Back to content

Livestock-Based Farming Systems, Renewable  Resources and the Environment

Citation

Effects of inclusion of catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) by-product meal and probiotics on performance, carcass quality and ileal and total amino acid digestibility in growing chickens 

Nguyen Thi Thuy

College of Agriculture, CanTho University, CanTho, Vietnam
nthithuycn@ctu.edu.vn

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of Catfish by-product meal (CB) replacement at  0, 50 and 100% of sea fish meal (FM) with and without Probiotic (P) supplementation in the diets of improved,  chicken. The digestibility was conducted with 24 male Luong Phuong chickens at 6 weeks of age, placed in individual pens to collect excreta and ileal digesta. Six treatments (CB0, CB0P, CB50, CB50P, CB100, CB100P) were introduced to determine the apparent ileal (AID) and total tract (ATD) digestibility of nutrients and amino acids using Chromic oxide (Cr2O3) as indigestible marker. After 4 days of colleting excreta, the chickens were killed to collect the ileal digesta.

Replacing fish meal with catfish by-product meal in the diets of Luong Phuong chickens resulted in a decrease in apparent total and ileal digestibility of crude protein and an increase in the apparent total and ileal digestibility of ether extract. Diets with probiotic supplementation had higher ileal and total digestibility of crude protein. Amino acid digestibility was not affected by replacing fish meal with catfish by-product meal, nor by addition of probiotic.

Growth performance of the chickens in an on-farm trial was not affected by replacing fish meal with catfish by-product meal. but the fat content of the breast meat and its content of polyunsaturated fatty acids was increased.

Key words: Fatty acids, Luong Phuong, on-farm trial, slaughter

Introduction

Poultry production  has an important role in agriculture in the Mekong Delta accounting for 28% of total poultry production in the country. Poultry meat accounts for 11.5% of total meat consumption of Vietnamese people (GSO 2010). Chicken production also generates 19% of the income for householders,  in second place after pig production (Desvaux et al 2008). Among many kinds of local breeds, improved chickens known as Luong Phuong that came to Vietnam from China have become popular in the South of Vietnam. They are usually confined and fed commercial feed, which may have additives such as antibiotics and growth promoting substances. These feeds are also expensive. Misuse of feed additives for animals can result in high residues in meat, which can affect human health. This situation has been pressing researchers and state officials in Vietnam to find alternative solutions.

Probiotics containing beneficial bacteria can strengthen the immune system and help chicken to remain healthy and gain weight faster (Patterson and Burkholder 2003). Recently, several commercial probiotic products have been imported into Vietnam such as from  Bayer (Germany) and Biomin Co. Ltd. (Austria).

Catfish by-product meals that have been produced by small scale factories are abundant and potentially valuable protein resources for livestock. Recently, we showed that catfish by-product meal was acceptable and highly utilisable as a protein and nutrient substitute in the diets for pigs (Thuy et al 2010). However, there is a lack of  studies on evaluation of catfish by-product meal in chickens especially in terms of ileal and total tract digestibility. Therefore, the main objectives of this research were: (i) to determine the optimal level of catfish by-product meal in diets with or without probiotic supplementation;  and (ii) to record the effects of the best treatments from (i) on growth performance and meat quality characteristics of chickens in an on-farm situation. .

Materials and methods

Experiment 1. Digestibility trial
Animal and experimental design

The experiment was conducted in Vinh Long Province, with 24 male Luong Phuong chickens  at 6 weeks of age which were placed into individual cages and allocated to 4 replicates of 6 treatments. The cages were 30 cm x 30 cm x 50 cm in width, length and height, respectively. The trial was designed as a 2*3 factorial with 3 levels of catfish by-product meal (CB) replacing fish meal at 0, 50 and 100%; and with or without Probiotic. The birds were weighed at the beginning and the end of the trial and at the beginning and end of excreta collection.

Experimental diets

Experimental diets were formulated from broken rice, rice bran and maize meal as energy sources with 40% of the protein from fish meal (FM) or CB. Chromic oxide was added to all diets at 5g/kg feed as indigestible marker. CB was collected from small catfish by-product meal processing factories in Can Tho City.

