) better compared to the NC birds (1.582) and those fed the AppAT3-250 diet (1.523). Reduced levels of Ca and P in the NC group led to significantly (P<0.05) lower tibia ash (40.9%) compared to the PC group (47.4%). Birds fed the phytase diets had significantly higher tibia ash compared to the NC birds, with those from the AppAT2-500 and AppAT3-500 groups being statistically the same as the PC group. Diets AppAT1-500, AppAT2-250, AppAT2-500 and AppAT3-500 significantly increased Ca digestibility compared to the NC. Apparent total track digestibility (ATTD) of P was improved for AppAT1-500 and AppAT2-250. The ATTD of Ca and P for all of the phytase supplemented groups reached the same level of the PC and AppAT1-500 group. It was concluded that adding any of the phytases tested, especially when included at 500 FTU/kg to a feed reduced in Ca and P, led to improved performance and bone mineralisation back to the same levels as seen for the Ca and P sufficient diet.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2019 

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

Amerah, A.M., Plumstead, P.W., Barnard, L.P. and Kumar, A. (2014). Effect of calcium level and phytase addition on ileal phytate degradation and amino acid digestibility of broilers fed corn-based diets. Poultry Science 93: 906915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). (2012). Official Methods of Analysis. Edited by AOAC; Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Aviagen (2014). Ross Broiler Management Handbook. www.aviagen.com.Google Scholar
Barrier-Gillot, B., Casado, P., Jondreville, C. and Gatel, F. (1996). Wheat-phosphorus availability: I- In vitro study: factors affecting endogenous phytasic activity and phytic phosphorous content. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 70: 6268.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeson, L.A., Walk, C.L., Bedford, M.R. and Olukosi, O.A. (2017). Hydrolysis of phytate to its lower esters can influence the growth performance and nutrient utilization of broilers with regular or super doses of phytase. Poultry Science 96: 22432253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabahug, S., Ravindran, V., Bryden, W.L. and Selle, P.H. (1999). Response of broilers to microbial phytase supplementation as influenced by dietary phytic acid and non-phytate phosphorus levels. I. Effects on broiler performance and toe ash content. British Poultry Science 40: 660666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, T.K., Rutherfurd, S.M., Thomas, D.V. and Moughan, P.J. (2013). Effect of two microbial phytases on mineral availability and retention and bone mineral density in low-phosphorous diets for broilers. British Poultry Science 54(3): 362373.Google Scholar
Cowieson, A.J., Acamovic, T. and Bedford, M.R. (2004). The effect of phytase and phytic acid on endogenous losses from broiler chickens. British Poultry Science, 45: 101108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowieson, A.J. and Bedford, M.R. (2009). The effect of phytase and carbohydrase on ileal amino acid digestibility in monogastric diets: Complimentary mode of action? World's Poultry Science Journal 65: 609624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowieson, A.J., Wilcock, P. and Bedford, M.R. (2011). Super-dosing effects of phytase in poultry and swine. World's Poultry Science Journal 67(2): 225236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delezie, E., Bierman, K., Nollet, L. and Maertens, L. (2015). Impacts of calcium and phosphorus concentration, their ratio, and phytase supplementation level on growth performance, foot pad lesions, and hock burn of broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 24: 115126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dersjant-Li, Y., Evans, C. and Kumarb, A. (2018). Effect of phytase dose and reduction in dietary calcium on performance, nutrient digestibility, bone ash and mineralization in broilers fed corn-soybean meal-based diets with reduced nutrient density. Animal Feed Science and Technology 242: 95110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeckhout, W. and De Paepe, M. (1994). Total phosphorus phytate-phosphorus and phytase activity in plant feed stuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 47: 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeckhout, W. and De Paepe, M. (1996). In vitro and in vivo comparison of microbial and plant phytase. In: Phytase in Animal Nutrition and Waste Management (Coelho, M.B. and Kornegay, E.T., Eds.). BASF, New Jersey, pp 237240.Google Scholar
EN ISO 30024 (2009). Animal feeding stuffs – determination of phytase activity. https://www.iso.org/standard/45787.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gautier, A.E., Walk, C.L. and Dilger, R.N. (2018). Effects of a high level of phytase on broiler performance, bone ash, phosphorous utilisation and phytate dephosphorylation to inositol. Poultry Science 97: 211218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S.-W., Li, W., Angel, R. and Proszkowiec-Weglarz, M. (2018). Effects of limestone particle size and dietary Ca concentration on apparent P and Ca digestibility in the presence or absence of phytase. Poultry Science 97: 43064314.Google ScholarPubMed
Kozłowski, K, Jankowski, J, and Jeroch, H. (2009). Efficacy of different phytase preparations in broiler rations. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 12: 389393.Google ScholarPubMed