Procedure and measurement

Coefficients of total tract apparent digestibility of OM, CP, EE, Ash and amino acids were measured by total excreta collection. The trial was for 12 days. After 4 days of adaptation, excreta was  collected daily for 4 days from plates under the cages and stored frozen (-20oC) prior to analysis. The excreta collection was followed by a further 3-day adaptation period, 24 h fasting and 4 h free access to feed after which the birds were slaughtered for the collection of ileal digesta (Perttila 2002). Feeding and slaughter were started at the same time for the whole group. This procedure was conducted as quickly as possible in order to minimise changes in digesta composition. Digesta were collected from the terminal ileum by gently flushing with distilled water into plastic containers. The ileum is defined as that portion of the small intestine extending from the vitelline diverticulum to a point 60mm proximal to the ileo-caecal junction (Huang et al 2005). Daily digesta samples of individual birds were pooled and stored at -20oC before chemical analysis.

Calculations

The total apparent digestibility is expressed in terms of the difference between the intake and the excretion as a proportion of amount consumed (McNab 1994).

Thus:

Total AA digestibility (%)   =  (AA consumed  – AA feces)/ AA consumed .....(1)

 Apparent ileal digestibility coefficients of amino acids were calculated using Cr2O3  as an indigestible marker.

Apparent Ileal AA digestibility (%)   = {(AA in feed/Marker in feed)  - (AA in ileum/Marker in ileum)}/(AA in feed /Marker in feed) ,.....(2)

Experiment 2. Feeding trial
Animals, feeds and experimental design

Sixty Luong Phuong chickens (4 weeks old) were allocated in a randomized block design (RBD) to each of 4 households (replicates) to compare 3 treatments , which were selected on the basis of the results from the digestibility trial. There were 20 birds (balanced male and female) in each of three pens in each household.  The chickens were allowed to scavenge in  the farm  garden from 07.00h to 17.00h, with the experimental feeds provided in the scavenging area, and at night time inside the pen. Experimental feeds and water were offered ad libitum.

Measurements

The trial lasted for 10 weeks. The chickens were weighed every week, and weight gain and feed conversion ratio were calculated. At the end of the experiment, 3 chickens per pen (female) were slaughtered. The carcass characteristics were recorded and samples of breast meat collected and  analyzed for chemical composition.

Chemical analysis

The chemical composition of feed, excreta, digesta and breast meat were determined using the methods of AOAC (1990). Dry matter (DM) was measured by drying the fresh samples at 105oC.. Crude protein was determined by the Kjeldahl method. Total ash was the residue after ashing the samples at 550oC and organic matter (OM) was calculated by difference. The ether extract (EE) was determined by  Soxhlet extraction. Amino acid concentrations of the feed, excreta and ileal digesta were analyzed using HPLC procedure (Spackman et al 1958). Chromium was measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometer after ashing and digesting the sample in a mixture containing perchloric and nitric acid  (Fenton and Fenton 1979).  Fatty acid composition of breast meat was analyzed by Gas Chromatography  (GC/FID – ISO/CD 5509:94).

Statistical analysis

Data collected were analyzed by ANOVA using the General Liner Model (GLM) of Minitab Statistical Software Version 16. Tukey pair-wise comparisons were used to determine differences between treatment means at P<0.05. Sources of variation in Experiment 1 were: level of catfish residue, probiotic, interaction catfish meal and probiotic, and error. In Experiment 2, the sources of variation were: block, level of catfish residue and error.

Results and discussion

Experiment 1
Analyses of feed

As expected, there were no differences in DM, OM and CP among diets (Table 1). The calculated ME increased with the level of CB in the diets.

Table 1. Ingredients and chemical composition (*)  of the digestibility experimental diets(**)

 

CB0

CB0P

CB50

CB50P

CB100

CB100P

Feed ingredients, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Rice bran                                                                                       

 29

 30

 32

 32

 33

 33

 Maize meal                                                                                    

29

 29

 30

 29

 30

 30

 Broken  rice                                                                                  

28.5 

 27

 23.5

 24

 21.5

 21

 Fish meal                                                                               

 13

 13

 6.5

 6.5

 0

 0

 Catfish by-product  meal                       

 0

 0

 7.5

 7.5

 15

 15

 Cr2O3                                                                                      

 0.5

 0.5

 0.5

 0.5

 0.5

 0.5

 Probiotic

 

 0.5

 

 0.5

 

 0.5

Chemical composition of diets, % of DM

 

 

 

 

 

 

CP                                                                                                    

 16.4

 16.4

 16.3

 16.3

 16.2

 16.2

   EE                                                                                                      

 5.20

 5.31

 6.26

 6.25

 7.07

 7.07

   Ash                                                                                                   

 8.3

 8.31

 8.65

 8.63

 8.92

 8.91

   OM

 91.7

 91.7

 91.6

 91.6

 91.1

 91.1

 ME (MJ/kg) calculation

 11.9

 11.8

 12.0

 12.0

 12.1

 12.1

* DM: Dry matter; CP: Crude protein; EE: Ether extract; OM: Organic matter
** CB0:Basal ingredient (B) + 0 % of catfish by-product meal (CB) without Probiotic; CBOP: B + 0% CB with Probiotic;  CB50: B + 50 % CB  +50% fish meal (FM) without Probiotic ;CB50P:B + 50 % CB  +50% FM with Probiotic;CB100:B + 100 % CB without Probiotic ;CB100P: B + 100 % CB with Probiotic.

 

Apparent total (ATD) and ileal digestibility (AID) of dietary nutrients

As expected, the AID of OM, CP, EE and ash in all diets were lower than  in the ATD (Table 2), because there is extensive bacterial activity in the caeca of chickens, stimulating effect of the gut micro-flora on protein synthesis. In addition, the fermentation that occurs in the caeca of poultry influences the nutrient content of excreta and thus modifies  results for digestibility (Short et al 1999). Therefore most poultry nutritionists have focused on digestibility trials in poultry at ileal level rather than with total excreta because ileal digestibility can give more accurate digestibility data due to eliminating hind gut micro flora effects (Applegate et al 2004).

Replacing fish meal with catfish byproduct increased the ileal and total tract digestibility of EE but reduced that of CP in total excreta with no effect at the level of the ileum. The CB in the present study was made from head and bone by-product, for which the amino acid composition would be less balanced in than in sea fish meal (Thuy and Loc 2007). Moreover, the Fish meal was dried at a temperature >80oC, while the CB was boiled at a temperature >100oC . This increase in temperature may also have contributed to reduce protein digestibility. This is agreement with Parsons (1999) who showed that fish meal produced at processing temperatures below 70-80oC had higher CP digestibility than when the meal was processed at temperatures above 100oC. The higher values for EE digestibility in the CB diets, could be explained by the higher concentration of EE in the feeds containing CB.  In addition, the CB fat is rich in unsaturated fatty acids  (Thuy and Loc 2007), and this may be also be responsible for higher energy digestibility values because unsaturated fatty acids are more efficiently digested and absorbed than saturated fatty acids (Lesson and Summers 2001; Baiao 2005). The diets with probiotic supplementation had higher digestibility values for CP, for both AID and ATD, and for ATD for EE. Viet et al (2009) showed that supplementation with probiotic to chicken diets resulted in increased digestibility of all components of the proximate analysis: DM, OM, CP and CF.

Table 2. Mean values for apparent ileal and total tract  nutrient digestibility of diets having Catfish by -product meal and  probiotic  

 

Catfish byproduct

Probiotic

0

50

100

SE/P

With

Without

SE/P

Total digestibility,%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CP                                                                                     

82.2a

80.3b

81.1b

0.004/0.03

82.3a

80.1b

0.003/0.001

EE                                                                                       

74.1b

79.2a

79.2a

0.006/0.00

78.6a

76.3b

0.005/0.001

Ash                                                                                    

78.1

79.4

77.7

0.01/0.52

78.4

78.4

0.008/0.97

OM

84.2

83.8

83.9

0.002/0.36

84.0

84.0

0.001/0.62

Ileal digestibility, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 CP                                                                                     

73.6

73.3

72.3

0.003/0.05

73.7a

72.5b

0.003/0.001

 EE                                                                                       

70.4b

75.6a

75.4a

0.011/0.00

74.1

73.6

0.009/0.71

Ash                                                                                    

75.6

76.3

74.8

0.009/0.58

75.4

75.7

0.008/0.81

 OM

77.1

76.5

76.4

0.003/0.41

76.5

76.8

0.003/0.46

a, b: Mean values within rows and within treatment, with different superscript letters are different (P<0.05)

Apparent total and ileal digestibility of amino acids

There were no dietary effects on apparent digestibility coefficients for individual amino acids for both ileal and total collection (Table 3), with values for the former tending to be lower than for the latter.  This is in agreement with Onimisi (2008) and Kadim et al.(2002) who showed that there were differences between fecal and ileal digestibility of amino acids for animal meals. This may be due to the fermentation that occurs in the caeca of poultry, which is likely to influence the amino acid contents of excreta and thus modify results for digestibility (Short et al 1999).  

Table 3. Apparent ileal and total tract  digestibility (%) of the  amino acids when Catfish by -product meal replaced fish meal and when probiotic was includedrobiotic in the experimental diets

 

CB

Probiotic

0

50

100

SE/P

With

Without

SE/P

Total digestibility, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arginine

77.5

78.7

77.2

0.76/0.32

77.5

78.0

0.62/0.76

Isoleucine

75.6

74.6

74.6

0.86/0.62

74.6

75.3

0.70/0.14

Leucine

77.6

77.0

77.6

0.31/0.35

77.0

77.8

0.25/0.21

Lysine

79.3

78.2

76.9

0.86/0.17

77.2

79.1

0.70/0.43

Histidine

78.1

75.8

77.0

1.17/0.40

75.9

78.1

0.96/0.76

Methionine

77.0

78.2

74.9

1.15/0.15

76.7

76.8

0.94/0.87

Phenylalnine

77.3

76.8

78.4

0.98/0.51

78.0

77.0

0.8/0.82

Threonine

73.0

71.9

72.1

0.97/0.67

72.5

72.2

0.79/0.60

Valine

79.6

78.4

78.5

0.73/0.48

78.6

79.1

0.60/0.52

Ileal digestibility, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arginine

74.2

75.5

72.2

1.32/0.23

74.1

73.8

1.08/0.81

Isoleucine

74.4

70.9

71.5

1.15/0.10

71.1

73.3

0.94/0.11

Leucine

75.2

73.0

73.5

0.85/0.17

73.1

74.8

0.69/0.10

Lysine

75.7

75.2

73.0

1.10/0.29

74.7

74.6

0.90/0.9

Histidine

72.7

73.6

72.7

1.17/0.8

72.4

73.6

0.96/0.37

Methionine

72.9a

74.7a

69.4b

1.38/0.04

71.0

73.0

1.12/0.11

Phenylalnine

74.2

72.4

73.1

1.10/0.51

73.3

73.2

0.90/0.97

Threonine             

70.3

71.7

70.1

1.17/0.58

70.9

70.5

0.96/0.77

a, b: within rows, values with different superscript letters are different (P<0.05)
Experiment 2
Analyses of feed

The ingredients and chemical composition of the on-farm experimental diets (Table 4) were similar to those in the digestibility experiment.

Table 4. Ingredients and chemical composition  of the on-farm experimental diets(*).

 

CB0P

CB50P

CB100P

Ingredients

 

 

 

   Rice bran                                              

30

32

33

   Maize meal                                           

30

29

30

   Broken rice                                           

27.5

24.5

21.5

   Fish meal

13

6.5

0

   Catfish by-product meal                                                  

0

7.5

15

   Probiotic                                                 

0.5

0.5

0.5

   Cost, VND/kg

8325

7775

7235

Chemical composition,% of DM

 

 

 

  CP                                                           

16.4

16.3

16.2

  EE                                                             

5.30

6.22

7.07

  Ash                                                          

8.88

8.93

8.75

  OM

91.2

91.1

91.2

 ME (MJ/kg) calculated

11.8

12.0

12.1

(*) CB0P:Basal ingredient (B) + 0 % of catfish by-product meal (CB) with Probiotic; CB50P:B + 50 % CB  +50% FM with Probiotic; CB100P: B + 100 % CB with Probiotic.

 

Chicken performance

Performance of the chickens, measured by feed intake, weight gain and feed conversion, was not affected by replacing fish meal with catfish by-product meal (Table 5). 

Table 5. Effects of Catfish by-product meal on the growth performance of Luong Phuong chicken on-farm condition.

 

CB0

CB50

CB100

SEM

P

Initial live weight, g

440

456

447

16.9

0.79

Final live weight, g

1787

1814

1738

30.6

0.24

Duration, days

70

70

70

 

 

Average daily weight gain, g/day

24.0

24.2

23.0

0.69

0.45

Average daily feed intake, g DM/day

69.9

68.2

68.9

1.44

0.71

Feed conversion ratio, kg feed/kg gain

2.90

2.80

3.0

0.057

0.27

CB0:Basal ingredients with fish meal; CB50: With 50% of the supplementary protein from fish meal and 50% from catfish by-product; CB100: 100% of the supplementary protein from catfish by-product .
 Slaughter characteristics

The characteristics of the carcasses were not affected by replacement of fish meal with catfish by-product meal (Table 6). The EE content of the breast  meat was higher in chickens fed the catfish by-product meal.

Table 6. Effects of Catfish by-product meal on the carcass characteristics and chemical compositions of breast meat of Lương Phuong chickens on-farm condition.

 

CB0

CB50

CB100

SEM

P

Carcass characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

Slaughter  weight, g

1640

1677

1641

14.0

0.11

Carcass weight, g

1160

1188

1147

18.6

0.28

Carcass, %

70.8

70.9

69.9

1.05

0.75

Thigh meat,  %

23.7

24.2

23.4

0.45

0.41

Breast meat, %

18.4

18.4

17.8

0.29

0.28

Chemical composition of breast meat, %

 

 

 

 

 

DM

24.96

25.1

25.11

0.20

0.87

CP

21.0

21.1

21.1

0.08

0.50

EE

3.36b

3.47a

3.45a

0.023

0.00

Ash

1.28

1.29

1.28

0.013

0.72

CB0:Basal ingredients with fish meal; CB50: With 50% of the supplementary protein from fish meal and 50% from catfish by-product; CB100: 100% of the supplementary protein from catfish by-product
a b: within rows, values with different superscript letters are different (P<0.05)

 

Fatty acid content of breast meat 

Table 7. Effects of Catfish by-product meal on the fatty acid contents (mg/g) of Luong Phuong breast meat on-farm condition.

Fatty acids

CB0

CB50

CB100

SEM

P

C12:0

0.011

0.01

0.01

0.000

0.91

C14:0

0.22

0.22

0.23

0.006

0.69

C16:0

3.48b

3.60a

3.58a

0.020

0.00

C16:1

0.52

0.54

0.54

0.006

0.21

C18:0

1.59b

1.61ab

1.62a

0.007

0.03

C18:1

5.69

5.71

5.72

0.012

0.28

C18:2

2.26c

2.30b

2.34a

0.010

0.00

C18:3

1.82

1.83

1.83

0.006

0.41

C20:5, n-3 EPA

0.22

0.24

0.24

0.005

0.08

C22:5, n-3 DPA

0.20b

0.21ab

0.22a

0.002

0.00

C22:6, n-3 DHA

0.20b

0.25a

0.26a

0.003

0.00

CB0:Basal ingredients with fish meal; CB50: With 50% of the supplementary protein from fish meal and 50% from catfish by-product; CB100: 100% of the supplementary protein from catfish by-product
ab: within rows, values with different superscript letters are different (P<0.05)

 

The main fatty acids in  breast muscle were oleic acid (C18:1), palmitic acid (C16:0), linolenic acid (C18:2) and alpha linolenic (C18:3), which increased slightly with replacement of fish meal by catfish by-product meal, reflecting the composition of the dietary fat sources. Baiao (2005) who showed that in birds, body fat composition is similar to the composition of the fat from the diet. , due to fatty acid profile is highly dependent on the dietary supply.

Conclusions

 References

AOAC 1990 Official Methods of Analysis. Washington DC, 1: 69-90, Association of Official Analytical Chemists.

Baiao N C and Lara L J C 2005 Oil and Fat in Broiler Nutrition. Brazillian Journal of Poultry Science. 7 (7) :129-141, ISSN:1516-635X.

Desvaux S, Ton V T, Thang P D and Hoa P T T 2008 A general review and a description of the poultry production in Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing House.

Fenton T W and Fenton M 1979 An improved procedure for the determination of chromic oxide in feed and feces. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 59(3): 631-634.

GSO 2010 General Statistics Office of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam http://www.gso.gov.vn

Huang KH, Ravindran V, Li X and Bryden W L 2005 Influence of age on the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility of feed ingredients for broiler chickens.British Poultry Science.46 (2):236-245.

Kadim I T, Moughan P J and Ravindran V 2002 Ileal amino acid digestibility assay for the growing meat chicken comparison of ileal and excreta amino acid digestibility in the chicken. British Poultry Science. 43 (4): 588-597.

Lesson S and Summers J D 2001 Scott’s Nutrition of the chicken. 4th ed. University books, P.O.Box 1326, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1H6N8

McNab J M 1994 Amino acid digestibility and availability studies with poultry. In:Farm Animal Nutrition, edited by D’Mello J.P.F, pp:185-203. CAB International.

Onimisi P A, Dafwang I I , Omage J J  and Onyibe J E 2008 Apparent Digestibility of Feed Nutrients, Total Tract and Ileal Amino Acids of Broiler Chicken Fed Quality Protein Maize (Obatampa) and Normal Maize. International Jounal of Poultry Science. 7(5), ISSN 1682-8356.

Patterson J A  and Burkholder K M 2003 Application of Prebiotics and Probiotics in Poultry Production. Poultry Science. 82: 627–631.

Perttilä S, Valaja J, Partanen K, Jalava T and Venäläinen E 2002 Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in protein feedstuffs and diet formulation based on total vs digestible lysine for poultry.Animal Feed Science and Technology.98 (3-4): 203-218.

Parsons C M 1999 Protein quality and amino acid digestibility of animal protein meals. Multi- State Poultry Meeting.

Spackman D H, Stein W H and Moore S 1958 Automatic recording apparatus for use in chromatography of amino acids. Analytical Chemistry 30(7):1190-1206.

Short F J, Wiseman J and Boorman 1999 Application of a method to determine ileal digestibility in broiler of amino acids in wheat. Animal Feed Science and Technique.79: 195-209.

Thuy N T, Lindberg J E and Ogle B 2010 Digestibility and nitrogen balance of diets that include marine fish meal , catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) by-product meal and silage, and processing waste water in growing pigs. Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 23(7): 924-930.

Thuy N T and  Loc N T 2007 Survey of the production, processing and nutritive value of catfish by-product meals in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Livestock Reseach for Rural Development 19(9). www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/9/thuy19124.htm

Viet T Q,  Len N T,  Huyen L V, Huyen B T T  and  Hong N T 2009 Effects of dietary supplementation of probiotics and feed enzymes on growth performance and feed utilization efficiency in Luong Phuong broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science and Technology of Animal Husbandry Institute, Ha Noi, No 21.2009.

 Received ; Accepted 22 September 2012; Published 1 October 2012

Go to top