Kozłowski, K, Jankowski, J, and Jeroch, H. (2010). Efficacy of different levels of Escherichia coli phytase in broiler diets with a reduced P content. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 13: 431436.Google ScholarPubMed
Lei, X.G. and Stahl, C.H. (2001). Biotechnological development of effective phytases for mineral nutrition and environmental protection. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology 57: 474481.Google ScholarPubMed
Leyva-Jimenez, H., Alsadwi, A.M., Gardner, K., Voltura, E. and Bailey, C.A. (2019). Evaluation of high dietary phytase supplementation on performance, bone mineralization, and apparent ileal digestible energy of growing broilers. Poultry Science 98: 811819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, T.S., Shieh, T.R., Wodzinski, R.J. and Ware, J.H. (1971). Effect of supplemental phytase on the utilisation of phytate phosphorus by chicks. Journal of Nutrition 101: 12891294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council NR (NRC) (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Swine: Eleventh Revised Edition [Internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13298/nutrient-requirements-of-swine-eleventh-revised-editionGoogle Scholar
Ravindran, V., Carbahug, S., Ravindran, G., Selle, P.H. and Bryden, W.L. (2000). Response of broiler chickens to microbial phytase supplementation as influenced by dietary phytic acid and non-phytate phosphorous levels. II. Effects on apparent metabolisable energy, nutrient digestibility and nutrient retention. British Poultry Science 41: 193200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, E., Han, Y. and Lei, X. (1999). Cloning, sequencing, and expression of an Escherichia coli Acid Phosphatase/Phytase Gene (appA2) isolated from pig colon. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 257: 117123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutherfurd, S.M., Chung, T.K., Thomas, D.V., Zou, M.L. and Moughan, P.J. (2012). Effect of a novel phytase on growth performance, apparent metabolizable energy and the availability of minerals and amino acids in a low-phosphorous corn-soya bean meal diet for broilers. Poultry Science 91: 11181127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholey, D. V., Morgan, N. K, Riemensperger, A., Hardy, R. and Burton, E.J. (2018). Effect of supplementation of phytase to diets low in inorganic phosphorus on growth performance and mineralization of broilers. Poultry Science 97: 24352440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebastian, S., Touchburn, S.P., Chavez, E.R. and Lague, P.C. (1996). Efficacy of supplemental microbial phytase at different dietary calcium levels on growth performance and mineral utilisation of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 75: 15161523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P.C.M., Versteegh, H.A.J., Jongbloed, A.W., Kemme, P.A., Slump, P., Bos, K.D., Wolters, M.G.E., Beudeker, R.F. and Verschooor, G.J. (1990). Improvement of phosphorus availability by microbial phytase in broilers and pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 64: 525540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, P.K., Khatta, V.K. and Thakur, R.S. (2003a). Effect of phytase supplementation in maize based diet on growth performance and nutrients utilisation of broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 73(4): 455458.Google Scholar
Singh, P.K., Khatta, V.K., Thakur, R.S., Dey, S. and Sangwan, M.L. (2003b). Effects of phytase supplementation on the performance of broiler chickens fed maize and wheat-based diets with different levels of non-phytate phosphorus. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16(11): 16421649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, P.K. (2008). Significance of phytic acid and phytase in chicken nutrition. World's Poultry Science Journal 64(4): 553580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, F.J., Gorton, P., Wiseman, J. and Boorman, K.N. (1996). Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59(4): 215221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walk, C.L., Bedford, M.R. and McElroy, A.P. (2012). Influence of limestone and phytase on broiler performance, gastrointestinal pH and apparent ileal nutrient digestibility. Poultry Science 91: 13711378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walk, C.L., Bedford, M.R., and Olukosi, O.A. (2018). Effect of phytase on growth performance, phytate degradation and gene expression of myo-inositol transporters in the small intestine, liver and kidney of 21 day old broilers. Poultry Science 97: 11551162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walk, C.L., Venkata, S. and Rama, R. (2019). High doses of phytase on growth performance and apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of broilers fed diets with graded concentrations of digestible lysine. Journal of Animal Science 97: 698713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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.

Effect of different phytases derived from E. coli AppA gene on the performance, bone mineralisation and nutrient digestibility of broiler chicken
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.

Effect of different phytases derived from E. coli AppA gene on the performance, bone mineralisation and nutrient digestibility of broiler chicken
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.

Effect of different phytases derived from E. coli AppA gene on the performance, bone mineralisation and nutrient digestibility of broiler chicken
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *